Bromcom-PR

Anyone can repeat as follows: Upload AI two content and check differences. Here Gemini by Google used. Because Bromcom is Microsoft stack and did not want it to be labelled "biased"!!! Prompt used was: "Compare the message in the attached (Edugeek) and what DfE is stated advice (WhichMIS) is in the following article": Gemini response: ... the key points from both the message and the article (DfE / WhichMIS) to compare them: Message from James Weatherill (Arbor): Schools have 12 months to switch. This implies a deadline and a push for schools to move to Arbor. Schools are not being "forced" to move to Arbor - they have free choice. This contradicts the implied deadline and suggests a choice that might not be entirely free given the discontinuation of ScholarPack and Integris. No material change to contract terms, price, functionality, and service levels are similar or improved. This argues against the need for a new procurement process, suggesting the transition is a simple upgrade. If schools want to change terms, they must follow procurement guidelines for contracts over £214,904. This acknowledges procurement rules but only for significant contract changes. Article Regarding DfE Advice: Schools are autonomous and responsible for complying with procurement regulations. Emphasizes school responsibility and freedom of choice. Procurement obligations apply below £214,904. Highlights the importance of following procurement rules even for smaller contracts. Contracts over £10,000 should be procured via a framework or with at least three quotes if under £40,000. Provides specific guidance for smaller contracts. MIS contract value is the full cost over 4 years, including all associated costs and VAT. Clarifies how to calculate contract value for procurement purposes. Whether the transition is a "material change" is key to determining if a new procurement is needed. Identifies the crucial question that is not definitively answered. A "material change" is defined as a change to the type of goods, services, or works not already provided for in the contract. Cites the Procurement Act definition. A change of MIS platform seems likely to be construed as a "material change." Offers an opinion that contradicts Arbor's claim of no material change. Schools should undertake due diligence and get professional advice. Recommends careful consideration and seeking expert guidance. Comparison and Key Differences: "Free Choice" vs. Practical Reality: Arbor emphasizes "free choice," but the discontinuation of existing systems creates a situation where schools may feel pressured to switch. The DfE article acknowledges the choice but stresses the need for due diligence and adherence to procurement rules. "No Material Change" vs. Likely Material Change: Arbor claims no material change to avoid triggering procurement processes. The DfE article, however, suggests that a change of MIS platform likely constitutes a material change, requiring a new procurement. Procurement Thresholds: Arbor mentions the £214,904 threshold, implying it's the only relevant one. The DfE article highlights the importance of procurement rules even for contracts below this threshold, especially those over £10,000. Guidance and Responsibility: Arbor offers a simplified view, suggesting the transition is straightforward. The DfE article emphasizes the complexity of procurement regulations and the school's responsibility to understand and comply with them. In essence, Arbor's message presents the transition as a simple, non-material change, while the DfE article emphasizes the need for schools to carefully consider the transition as a potential material change and adhere to all relevant procurement regulations. The article strongly advises schools to conduct due diligence and seek professional advice, which contrasts with Arbor's more straightforward approach. The discrepancy highlights the potential for schools to be misled if they rely solely on Arbor's information without seeking independent guidance.

What is DfE saying about all this??? https://www.whichmis.com/scholarpack-and-integris-customers-transitioning-to-arbor/

The battle of Scomis And the winner MIS is ... https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bromcom_edtech-mis-educationinnovation-activity-7315673662265720833-GCjm?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAMpjjgBbMtIVk0cul1rRsJMZRuDrW7CM0Q

On this thread, we suggest market information that will be interest to readers is shared to start with here is Nick Finnermore’s LinkedIn post on Scomis: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nickfinnemore_mis-missupport-schoolsupport-activity-7250499713093767169-rr7v?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

In the financial services sector, recommending a financial product in exchange for a kickback payment is unlawful under the **Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)** and the **Retail Distribution Review (RDR)** rules enforced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). These regulations were designed to ensure advisers act in the best interest of their clients and that any potential conflicts of interest are fully transparent. Just like financial advisers, councils advising schools on MIS procurement should be held to similar standards of impartiality. In the Schools Week article referral fees is seen as influencing decisions, much like a financial adviser might be tempted to recommend a product based on the kickback they receive rather than its merits. The fact that such practices would be unlawful in financial services underscores the need for transparency and ethical governance here, too.

Schools Week - Arbor’s Kickbacks Three councils have received cash from Arbor Education, one of England’s biggest MIS providers. Councils have received thousands of pounds in “referral fees” by a tech company in return for their schools switching to its management information system (MIS). https://schoolsweek.co.uk/councils-accept-referral-fees-for-schools-mis-switch/ Councils accept ‘referral fees’ for schools’ MIS switch Conflict of interest concerns as councils reveal fees handed to them amid growing MIS tussle Lewis Alcraft, the chief executive of ParentPay Group, an organisation that runs SIMS, said referral fees were “inappropriate”. For instance, Bromcom, another provider, does not offer referrals, but does charge schools less if support units – as opposed to the company – provide helpdesk services

Thank you all for assisting in concluding a very important outcome as above. This yet again justifies the use of SQL database backup files as an inevitable process for schools to migrate from SIMS to a new MIS

You are spot on Vikpaw, the answer is no! The reason is wTimeTable developed ground up integrated with Bromcom MIS - meaning no walls, barriers and silos of data that you find in all other MIS and timetables with just a tunnel for data transfer. This is new era timetabling for cloud age for collaborative timetabling! Please see: Bromcom Cloud wTimeTable

OK, name the price and please make a case for it. Please see below for context. Why £1,000? A team with total of 100+ man years of SIMS support experience couldn’t come up with a solution. Hence did not think more money will mean better chance to solve it. Hence coming up with a token figure of £1,000. Objective: To allow schools to get their data locked away in ESS remote servers and desperate to get them out! So this is a fight for all schools and for open systems. Deja vu - history lesson time! This is a replay of 20+ years ago of similar shenanigans, when technology moved from DOS to Windows. Bromcom fought for open systems spending £200k in 2003 so to allow access to schools data by 3rd party applications. Whether for fair competition or fair procurement Bromcom always fought for schools and better education for children. Here is the 2003 story: https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2003/may/09/schools.uk

OPEN COMPETITION Reward £1,000 by Bromcom We have been working through SIMS Report Generator facility, attempting to validate this extract method for schools choosing to migrate away from SIMS, and we have discovered further significant gaps in the data export, which will have a detrimental effect on the schools. Anyone solving the following will be rewarded £1,000 for benefiting all schools in UK desperate to get their data where their database are locked away in ESS hosted SIMS databases: The reporting engine is not able to export the SIMS ‘lookup’ tables - These are the tables of referenceable data or settings that are used across the MIS. One example of this could be a list of behaviour event types including their associated unique codes/IDs and descriptions. What we can generate is a list of behaviour events that have occurred within a period and try to extrapolate a list from that, but it’s not going to give us anything that hasn’t been used yet, or tell us when the school has deactivated them and so on. The only way schools can export these is via a ‘Print’ button from the SIMS interface. This can create a PDF containing a table but there’s no way of automating this. Certain fields not available in the reporting engine – As we are creating the reports based on how we want the data to be formatted rather than how we can extract it, there are times where it’s not possible to fulfil the scope. For example, in a lot of cases, we can only export the description field for something ratherthan the code name. For example, in a list of behaviour events for a student, we would be able to say ‘Bullying – Online’ but not the code of the event which might be something like ‘BUL-ONL’. This would create significantly more work for our development team, and sometimes means that it’s not possible to import at all, or would create potential import issues in specific situations. Legacy Module data is virtually non-existent – Where the Secondary data relies upon decades old legacy modules, the reporting engine generally only has limited access to report on the information. Exams and Timetabling are a good example of this. Although some information is available such as exam results, it’s not in the format required by our current import process. Private Eye: mis-selling in MIS market … https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ali-guryel-18892715_private-eye-school-mis-school-software-activity-7209279735497900032-IhdQ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

Here is an account of an experienced MAT user that has been on a full journey SIMS, Arbor and Bromcom … https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ali-guryel-18892715_were-thrilled-to-introduce-our-latest-feature-activity-7206764625571262464-SXSe?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

Another MAT switching from SIMS to Arbor and then Arbor to Bromcom. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ali-guryel-18892715_create-partnership-case-study-bromcom-activity-7171053498791366656-k0e8?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios "I can't tell you how brilliant our new MIS system is here.We have moved all in with Bromcom and it has blown me away. The system holds everything from attainment/attendance/behaviour - analysing everything"Chris Dyson Deputy CEO Create Trust For an in depth look at Create Partnership Trust's Bromcom journey, click the link below 👇https://okt.to/RKZ3q7

Please drop me a direct message and let’s see if we can help.

Let’s see if we can help here: Bromcom is a Technical Partner with ESS (originally with Capita) since 2003 when Bromcom forced upon Capita via OFT to give Voluntary Assurance. This provides Bromcom use of APIs and DLL. Hence in this case DLLs are useful for proper decryption. Hence we can confirm ESS reference to “ one of the competitors” is not Bromcom. Further more under ESS Technical Agreement, ESS provides Bromcom a licensed copy of SIMS SQL database and full application. This means Bromcom is already possession of SIMS SQL data base. Therefore ESS claiming that when schools handover a copy of backup of their SIMS SQL causes Bromcom being provided with ESS IP is false. In fact Bromcom instructing schools to use Microsoft Studio to strip out everything out of SIMS SQL backup copy other than the data. Hence distancing schools from handing over to Bromcom anything other than data which is totally schools’ property. Schools as data owner and controller, have all the right to handover their data for off boarding and as incumbent vendor ESS must cooperate and respect this. APIs: However the APIs refer to in context of migration are useless for following reasons: Scope of data items: Very limited Method: APIs designed for 3rd party bolt-ons and not for migration. Hence data items brought single entity rather than bulk. Hence incredibly inefficient even for electronic means. Technology: Dates back to Windows on- premise legacy and not lend themselves for cloud working Could not agree more. This is very sad specially in EdTech space where children education should be focus. However it is for these reasons that well over 50% of market (when you add Wales and Northern Ireland) is on non-cloud MİS in UK. At least Northern Ireland with 1,100 schools now has made the jump into cloud with Bromcom. Bromcom sees a very quick decision is very critical and hence whilst Bromcom has engaged fully with CMA, it is imperative that ESS threatening schools with a false statement at least in Bromcom case is halt and an Injunction through Hugh Coirt is the only swift route. As in the past Bromcom does not take legal actions lightly and always sees it va ery last resort. We believe, one should view any legal action in wider picture and longer term benefit for the education market when over 5 years market value of over £1 billion is considered. Bromcom: “… any legal action against SIMS schools, Bromcom will cover approved legal costs for these schools” We have full commitment to standby schools if any legal action is taken by ESS - please see : https://bromcom.com/news/support-for-sims-schools https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chrisjameskirk_mis-migrations-setting-the-story-straight-activity-7162469784255717376-pIoi?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios We hope the above helps.

🎄✨ As sponsor of Edugeek’s MIS Forum, wishing you a Merry Christmas from the Bromcom family! 🎅🎁 As the year comes to a close, we want to take a moment to express our gratitude for your continued support. May this festive season bring you joy, warmth, and moments of togetherness with your loved ones. Thank you for being a part of our journey. We look forward to another year of growth and success together