BECTA reports on School MIS and value for money 2010

[vikpaw]

i dont think so, it's generic across all schools under kent cc i think...

[john]

There was an interesting departure into the cloud, but to bring things back to earth and topic, just came across this

 

http://www.kenttrustweb.org.uk/communication/ebulletinprint.cfm?startdate=%7Bd%20'2011-04-05'%7D

 

Ctrl+F for 'sims', it's the notice fourth from the bottom.

 

What would be the point of having SIMS if they can't fix the bugs, nor make it compliant with statutory reporting guidelines?!

 

Surely they are just saying, you can keep the SIMS License but you have to buy your own support from Capita / A.N. Other firm rather than we just slice your money and give you it as most LA's do at present. That in my mind makes good sense as it allows you to choose who and where you go for support.

[vikpaw]

That's where it gets confusing, because the license is the right to have the software, and this is also usually bought through the LA right. It is just a one off right? It must be.

 

Does a support contract definitely come with right to update / bug fixes? I thought that just meant help and support, if it comes with updates etc then whoever provides has to be registered with Capita as a provider / reseller..? So you cant just go to anyone? I would expect the costs to (hopefully) be fixed for update portion and then variable on support portion, depending on SLA, profit margin etc.

 

I'm not entirely sure how it works, as we just pay one load of fees each year, as 'annual maintenance'. The issue is, shouldn't bug fixes come for free, like being able to download security fixes to Microsoft products, even if it's not licenced or registered, they can come down automatically. If you pay for something, then a bug should be patched, as that is what you originally paid for.

 

I can see that to maintain compliance with statutory requirements that you may be charged extra for modifications to the software, however, the bloomin DCSF/Dfe (whatever!) should foot the bill for not being able to make it's mind up!

 

EDIT: Also, in theory, it should work so that independents / internationals, don't need to take the mods for statutory compliance and the software should work regardless. As i'm paying for fixes that all you guys need/want!

Edited April 11, 2011 by vikpaw
addition

[Banjo]

KCC are no longer buying the annual maintenance for the schools from the dedicated school grant. Annual maintenance = upgrades and patches from Capita. Schools will have to buy the AM themselves if they want to use Sims either from Capita direct or possibly KCC (explore procurement options over the coming month). The Council still holds the software licences for Sims for the schools so they don't need to purchase these again.

 

Doesn't really mention support - maybe schools purchased this service from KCC and these arrangements go unchanged.

[vikpaw]

Information Management and Learning Services Framework - is one offshoot from this report.

See the thread here

http://www.edugeek.net/forums/mis-systems/76154-something-keep-eye-dfe.html

[rchutch]

Hi,

 

Maybe I am stirring up an old pot, but it seems that lots of people are assuming that by going to bid, people are guaranteed the lowest cost for a certain item. Perhaps it works different there in the UK, but here in the states, most of the time it works like this:

 

1. The buyer first decides the product they want to buy
   
2. The buyer researches all the other companies who also might send in bids
   
3. A Request for Proposal is written so that only the buyer they want to win can actually win it, but it has to be written so that it looks unbiased so that others respond. They do this because there is a legal requirement that they must get at least three competing bids.
   
4. The RFP ends up requiring all parties spend tends of thousands of $$$ preparing a response, which ends up being a complete waste of time for those who never had any chance of winning
   
5. All the suppliers need to build this "time wasting" into the prices of their products, raising the average price of everything
   

 

So, it is a normal part of the process of deciding to bid on one of these to

 

1. Read it carefully looking to see if it looks "pre-wired"
   
2. See if there was any conflict of interest while preparing the RFP (many times there has been (like one of the bidders (or a potential partner of one of the bidders) helped write the RFP)
   

 

If it looks questionable, stay away from it and don't respond. Perhaps things are very different in the UK and this doesn't go on. That would be nice.

 

It would be really nice if people (authorities) could honestly choose what is best for them and then justify in public why they made that choice. No games. I guess I am just too "back-woods" for our modern-day society.

[matt40k]

It would be illegal to have decided before you went out to tender. Before you start you might have an idea of what products you like, so you can create a good list of requirements, but you couldn't put out to tender if you've already decided, well you could but all another supplier would have to do is take you to court and they could recover costs they wasted submitting a bidding. At the end you have to justify why your picking it and it doesn't have to be the cheapest!

[rchutch]

I certainly wasn't talking about what happens "in the light of day".

 

All of this is "buried into the process" - I was just playing "the emperor has no clothes" for a few minutes.