BromcomPublicRelations

glennda, Thank you! We are pleased to read someone understands what we are talking about!

Plexer, You are right! Norfolk sought out a hosted/cloud based MIS but has chosen 'Windows based MIS'. This is what fundamentally is flawed. No one should jump the gun and start blaming 'hosted'/cloud concept! Norfolk has chosen right approach for the right era but type MIS! One needs to look under the bonnet. We have given two analogy on this in other thread in layman's language. Windows app under hosted/cloud = DOS under Windows: In the 1990s when Windows replaced DOS, some software vendors tweaked their DOS applications to sell them under Windows without true the benefits of the Windows GUI, multi-tasking, multi-threading and host of other underlying features etc.. Now 20 years on, in 2010s Windows suppliers will be trying to repeat the history and sell their Windows based applications as “Cloud” solutions where terminal services is under the browser without the true benefit of the Cloud and at the expense of performance, higher server costs, flexibility, dynamism, larger carbon foot-print and underlying host of features etc... Windows Office 2010 v Office 365 on the Cloud Most people have used Microsoft Office products and will be familiar with Office 2010. Yet Microsoft has not promoted Office 2010 for use on the Cloud even though billions of dollars of investment has gone into the product. Neither have they tried to offer hosted web extensions to Office 2010 and call it ‘Cloud deployment’. Microsoft has launched Office 365 as a ground up browser based product, optimised for Cloud deployment. This is clearly the way forward for vendors of true Cloud applications. There is a very clear difference between running a browser based software application on the Cloud and running a Windows application with high server overheads and claiming that it is a “Cloud solution”. More technical explanation: There is significant additional complexity and hardware resource thrown into the infrastructure so to work around the fact that the MIS in use is a Windows application designed to be installed and run 'locally' and yet Norfolk is attempting to run it in 'hosted environment' for over 1,000 of concurrent users across 100s of schools!!! More hardware, more resource and more complexity means more reasons for things go to wrong and less resilience and less reliability. Browser based software versus Windows based software on the cloud Browser based MIS products on the cloud make the most efficient use of the set up and structure of cloud hosting services. Certainly the previous generation MIS software which was built on Windows systems is nothing like as efficient as browser based software when using the cloud, because Windows systems in this environment are unnecessarily resource hungry. This is because web and Windows applications work very differently. Web applications typically have a single logical instance of the software application (i.e. the MIS software) running on the central Cloud server. The executing code of the application is shared with all users and this could mean all of the schools in a local authority. As users log in and out of the Cloud, ‘sessions’ are created to hold the data relating to that user i.e. person in a school. Compare this to how a Windows application would work on the Cloud. In the first case none of the users are sharing the same software application instance as in browser. For each user the Cloud host needs to create a compelete 'private virtual environment' in order to execute each separate application instance for just that user. The Cloud must also hold that user’s data separately. In the process of accessing any Windows based MIS software on the Cloud, a large operating overhead is required compared to any browser based MIS software. Often a virtual desktop is created and the user will have in effect a ‘virtual machine’ at their disposal. In summary, for the Windows application to run, there is extra sessional processing power required and extra centralised processing power required for any virtualised environment. This bloats the infrastructure that is required and therefore the cost, as the only solution is to purchase extra and more powerful hardware. However the possibility of Windows based application running in a Cloud environment was never considered at the design, development and testing stage of Windows and so performance is not necessarily predictable in what is an alien environment for Windows.

Wrong thread - see "Hosted SIMS outage - anyone affected?"

GrumbleDook, An interesting and a good point. At present time most primary schools appear to be sticking with LAs. With DfE-Buying Solution Framework OJEU Tender for MIS and Learning Services which is now well underway, we may see a different market structure being emerged for supply and services for MIS & Learning Services. Under new Framework contracts LAs may want to negotiate terms with software suppliers so to allow small % of drop out of primaries without a penalty. With "software as a service" (SaaS) and utility model service discussed under centrally hosted/cloud on this thread, a school should be able to switch support services/delivery/billing from the source just as billing agent for domestic gas and electricity. Hence a school may switch from LA to other without disrupting the service if stays with the same software. Changing to a different software is a different matter of course. Meanwhile LAs/schools will check how they will cope with spending cuts and evaporated Harnessing Technology Grant and see how much centrally hosted MIS may help to reduced deployment/support staff and lost budget to keep MIS servers up to date.

matt40k, For the efficiency, MIS software must be ground up written as web application so that a single logical instance of the software application runs on the server, sharing that executing code with all users, including across schools in this case. As users log in and out, ‘sessions’ are created to hold information related to that user, and those data are used by the shared executing application and discarded when no longer required. Web front end of course will behave same as above however when Windows part is fired up the benefit of web front is lost. Year reports for the entire school: Such extensive reports have been produced by hundreds of school using all web based Bromcom e-Registration system since early 2002. Printing, resource management for local or system printers are all highly configurable. … aren't certain features going to be more difficult on a web browser? We are not sure which features you mean. Yes, we had some serious challenge but mastered over the past 10 years how to incorporate wide range of features - such as ‘right click’ functions, all sort of cursor auto movements, intelligent selectors, remebering last used names etc.. Every report in the system can be scheduled to be generated automatically and printed on any printer in the system or e-mailed to a chosen receipent at a scheduled given day of the week, month, year at chosen time and frequency. All these also are built in Bromcom MIS. We now receive comments from schools saying ‘your MIS is so intituive - easy to use as Facebook” – assuming it is a complement. Please drop us PM if you wish to talk to schools using all-browser MIS. Please state any particular feature you like to check - happy to explain.

The arguments we put across about “Resource usage Web verses Windows in a hosted environment“ is for an LA who already decided to go ‘centrally hosted’ service and why they should consider ‘web based MIS’ rather than ‘thick client Windows’ for this. You may be surprised that a good number of LAs already have gone for ‘centrally hosted’ service for their schools for some years! Certainly we believe it makes sense for primary schools – so long as broadband is up to it! We appear to agree that "there are saving to me made" in doing so. However there is significant more saving in infrastructure that can be made if browser based MIS is used. Many more LAs are expected to consider “centrally hosted/cloud” option in their annual reviews how to accommodate the spending cuts.

"Something not local" & efficiency of MIS running: As stated previously we will not dwell on definition of Cloud. This thread has the title of cloud - hence why discussions appear to be going about teh definition. Where as we have been advocating discussion on the efficiency. On the efficiency, we challenge anyone questioning the significant difference in scale of efficiency running "Windows application / thick client based" MIS vs browser based MIS over centrally hosted/"something not local"/Cloud infrastructure/service. What we mean by "Windows application / thick client based" is client-server software that presently run by probably 90% of UK schools. The reason for this is simply the fact that "Windows application / thick client based" MIS software resource demands moved from client PC/workstation to centrally hosted infrastructure in verbatim manner eg having private copy of the application run for each user. Whereas browser application are developed and optimised to share instances of application code across all users (100s/1000s/millions !!!). More detailed explanation is given in earlier posting and for convenience and completeness copied here: Resource usage Web verses Windows in a hosted environment: Web applications would typically have a single logical instance of the software application running on the server, sharing that executing code with all users, including across schools in this case. As users log in and out, ‘sessions’ are created to hold information related to that user, and those data are used by the shared executing application and discarded when no longer required. The hosted Windows applications case is very different. No longer are users sharing the executing application with other users. Instead the host needs to create a virtual environment for each user in order to execute a separate application instance for just that user and hold their data and other operating overheads. Often a virtual desktop is created and the user in effect has a virtual machine at their disposal. So, on top of the sessional data for the user required for the web application, the hosted windows application has far higher demands on the server resources and needs to contend with the overheads of running multiple copies of the windows application in a virtualised environment, which itself introduces a further abstraction from the server hardware at the data centre. Extra hardware can of course be “thrown” at the challenge of hosting Windows applications, but performance is not necessarily predictable when the application is put into an environment is often will be alien to that considered during design, development and testing for such applications. Invariable Windows based applications deployed in hosted/cloud environment ends up with highly bloated infrastructure and naturally very high cost in comparison to browser based application! synaesthesia, How about sharing with this forum, the number of primary and secondary schools in your LA you run MIS "not local" and what hardware resources you had to dedicate to do so? We will be happy then to estimate hardware saving you can have if the MIS application was in browser. I am sure this forum will benefit from some factual data.

pcstru, We appear to have cross lines. 1. We aren't claiming being "web based" means "cloud". If you have "cloud" infrastucture (we made no attempt to define this hereto - except an extact quote below), then what we are saying is that you need to have a browser based MIS rather than Windows based MIS to get the efficiency. We have provided reasons in reasonale details to explain why in our previous post. 2. "cloud" of course generally means "centrally hosted" service which is outsourced. That should be seen by some as part of the benefit - specially for primary schools with no ICT support staff or budget! As to your definition " Cloud Computing : Decoupling the platform from the constraints of the underlying hardware." - I have no problem with this. A definition: "True Cloud" This forum may may benefit from an interesting definition below which is an extract from a recent tender requirement. It is intersting to read quote "true cloud" and the fact that someone is "putting their money where their mouth is" to this definition! A true cloud computing service: Cloud computing services can be deployed in a number of different ways, with varying internal or external ownership and technical architectures. To be considered a true cloud computing service, certain core principles need to be adhered to: — technical abstraction: Users of services have limited or no visibility of the technology (both hardware and, where appropriate, software) used to provide the service, — pay per use: Costs are incurred as revenue rather than capital expense, based on a utility “metering” model, — rapid elasticity: Service volumes are elastic, being readily scalable both up and down in volume to suit ever changing business demand, — ubiquitous network access: ICT services are made available over the network using standard mechanisms which support a wide range of client devices (e.g., desktop, laptop, PDA, phone). The main categories of cloud computing service: Cloud computing services are varied and maturing and include services that span all layers of the traditional hardware and software stack. The three main categories of cloud computing service are defined as: — infrastructure as a Service (IaaS): The provision of lower level basic server and storage capabilities, — platform as a Service (PaaS): The provision of a computing platform combing hardware and software that can be used, for example, to support application development or testing activities, — software as a Service (SaaS): The provision of a complete application offered as a cloud computing service over the network.

A true cloud deployment is one that allows "all" the benefits of cloud computing come through. One of the key and overwhelming benefits is the efficiency gained through browser applications. In Windows based applications the resources needed in infrastructure in terms of server resources consumed to provide performance that is required by the schools is no less than in conventional (non-cloud computing) deployment. Whereas because the 'native' technology for 'centrally hosted' deployment/cloud computing is browser, there huge efficiency that flows when browser application is used in terms of the initial infrastructure cost and resources consumed in running. Resource usage Web verses Windows in a hosted environment: Web applications would typically have a single logical instance of the software application running on the server, sharing that executing code with all users, including across schools in this case. As users log in and out, ‘sessions’ are created to hold information related to that user, and those data are used by the shared executing application and discarded when no longer required. The hosted Windows applications case is very different. No longer are users sharing the executing application with other users. Instead the host needs to create a virtual environment for each user in order to execute a separate application instance for just that user and hold their data and other operating overheads. Often a virtual desktop is created and the user in effect has a virtual machine at their disposal. So, on top of the sessional data for the user required for the web application, the hosted windows application has far higher demands on the server resources and needs to contend with the overheads of running multiple copies of the windows application in a virtualised environment, which itself introduces a further abstraction from the server hardware at the data centre. Extra hardware can of course be “thrown” at the challenge of hosting Windows applications, but performance is not necessarily predictable when the application is put into an environment is often will be alien to that considered during design, development and testing for such applications. Invariable Windows based applications deployed in hosted/cloud environment ends up with highly bloated infrastucture and naturally very high cost in comparision to browser based application!

PCSTRU, You are spot on. We are specifically saying that just as running DOS application under Windows did not make legacy application shiny Windows applications with full benfit of Windows features, deploying Windows application under hosted environment will not make them shiny Cloud applications with full benfit of Cloud features and efficiency. That is said – we need to cast our minds to a typical Local Authority that is minded to deploy MIS application for say 100 primary and 20 secondary schools on Cloud. We invite all to forward estimate of resources that will be needed in terms of processor and RAM etc.. for two scenarios A. If MIS applications is in browser and optimised for Cloud B. If MIS application is in Windows as a thick client If not exact number of processors and RAM, please forward an estimate % less resources needed between the two scenarios in (A) vs (B). Also think of who is paying for the extra huge cost differnce, generated heat and carbon foot-print? Answers on a postcard please. NB: This is why Microsoft would have never dreamt of putting Windows Office 2010 as a Cloud offering and has written ground up a browser version for Office 365 as a Cloud offering.

Cloud Computing: Browser apps vs Windows apps: Further to the above post, here is a new argument to drive the point home about some software vendors trying to sell Windows apps suitable for Cloud deployment: The world’s largest software vendor for Windows applications is Microsoft. In recent days there has been a great deal of news and assumptions on marketing strategies about Microsoft’s push for the Cloud and seeing Office 365 as leading this. Clearly Microsoft with billions of dollars of investment in Windows Office 2010, did not try to offer users all over the world the ability to run Windows Office 2010 application within a browser and call it Cloud deployment! Nor did they try to offer hosted web extensions to Office 2010 and call it Cloud deployment. Microsoft developed Office 365 ground up specifically as a browser based product suitable and optimised for Cloud deployment Office 365. This example of Microsoft and Office 365 is clear evidence of what true Cloud apps vendors are doing and should be doing! The begging questions is - why didn’t Microsoft host Windows Office 2010 Windows application in their server farms and make it available to subscribers within a browser and call it Cloud service? Cloud Computing and Cloud Deployment is still terms that are often misunderstood. Microsoft Office 365 and similar applications will educate the market to a level where soon vendors with Windows apps will be embarrassed to claim that running centrally hosted Windows apps with user access through a browser as meeting the ‘Cloud Deployment’ definition. Yes, they can be hosted but they are not Cloud and Microsoft knows it and so should all software vendors.

Vik, Our suggestion was 6 to 12 month grace. In fact it can be as low as 6 months and coincide with DfE-Buying Solutions' forthcoming Framework OJEU Tender for MIS which should be running by end of 2011. Schools/academies can utilise this Framework to procure their new MIS Software whether staying same supplier or change. I assume members have seen DfE's notice: Information Management and Learning Services framework - The Department for Education More importantly, if the MIS in use is 'good value for money' then the schools will stay with incumbent supplier in 6 months time anyway. It cannot be fairer than this. A short delay of 6 month will not prejudice the supplier other than delay in cash. Suppliers with large user base has the least to complain on this account! We are daily in contact with schools. The message we are getting is very consistent - they have 1001 things to do in changing to become an academy and MIS is one thing that they rather did not touch for the time being! However they are confronting with a licence fee MIS and at this juncture schools are finding this far from helpful. Hence our reference that schools are facing to make a decision on MIS under duress. From TES article (see below) we assume DfE is alerted to the situation and will make a provision in the procurement framework for schools converting to academy. The other information you sought, you will find in the recent two TES editions as follows: DfE seeks to break firm's stranglehold on back-office IT - News - TES Connect IT company accused of 'excessive' profits - News - TES Connect

It is very unfortunate that Competition Act / OFT is being used as an ‘excuse’ for charging school becoming academy. To date – dominant supplier for years has been breaching Competition Act and its annual mainteneance contracts breaching procurement laws every inch of the way despite so much protest from the industry and now trying to defend themselves by using OFT as an escape goat. The issue surrounding Academy or change of entity is matter of copyright law rather than competition. When there is new entity, it is correct that software author can demand a new licence from the new entity. The question is whether a software supplier would do so depends how well the market is working from competitivemess point of view and whether the supplier feels it has the customer (school in this case) by the throat. Accepting that in the UK MIS market has not been working for the past 15 years (Becta Report 2005 and 2010) and added to the fact that dominant supplier has hold in the mind-set of schools, change of system is a high barrier, dominant supplier will be very tempted to make maximum charges that can get away with! OFT/Competition Act: The only issue is if there a substantial cost associated with the transaction and if dominant supplier chooses to charge below the cost! However such cost is nowhere near that costs we are seeing being charged. But then the present annual charge model in the UK has been in breach of EU/UK procurement laws and it is unsafe to try to establish what should true licence cost vs what has been charged past 15 years or so non 'de minimis' services. Therefore it is best try to avoid estimating true cost/a valid licence charge until the market corrects itself over the next 12 month as LAs such as Kent CC cancels their annual mainteteance contract and re-think. In reality, rather than trying to avoid breach of competition laws, what we see in the field and dominant suppliers behaviour is totally working against competitiveness in the following way: 1. Schools in the process of converting to Academy are already under great deal of burden due to various processes that will need to go through. 2. Deciding/changing MIS is a serious matter for a school – hence Headteacher/Senior Management can not spend quality time to make such decision and likely to stay with the same MIS (80% probability to be with the dominant supplier). Dominant supplier appear to be counting on this and cornering schools. 3. Having spent say £20,000 and to stay with the same MIS means that school inadvertently made a decision for wrong decisions that will live with at least for another 5 years! 4. For another words dominant supplier not only making more money but also ‘locking in’ school becoming Academy taking advantage of the situation. A fairer arrangement: A school changing to Academy is given by all MIS suppliers a period of 12 months grace to make their mind in changing or staying with the present MIS and not be cornered to make decision under duress! Within 12 months DfE’s Framework for MIS will be up and running and Academies can buy through this framework. Bromcom is happy to support the above principle for their MIS and other systems! OFT or other suppliers would have no complaint against this!

The proposal made to DfE that, 30p per pupil is a levy charged and put into central pot to reimburse cost incured in implementing Statutory Changes by the MIS Suppliers. "... a bug in my database and ... someone needs to create a site specfic patch" This is chargeable service between school and either LA support Team, 3rd party Support Centre or direct with the Software Supplier as a support service. This is nothing to do with 30p or software licence. What Kent CC and other LAs is facing in April 2012 is the 'shock effect' of corrective action to put years of custom and practice which is clearly in breach of EU/UK Laws. The process will even out after the first year if centrally funding of Statutory Changes are in place. LAs and schools will receive updates for Statutory Changes free because they would be reimbursed for their cost directly from the central pot accumlated from 30p per pupil levy paid by LAs (or academies/schools if not maintained under LA). Bugs fixes should be free: Just as MS Office 2003 or Office 2007 for a given version of product bugs for MIS Software should be free under product warranty and liability and made available via web. As we all know, Microsoft even deliveries such patches to your door step to your PC FREE OF CHARGE! Support charges to LA Support Units, independent 3rd parties or schools wishing to receive direct support from software suppliers should be totally independent of any software licence agreement or charges. This is the industry model of service/support structure that should be adapted by LAs and schools. Most LAs have their own support centre supporting 1st & 2nd line calls from schools. LA Support centres in turn would need to have 3rd line support contract for the level support that they will draw down from software suppliers. This does not need to be more than say 10 to 20 man days per annum - hence say £10,000 to £20,000. Any product training or training for 3rd line support can be applied on need basis as extra to the support centres. As to product improvements, just as Office 2003 and Office 2007, software suppliers will need to bring distinct new versions out within their product life cycles, whilst maintaining each version for sensible number of years say minimum of 5 years for bug fixes under warranty/product liability and Statutory Changes. LAs and schools will then procure such software new versions with fresh licence after market testing for value fo rmoney and hopefully through DfE Framework OJEU Tender for MIS. The impact of the above will be in seismic scale on the present annual costs across LAs/schools which is identified as £110 million per annum [becta Report 2010 para 1.4 page 3]. If the above applied, what we should see in the coming years is that this money is spent competitively in open market for fresh software licences across the suppliers, driving the cost down and providing choice and innovation for better software. This is what has not been happening over the past 15 years and hence increasing cost, market stagnation [becta Report 2005 and 2010] and breaches in EU/UK Procurement and Competition Laws as per Becta Report 2010 findings and summed up nicely in the TES article in above links.

A good question! Answer: Cost of all Statutory Changes should have been met centrally since April 2008. This was a strong recommendation in Becta Report 2005 MIS VfM so to bring transparancy to the cost and fairer sharing of the burden put onto MIS suppliers by teh government. For this, DfE (then DCSF) formed IMPS Group under Memorandum of Understanding, signed by all 6 or so MIS suppliers and DfE in September 2007. A spanner was thrown in around March 2009 and scheme was put on halt. This is being looked into at present by various parties and hopefully consider reinstating the scheme. Probably as part of the DfE Framework OJEU Tender for MIS. Facts: 1. Becta Report 2010 para 8.10 page 32: Total cost of Statutory Changes across all suppliers is circa £2.2m in a year - this is circa 30p per student. 2. A local authority such as Kent CC has been paying circa £600,000 per annum in annual charges to the dominant supplier. 3. The cost of Statutory Changes based on 30p per student for Kent CC would come under £70,000 per annum! 4. You can now see where remaining circa £530,000 per annum is going! Product development by the dominant supplier that is in breach of EU/UK procurement and competition laws. Hence: 80% of school IT systems are bought illegally - News - TES Connect

Creese, need to have a look at Becta Report 2010 - MIS Value for Money: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101102103654/http://localauthorities.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/becta_report_on_mis_2010.pdf Breach: There are plenty!!! Key one is: Annual maintenance contracts that are more than ‘de minimis’ are in breach of EU/UK procurement laws. 'De minimis' means only bug fixes should have been covered in the annual maintenance contracts. Para 1.22 page 5. Extra charges LAs and schools paid were illegal and exceeds £75 million over the period that went on. Please see annual cost just for schools in England is £550 million over 5 years para 1.4 page 3. 80% is pocketed by the dominant supplier. This amounted funding dominant suppliers developments before being delivered and at expense and disadvantage of all other suppliers. What is worse is that schools perceived as if they were receiving these product developments ‘free of charge’ and when in fact they ‘pre-paid’ in breach of EU/UK Laws. To avoid such breach, Kent County Council in April thsi year cancelled their annual maintenance contracts with the dominant supplier from 1st of April 2012 so to be in compliant to EU/UK procurements laws. Link: Kent Trust Web: Kent County Council As to OFT and Competition laws, in this case ie the annual charges including 'product development', amounts to "tying in"/bundling. This is the flip side of the same breach but on supplier account! As you will know DfE is setting up National Framework OJEU Tender for MIS. Link: Information Management and Learning Services framework - The Department for Education In DfE statement, the reference to Becta Report 2010 is clear indication how serious breaches has been over the past 15 years! I hope the above helps to clarify breaches, £75 million and guilty vs innocent!

In 1990s when Windows replaced DOS, some software vendors tweaked their DOS applications to sell their DOS application under Windows without true benefits of Windows GUI, multi-tasking, multi-threading and host of other underlying features etc.. Now 20 years on, in 2010s Windows suppliers will be trying to repeat the history and sell their Windows based applications with terminal services under browser without the true benefit of the Cloud and at the expense of performance, higher server costs, flexibility, dynamism, larger carbon foot-print and underlying host of features etc...

DOS applications under Windows = Windows Applications under Cloud In 1990s when Windows replaced DOS, some software vendors tweaked their DOS applications to sell their DOS application under Windows without true benefits of Windows GUI, multi-tasking, multi-threading and host of other underlying features etc.. Now 20 years on, in 2010s Windows suppliers will be trying to repeat the history and sell their Windows based applications with terminal services under browser without the true benefit of the Cloud and at the expense of performance, higher server costs, flexibility, dynamism, larger carbon foot-print and underlying host of features etc...

To DBMan and all, " A collaborative effort (see above) or an 'affordable' offering from a company like Bromcom may bring that reality closer! " Thank you all your constructive input. The thread has been Kozan's own personal initiave. Generally Bromcom or any commercial company does not seek out input in this unorthodox means but nevertheless it appears to have developed into an interesting dialogue. Yes, indeed -Bromcom endeavours to provide "affordable" offerings. We could be also open to proposals/ideas based on 'collaborative' effort principles. Let's hear more on this and how you see it working in practical terms.

Yes, Vik is right - on Bromcom devices and new laptop/Pocket PC versions Fire Drill faciities have been fully implemented and have 'perfected': 1. AM/PM Registration groups are cached locally. 2. Right through the day, cached lists get dynamically updated 3. Other than AM/PM can be designated as a 'Fire Drill' group 4. Dynamic updating also integrates devices using public networks GPRS or 3G We are generally modest - but on this ocasion we have to say - it must be the only system of its type - truly unique in the market!

Just for the record Bromcom became the very first UK company to be a member of SIF in US in the year 2000. Bromcom demonstarted to DCSF (then DfES) and other MIS suppliers the concept of SIF in obe of the meetings in the year 2000 where CBDS data items were being agreed. For the obvious reason it was not supported then. Bromcom since 1990s fought very hard for 'interoperability'. Early 2000s made case to DCSF within e-GIF policy and sought support for a length of time from DCSF. We were not supported and our efforts were frustrated. In teh end we had to resort to OFT (Office of Fair Trading) in the year 2002/2003 where we secured Voluntary Assurance from Capita in 2003 - please see other thread on this. Such work is very costly and time consuming. It demands substantial technical and management resources. However it has been essential to secure a practical 'interoperability' that exists today for majority of our customers. Since early 2000s & SIF Sadly with OFT taking priority, for Bromcom SIF has been on back burners seeing DCSF's inability/unwillingness to get it mandated. However we are encouraged with the recent draft proposal that DCSF may fund the developments under IMPS MuO. Bromcom reviewing the developments and plans to fast track with SIF specially if DCSF proposal to fund a 'joint developement' and mandates it. We have a scheduled meeting of "working group" with all MIS suppliers MoU Mk2 (SIF funding is also covered) which will take place in Becta with other MIS suppliers later this month. We are happy to keep the forum updated if asked. .

Just to supplement the above information, SIF is presently part of the interoperability review carried out by Capgemini within the bigger picture of LA & cross central Goverment department needs for data interchange agenda. As to time frame - th emost recent communication from DCSF recent says: " ... the review report is in final draft and is being considered by the Department and Becta, as the UK lead educational technology agency. Once we and they are satisfied with the analysis and recommendations, the report will be referred to the BIS/DCSF Information and Technology Strategy Board to consider. It will be a while yet before we can publish anything although we do understand the need to inform suppliers quickly of any policy decisions." We asked DCSF and it appears that this information can be shared publicly. So we are happy to do so with EduGeek forum -please see the attached. Bromcom has been one of the most vocal party for 'interoparability' and 'open systems' since way back in 1990s and it will continue to be so! . DCSF System-wide interoperability review - Capgemini commission.pdf

Yes, apologies. We seemed to have had crossed wires. Microsoft Windows Server CALs: Our understanding is as stated in our previous post. Microsoft SQL CALs: We beleive, SkywOrca's interpreation is correct. Each user needs an SQL CAL. However on the point of Bromcom's deployment model, main portal products are 'centrally hosted' and hence per-processor licensing model applies. These are MyChildAtSchool, Teacher'sWebFolder and Galaxy-VLE. For Hosted service for MIS per-processor based model is used. However we are finding that generally whilst primary schopols are OK, secondary schools are not keen to have their data off site. Speed and resilienece to broadband service level may also be consideration. The advantage of Bromcom MIS is that schools have a choice whether to have it on site or hosted. You may find that with the other browser based MIS software you do not have this choice. .

Bromcom is happy to be corrected but since Microsoft Windows Server 2003 internet users do not use up a windows CAL licence. In stating this, Bromcom relies on the following extract from Microft License information. However reader should check for themselves and not rely on this. ”In previous Windows Server licensing models, Windows Client Access Licenses were automatically triggered when particular server services were invoked (such as file, print, remote access, and terminal services, as well as authenticated access). With Windows Server 2003, CALs are no longer triggered based on the use of certain services but are instead based on access to and/or use of the server software. This holds true for all editions of Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2, except Web Edition. Windows CALs are not required for Web Edition. Note the following general exception to Windows CAL requirements: Windows CALs are not required when access to the server software is unauthenticated and conducted through the Internet. Authenticated access is defined as an exchange of user or application credentials between the server software and a user or device. An example of this exception would be if unidentified users browsed your public Web site. Windows CALs would not be required for those users.” If this is the case it means using a browser based MIS, in addition to the other benefits stated previously, will also bring further saving in Microsoft license cost for schools with large number of users.