BECTA reports on School MIS and value for money 2010

[localzuk]

Not suggesting otherwise localz. And my example above was talking about a situation that many a school will find themselves in. A system that does what they need, are trained and happy with, maybe a bit expensive. Would a change to something that, the only advantage having, being cheaper, make said schools change over, with all the fuss that will cause.

 

Again, the point is - you take into account the 'hassle' as it has a cost value to the school too! If, once you've factored in all the other costs, and your requirements, the other system comes in 'better value' then yes, they should change. But if, as you seem to be trying to imply, they will only take into account the license cost then they're not doing it properly and it should be questioned.

[GREED]

...as you seem to be trying to imply, they will only take into account the license cost then they're not doing it properly and it should be questioned.

 

Again, no, cost is not the only issue I am fully aware.

 

I would firstly say that a school is not going to be interested in how, behind the scenes, it is interoperable it is with dozens of third party systems etc etc. The school should be interested in how usable, robust, easy to learn, intuitive, and yes cost.

 

I highlight ease of use etc, because I seem to remember elsewhere in another thread someone (not pointing fingers because I cannot remember who) saying that training staff is well down the list of priorities with a new system. Not to bring that argument back up here again, but if you are going to change a system because, as seems to be implied here, it can be developed by this that and the other (none of which I am particularly against!), at the expense of a difficult to use system by the people that use it most... then I'm sorry but to quote above 'they're not doing it properly and it should be questioned'. I mean just how long has it taken your key staff to learn a system enough to be confident and proficient in their job? your timetabler for example?

 

Moving this forward, where will this end? Are we to expect that Office will be replaced by open office? Windows with Linux? if all factors taken into account of course.

[PiqueABoo]

The point about academy's and free schools is the autonomy they have from the government.

 

My half-hearted impression could be wrong, but I thought it was more autonomy from LA and currently indeterminate amount of control from central gov (but possibly more)?

 

Whatever, I can be as fierce about hidden real costs (support, training and so on) as anyone but yet again I thoroughly agree with BECTA saying the total spend on just MIS annual maintenance + licence renewal is "unacceptable". And that a fundamentally-the-same school A has to pay for it all over again if their status changes isn't any more impressive regardless of the excuses - I would be very sorely tempted to take the retraining et al expense hit for another system, just to stick two fingers up at that.

[localzuk]

Again, no, cost is not the only issue I am fully aware.

 

I would firstly say that a school is not going to be interested in how, behind the scenes, it is interoperable it is with dozens of third party systems etc etc. The school should be interested in how usable, robust, easy to learn, intuitive, and yes cost.

 

Then you'd be wrong. Our school would be *very* interested in how interoperable the system is, as are plenty of others. Just look at the number of posts on here where people are trying to pull data from SIMS and are finding themselves stuck between a rock (commandreporter) and a hard place (the API and its associated NDA).

 

I highlight ease of use etc, because I seem to remember elsewhere in another thread someone (not pointing fingers because I cannot remember who) saying that training staff is well down the list of priorities with a new system. Not to bring that argument back up here again, but if you are going to change a system because, as seems to be implied here, it can be developed by this that and the other (none of which I am particularly against!), at the expense of a difficult to use system by the people that use it most... then I'm sorry but to quote above 'they're not doing it properly and it should be questioned'. I mean just how long has it taken your key staff to learn a system enough to be confident and proficient in their job? your timetabler for example?

 

Our timetabler went on a couple of courses, and then produced this years timetable flawlessly, using Nova T. There's no reason on earth why it'd be a huge issue to retrain people. The overall functionality is the same across all MIS's - if it wasn't, they wouldn't be MIS's. The difference is where things are and workflows. Look at the switch from Office 2003 to 2007/2010 - most people make the transition easily.

 

Moving this forward, where will this end? Are we to expect that Office will be replaced by open office? Windows with Linux? if all factors taken into account of course.

 

Once again, you are missing the point. You say you aren't but you keep going back to it again and again! Best value DOES NOT MEAN CHEAPEST. If Open Office works out as best value then yes, you would be expected to change to it. Just because a school has been using a system for a long time does not mean they should carry on doing so. What is wrong with requiring schools to adequately research the spending choices they are making?

 

If we translated your apparent desire to stick with what you've got simply because people are used to it and its a hassle to move, then why not just always buy Ford cars every time you purchase? Or stick with the same electricity provider for ever? How about your builders? Why tender out when you want things built? Why not simply go to the same one each time. The answer is simple - because you won't be ensuring best value, and more than likely will be paying over the odds for something that other providers can provide just as well, or better for less money.

[vikpaw]

I think there's just an inherent assumption that not rocking the boat is easiest, as the resistance to change is usually large. Training is not such a big issue, though depending on how well you use the existing system it's a big task that needs managing.

 

I'm all for looking around and getting the best value, which should also be a better product with more functions, the issue is, the process of changeover is a long one. I would want to parallel run for probably a year, so it's not a short term thing. Looking at value for money needs to be forecast over 3 or maybe 5 years. Then you can see what potential gains should be.

 

If there's no objection, i'm going to merge this thread with the earlier one regarding the Becta report and VFM.

[GREED]

Then you'd be wrong.

 

Mighty bold statement there, one I think we'll have to agree to disagree on. My point of view is not flawed, just as yours is not, it is just different...

 

All I am saying is that in my experience, technology seems to rule over the people, and it is not just in the training, but in the confidence of use. You can't buy that. Obviously you have worked with some good staff, and I have too. But I have also worked with a lot of staff who on not just MISs are difficult to work with when it comes to change, even properly handled, and this is ALWAYS overlooked.

 

Back to the original point, if this needs to be reviewed every year: Ok so if you have decided to move from MIS A to MIS B. You probably have a long period of consultation, staggered change over and trial periods, training etc etc, taking maybe month or years (well suggested by Vik). Each year you need to conduct a thorough review of if this is giving the best ROI. MIS A now, after 1 year, had a whole load of new features, operability, pricing structure. What happens?

[vikpaw]

i have to agree with localz on this - the underlying system is key, and if the staff / users don't see the importance of that, then it's our job to inform. who best to educate the management on the VfM of the MIS than the techs involved with it. Yes usability and end function are important too, but the problems that 'we' face everyday, interfacing to other systems being an example end up being not good value for money as we need to spend extra time / money on third party systems or develop our own workarounds.

 

As for what do you do if things change then you have to take a hit, because lets face it, it's unlikely. if you make a well informed decision and put in a 3 year plan to change, then it wont be value for money to go back on that decision after a year, you have to follow through on the benefits derived initially. Another school that didn't make the change when 'you' did, could make a different choice based on the market after that one year.

 

If we get to a state that there is enough competition and the different providers are making changes that are appealing to use then that's a good thing. It should after some time get to the point one would hope (albeit in vain) that it's easier to transition from one MIS to another because there are simple ports set up. Afterall the underlying data is the same isn't...?

[Dos_Box]

I see this report has made the latest Private Eye (reading on train ATM), which goes into detail about costs involved with SIMS. Interesting reading.

[localzuk]

I see this report has made the latest Private Eye (reading on train ATM), which goes into detail about costs involved with SIMS. Interesting reading.

 

Hmm... a trip to the newsagents for me this afternoon then!

[matt40k]

I see this report has made the latest Private Eye (reading on train ATM), which goes into detail about costs involved with SIMS. Interesting reading.

 

Can someone please sum up this for me? Far as I care, Capita make (real) money on Local Government not schools. SIMS is cheap.

 

Capita is a frequent target of the satirical magazine Private Eye due to its alleged record of incompetence and impropriety.

[garrysaddington]

Can someone please sum up this for me? Far as I care, Capita make (real) money on Local Government not schools. SIMS is cheap.

 

If a school decides to move away from SIMS can't they reclaim the money the LEA have spent on their behalf in buying in SIMS, that would seem fair to me?

[Sivadam]

Why would anybody in their right minds move away from SIMS before actually testing/using Discover, which they will have in Spring?

 

Just sent my FT evaluation form off after finally getting my hands on the software!

 

Absolutely, Amazingly Awesome !!!!!

[matt40k]

If a school decides to move away from SIMS can't they reclaim the money the LEA have spent on their behalf in buying in SIMS, that would seem fair to me?

 

SIMS has two costs, the license cost, which once you've bought, you own (or your LA does) and the Annual maintaince, which you pay each year for upgrades and support.

 

If you move MIS mid year, you can reclaim the unused Annual maintaince (as it's pro-rata), if you buy via the LA, it's up-to the LA if they refund the money (ie if they've already spend the money).

 

The idea good point of owning the license is you don't have to worry about losing the data, it'll just get REALLY out of date.

[matt40k]

Just sent my FT evaluation form off after finally getting my hands on the software!

 

Lucky git

[Sivadam]

Lucky git

 

Not really!

We could not successfully install - until yesterday (the day that the evaluation form should have been returned)!

Mind you, as a result, Capita now have two issues that they have to resolve before Spring. So I have been of some use even tho' I could only do a minimal amount of testing today.

[matt40k]

Should have passed it my way

[nicholab]

Basically you have to look at 3 year cost with an MIS. It is not the thing you change every year but you might when it is all in the cloud!!

[Sivadam]

......and when the cloud breaks, ............... your data will fall ...........

 

Windows Phone Thoughts: And When The Cloud Breaks, Your Data Will Fall...

Edited January 18, 2011 by Sivadam

[vikpaw]

Capita offer hosted solutions for SLG, and many LAs now host SIMS don't they. This is all in the cloud. A change is still a nightmare, which i think is part of what the document is getting at. Due to the resistance to change, people are locking themselves in to one provider and not necessarily getting value for money.

 

As for the cloud, i think there is plenty of options in terms of backup / failover, so the only downfall is when your connection goes. For that i would want a solution with some kind of local cache of certain information, e.g. firedrill lists.

[Sdrawkcab]

......and when the cloud breaks, ............... your data will fall ...........

 

Windows Phone Thoughts: And When The Cloud Breaks, Your Data Will Fall...

 

Data redundancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Also, that article is misleading. Email isn't really cloud computing in the same way that, for example, citrix or another thin client solution is.

[localzuk]

Data redundancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Also, that article is misleading. Email isn't really cloud computing in the same way that, for example, citrix or another thin client solution is.

 

Cloud computing refers simply to 'application provision via the web'. The methods for doing that are obviously going to differ, and generally a thin client/citrix solution is not what most think of as cloud computing. Most think of cloud computing as applications moved into a web form and used online via a service such as Amazon EC2, Google Apps, or Microsoft Azure. I've not read of any companies going to a cloud solution for thin client deployment. What would be the value of that? Central hosting isn't cloud computing.

[vikpaw]

Surely if the data / systems are held offsite, and the service is available in theory from anywhere on the 'net, then it's in the 'cloud'. Perhaps i'm thinking of a looser interpretation of cloud computing.

[localzuk]

Surely if the data / systems are held offsite, and the service is available in theory from anywhere on the 'net, then it's in the 'cloud'. Perhaps i'm thinking of a looser interpretation of cloud computing.

 

But then, different people have different definitions. The first services to be defined as cloud services were things such as Google Apps and the like. Full thin client provision from central locations has been around for decades - Lloyds TSB have been using it for at least 10 years, for example, and 'the cloud' as a term didn't exist then.

[RichH]

......and when the cloud breaks, ............... your data will fall ...........

 

And when your in house server or network goes down? As Ed Whittaker said in the Progresso thread, there's a risk to any data storage in some form or other, so it's a redundant argument. In house or cloud, both still use computers and networks, and there is an argument that data centres are far more resilient than anything a school can afford.

Edited January 19, 2011 by RichH

[scholarpack]

Jees is this cloud vs in house religious war still going? Schools that have in house tech and more money might see the benefits of their own server. School that don't, won't.