GREED

But it highlights an element of growth they are having. Arbor has increased their numbers but huge amounts, surely that needs recognition? I get what you are saying and can tag new players as such (although what do you deem new, as say Arbor have been around a couple of years now). I'm curious too as the previous post like this earlier in the year from @matt40k showed the same things... Have you looked at the full Excel file which shows the year on year stuff. This page you see is a summary only of this year.

The website to host the results of the challenge is now live, although needs some work still! However, the results from the past 4 years' Census and subsequent market analysis and calculations are now complete and live and available for view (or download if you want the full file). This originated on work done by @matt40k and I'd like to thank Matt for his input both before and during this. Note that the figures are taken directly from the school census', I have not altered anything. If you find something is incorrect in the details please do let me know and I will alter as best I can (ultimately, blame the DfE!). I'm aware things like type/phase of school may be inaccurate in some records, I've done my best but will apologise in advance anyway (basically if you spot your school and there is a problem I will change it! I want this to be as accurate as possible) Also, the figures should be taken as a guide only not the definitive accurate exact value as I am aware not all schools have been supplied in the census for various reasons, as well there are new ones popping up all over so make analysing against past years somewhat interesting (plus, I have used calculations to match year on year data, I was not going to go through 84000 records one by one!). Again, school or supplier if you have a query I am happy to address. Enjoy! Website is at: Market Statistics | Eduware Consulting Coming soon will be the MIS Challenge survey pack, that will be freely available to see and/or use by anyone (ie as a base for your next procurement... I can dream ).

You are all volunteering me for more work guys! I agree with all your points @matt40k and @vikpaw my only thing is to have a framework that people take seriously it needs backing by the dfe or GPS. Suppliers already question the worth of spending time on the MIS Challenge... which in some respects bewilders me if they do not see the value to them. Getting them to be part of a framework and then having LAs actually see it as worth while when it does have that rubber stamp will be impossible. It needs some legislative backing. But as Matt and I keep saying... baby steps!

Woah. .. hold on there soldier. Aspen was down to last 2 in Hampshire, and was liked a lot until the lead of the bid consortium pulled (from the mouth of an employee who worked for HCC on the procurement, post procurement). Don't come much newer than that. Also, yes I suspect the exact terms I mention are illegal... perhaps no more so than choosing a framework with only one supplier on it who offers an MIS. No more so than single supplier frameworks that exist for other areas and organisations.... and they are out there. I was suggesting a possible concept that would push towards what many including yourself have rightly pushed for: greater communication and awareness before the expensive tender process begins and find out the information on the products you need then... just ideas is all... ones to be refined

That's ZiLink for Moodle. ZiNET Connect extracts from the MIS (many of them including Facility) and securely put the information wherever is needed. MOODLE is just one example.

One thought crossed my mind... is it Capita Children's Services (SIMS) that is on that framework or Capita, as in the massive massive outsourcing organisation... and by proxy CCS is then available... now there is an interesting twist. Regardless, I 100% agree with you Rich (@scholarpack), this really isn't about Capita as they have played within the rules (the rules are possibly this issue!), it is the LAs that, by using this framework as saying to the market: We have no appetite to explore the market nor find out if our schools are getting value for money or have the best product... we just want to stay as we are. Much the same with VEAT (although there are genuine reasons for using that). I wonder if, in some crazy future, each supplier was on a framework of one, their own framework. LAs do all their due diligence and market testing before going to tender, then based on the product they want, went for the framework that product was on... I know this would be full of problems like proving they have done their due diligence but is an interesting idea!

Tehehe!!!

Dare I say, an extraction tool like ZiNET Connect And to be unbiased there are other extractions available out there...

So hold on. Before the likes of iTunes and what not, in which I mean the store and download music, every mp3 player and mobile phone capable of playing music was an illegal device... wow!

There have been some discussions and developments with some suppliers, I will update soon about some extensions to the challenge that will make this not only more worthwhile for all involved but give a more rounded approach to the results. More details soon on this....

Fully agree. While these are interesting points, I would want this to stop short of becoming a soapbox to warn LAs about x y and z. There are other mediums available to do that on.

I found this most interesting: "Public sector organisations may not have access to the requisite commercial and technical expertise when procuring ICT, meaning they are unable accurately to define their ICT requirements, evaluate the best placed suppliers to meet these, and assess and challenge supplier performance." From the OFT report. Comments? Edit: Sorry, this is looking for positive comments on how LAs and the likes can be as informed as possible... not damning LAs or their practices currently.

They can be as fuming as they like, perhaps they should have been more careful when setting up the framework. I'm sorry, as much as I question the morality of LAs using that tender, it is perfectly acceptable. One cannot dictate what they should and should not use. Rather, and I say this again, LAs should be held to account why they chose such tender. Maybe other suppliers should have bid for that framework too. It is the framework methodology that is at fault. With VEAT, you may have found one, I know of several that used VEAT. We have already discussed this in another thread I don't think we need to go down this road again personally. It is good they have reconsidered, but again my feeling is they should be held to account over their choices. @Bromcom-PR You other points I do agree with (mostly), and I like the quality weightings you have listed. I might argue however that functional characteristics really should come very high. As I have stated before, the software has to be able to do the things it needs to do, before scoring if it is cloud, the quality, the cost effectiveness. If you have a high quality, cost effective cloud solution... that doesn't actually allow attendance to be taken, then it CANNOT score highly, and I cannot see how one would think otherwise. Other than that I would largely agree with you. I would be interested in other parties opinions on such a table/weighting?

Oh I'm not saying it isn't useful but we don't want the forum to become a marketing engine for everyone... I'm just saying the post needs to be controlled by a mod so it is defined and structured and doesn't end up being abused.

Credit for finding all that information, however I think this need to be removed or taken over by a mod, likely phone numbers removed. Unfortunately there are so many associated companies (I notice we are not there for instance!!!) That this would become a spamming ground. If a mod takes over then it can be locked and controlled. I would suggest keeping it to MIS suppliers only. My original.suggestion was more a prompt to have those automated status pages from more suppliers, quite specific to that. Jose, I'd like to include your efforts on the final presentation of the MIS Challenge when it is up and running.

That is advice not legislation. No where does it say academies should or have to use IMLS. I was hoping some academies might join in and let me know their directives here...

Would anyone care to comment on how/where Academies and Trusts fit into the conversation. For instance I have found this (Well, found for me, thanks @penfold_99) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/academies-procurement-resource-buying-for-your-academy

My thoughts on your points: Do's: LAs should have regular suppliers days for schools and for LA support teams to see different products, suppliers, technologies and approaches than incumbent Agreed. Incumbent should not be excluded though, for fairness. They might have new products or abilities that schools may yet not know about. Think if you were incumbent, you would want that opportunity LAs should test the market regularly say every 5 years - this is a legal requirement for compliance (as per Becta Report 2010 and OFT Market Study 2014) Agree of the first point. Is the BECTA report a LEGAL requirement? or Informed Advice? Honest question but be careful with the L word! LAs should be output driven with their technical requirements and not prescriptive - part of good procurement practice Totally agree. 100%! LAs should use exiting procurement framework designed by DfE and GPS (now CCS) - namely IMLS RM1500. This will be a 'mini tender' rather than full OJEU tender process. Maybe, but IMLS really was a waste of time in my opinion, it tested the company more than the product. I wonder what proportion of LAs have used IMLS as opposed to any other procurement operation? Don'ts LAs should not ignore that cloud era is here now and can save substantial cost and bring benefits of cloud deployment from agility to ease of management. This itself is a business case for going to tender. Fundamentally true, they should not ignore it, but it does come down to the product not just because it is cloud. Functionality and usability should not be sacrificed for the sake of it being cloud. LAs should not use obscure procurement framework eg RM713 where only one MIS supplier exists - (more details are available on real life cases) But you do want them to use IMLS? Not all current suppliers big and small are on there, so equally that is not fair. I agree with you, but one cannot pick and choose what frameworks they should and should not use. This is more a moral issue, which I have said many times before. By using such a framework they are actively and knowingly choosing not to explore the market, and should acknowledge this to the public! LAs should not apply VEAT notice to sign up for software maintenance contracts - (more details are available on real life cases) In essence the same comment as above, but there may be valid reasons for using VEAT. After all, this is a EU directive, I think they know what they are talking about. But there again should be justification from the LA as to why they have done this. LAs should not take on fake cloud using client-server software as SoSaaS ie "Same old Software as a Service" - (more details are available on real life cases) Sorry, but this is very subjective, and it returns to my comment above. True cloud is a positive but it does not override completely if the 'fake cloud' product is not as functional or usable. Side by side and matching up on all levels, then yes true cloud should win. This is why I would love to do a baseline technical and functional test on every MIS in the market so there is alignment on functions, then if they do align functionally the cloud vs non-cloud argument has bigger teeth in an argument. Don't get me wrong I conceptually agree, but there is a lot more to it than just saying to LAs "You must only choose a cloud solution", because all the cloud solution might be rubbish! This has really made me think that LAs should be made to be more accountable as to justifying their decisions on procurement, or certainly on their procurement route choices. If there is valid reason, then great we can all (try to) be happy, and if not then it would make them think more carefully...

Oh yes in total agreement that the whole process is sucking money that should be going to the people and kids on the ground, totally agree. It is a process that I think needs to happen in reality, buy shouldn't need to happen if that makes sense

But how do you ensure the process is fair and all suppliers have opportunity to engage? We all know schools staff they stick with what they know and like, often the only way they see other products is when the LA tells them to or invites them to an event. Unless you legislate, someone will ALWAYS feel hard done by, and then write off to OFT or worse... which then gets backs up and then forces full procurement, which ultimately is more expensive. I'm not arguing that there could be informal things put in to minimise the procurement in some ways (so soft market testing is a more continuous process for example, prices are more public and stuck to, like on G-cloud). In fact it is pricing that is the crucks of the issues in my experience. Doing deals to undercut the opposition. Which is obviously partly what OFT are looking at. Then, the bigger players have easy facility to basically give the software away. LA is happy, perceivably the public are happy. But competition is left no where. I suffered from this during my Aspen days. Perhaps a more published set of prices that have to be used for procurement until a supplier is chosen, only then can negotiation occur. I believe that was the idea of IMLS too... (mind you, IMLS had many ideas!!)

We have an unfortunate paradox here. We are complaining that the time and associated cost with a full procurement. If we made the process shorter, you potentially fall foul of not giving people fair opportunity to bid (not that they are now even when they get a fair crack at the whip!), plus the buying party would also risk not carrying out full due diligence... another thread on here I know!

Change Management for staff is by far the biggest issue and the biggest cost.

My 'I survived Matt40K Tee is ordered.... Sorry @Bromcom-PR I couldn't resist! I will go back to being sensible!

I agree, lets let the discussion progress, but lets also not try to cloud () the issues or make a bigger issue of items than is actually there for those who may read this yet not be fully aware of the background and market status now. In particular, this is NOT just about MIS software, there are 6 distinctly different software application types under review, so it would be wrong to assume that this MIS is solely under the spotlight. It is very important for our market, I agree. Assuming there is findings that there has been "non-compliance with EU Law", which is wholly different from "anti-competitive behaviour" which is wholly different from what I would call somewhat immoral behaviour, and many people could probably agree with more on the right of that scale than the left. I'm sure some would have the opinion more towards the right. Perhaps a discusson is worthy around that? Perhaps, perhaps not, depends on how much individuals would like to share. One might argue that having such a discussion publicly now would not give the investigation a completely unbiased review of the sector and it's suppliers, and ultimately we cannot do anything to implement that other than to pre-tarnish anyone on both sides of the argument prior to a ruling by OFT. I certainly wouldn't want that on anyone, either with accusations that become unfounded according to OFT, but mud sticks, and at the same time being perceived as accusing left right and centre and losing future kudos! All I am saying is lets discuss but not accuse!

Good man