Bromcom-PR

OK - not being "browser" isn't the only reason why legacy thick client / client-server based applications (MIS) fail NIST Cloud definition. It is because unlike browser/back-end characteristics, legacy thick client / client-server based MIS application is design of 1990s/early 2000s for network of PC with a server and each PC dedicated for a client application demanding all PC resources with no notion of 'resource pooling' or elasticity'. There would have been no need for such characteristics in such environment where each PC serves one user. Therefore legacy thick client / client-server based MIS application have no ability to conform RESOURCE POOLING and RAPID ELASTICTY hence is 'FAKE CLOUD' - See below extract from NIST definition (did you see the video clip by @pwainewright? It is explained very elegantly but in a simple language - ). "Resource pooling. The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, and network bandwidth. Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be elastically provisioned and released, in some cases automatically, to scale rapidly outward and inward commensurate with demand. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be appropriated in any quantity at any time. "

@GREED, we are not disagreeing. In fact 'SIMS Hosting' service should not be under SaaS and it should be under PaaS. It is not likely that CloudStore Team will scrutinises if PaaS on offer is promoted/intended to be used for application software that may result in TRUE or FAKE Cloud.

Precisely! That's why 'terminal server/client-server based hosted solution' is called FAKE CLOUD - as per Phil Wainwright's video -

The software SIMS is 'not' on CloudStore. What is being offered on CloudStore is 'hosting' only! Admittedly it is easy to misread.

RemoteApp/Terminal Server style service and Government Cloud: It is very important to note that Government Cloud policy does not allow products that do not conform to NIST definition of the cloud (ie 'true cloud'). Legacy thick Windows/client-server applications hosted centrally fall under 'fake cloud' category. Please see bottom of page-3: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266214/government-cloud-strategy_0.pdf For a simple language explanation - please see Euro Cloud Vice President Phil Wainewright's video clip on True v Fake Cloud:

Our apology - didn't look close enough.

Thank you @matt40k Slight correction on the years - it wasn't 10 years ago, it was nearly 22 years ago back in 1992 when EARS - the big idea was invented! Also in 2002, we had an LA that "hosted" their schools electronic registration application and database remotely on their servers. This was a big idea too for its time. Since @GREED found it interesting history under general chat forum - I copied pasted the 'grey folders' history here for this forum too. Thank you @GREED. We only want to correct and qualify some of the comments made so far - as follows: Bromcom 'grey' folders were invented in 1992. It was covered in December 1992as invention in the Times new paper dedicating a half-page and was on BBC Tomorrow World's TV show in January 1993. Cost was £245 each, batteries lasted 6 months and transmission range was very similar to WiFi however speed much slower. Because packets sent/received were miniscule (say under 8Kbyte), with good wireless coverage a class list was downloaded within 1-2 minutes. We wouldn't be surprised if some will say it took longer than this but that is all to do with coverage of wireless network and make up of the building - just as one can have coverage difficulties with WiFi today. The 'grey folders' did evolve into: · QWERTY versions circa 1994 · A5 size circa 1996 · WiFi versions early 2000 · Finally touch colour screen with Microsoft Windows CE in circa 2005 'Software version' was known as “WinFolder” that run on any laptops and PCs as a 'client software'. This was a small an EXE (as today's 'apps' concept) and which only needed TCP/IP connection. "WinFolder was introduced late1990s, was very popular and was replaced with web version called “WebFolder”. WebFolder is still widely used today as a 'stand alone' product and also formed part of today’s Bromcom Cloud MIS. Anyone referencing ‘grey folder’ should also be referring to ‘DOS’ bases TEXT screen MIS software of 1990s to 2003/4 and in fact at that time contemporary and competing product ‘OMR’– yes paper based, Optical Mark Readers! I am sure some OMRs will be still in use. We hope the above is read as interesting history and not leveled at anyone.

MCAS? Not all will know what MCAS stand for. To be helpful to the forum readers, it stands for MyChildAtSchool.com - Bromcom's parent portal. To add to the above 'grey folders' history - MCAS was the very first parent portal (at least in the UK) launched in June 2000. It was covered by ITN and BBC News - BBC News | EDUCATION | Net access to pupils' records In the year 2000, MCAS was far ahead of the time. What we didn't realise that vast majority schools signed up for MCAS would tell us " Yes, we have an Internet connection' - only to find out that they had only dial up modem. Those days, the best one would hope was to have an ISDN line.

Thank you @GREED. We only want to correct, qualify some of the comments made so far - as follows: Bromcom 'grey' folders were invented in 1992. It was covered in December 1992as invention in the Times new paper dedicating a half-page and was on BBC Tomorrow World's TV show in January 1993. Cost was £245 each, batteries lasted 6 months and transmission range was very similar to WiFi however speed much slower. Because packets sent/received were miniscule (say under 8Kbyte), with good wireless coverage a class list was downloaded within 1-2 minutes. We wouldn't be surprised if some will say it took longer than this but that is all to do with coverage of wireless network and make up of the building - just as one can have coverage difficulties with WiFi today. The 'grey folders' did evolve into: · QWERTY versions circa 1994 · A5 size circa 1996 · WiFi versions early 2000 · Finally touch colour screen with Microsoft Windows CE in circa 2005 'Software version' was known as “WinFolder” that run on any laptops and PCs as a 'client software'. This was a small an EXE (as today's 'apps' concept) and which only needed TCP/IP connection. "WinFolder was introduced late1990s, was very popular and was replaced with web version called “WebFolder”. WebFolder is still widely used today as a 'stand alone' product and also formed part of today’s Bromcom Cloud MIS. Anyone referencing ‘grey folder’ should also be referring to ‘DOS’ bases TEXT screen MIS software of 1990s to 2003/4 and in fact at that time contemporary and competing product ‘OMR’– yes paper based, Optical Mark Readers! I am sure some OMRs will be still in use. We hope the above is read as interesting history and not leveled at anyone.

Hi Banjo, We fully agree with you and hence we proposed in the thread along the lines: "An independent survey should be carried out and establish what will motivate LAs to come out to tender. Is it saving, sea change in technology, usability etc.. Such survey will assist the market to understand whether it is something suppliers needs to do, DfE or any other body. It is extraordinary that after Becta Report 2010 and now OFT Market Survey 2014, LAs will defy the EU/UK Procurement Laws and resist tendering. The market has to listen to LAs and together move forward for the good of children education where School MIS is identified as critical mission component in managing this most effectively. Bromcom-PR is happy to contribute whatever reasonable for this LA-Survey to happen and we hope other MIS suppliers will do the same." May be you could throw in some ideas here yourself - so what will motivate LAs to come out to tender?

Hi @GREED It is best that we drop you a PM/note on this.

The last circular that we are aware is of September 2012 and it is as follows: 27 September 2012 School management information systems procurement Mike Beasley - Schools ICT Support Team, FCG Commercial Group The Department would like to respectfully remind schools and local authorities that they may need to consider undertaking a Management Information System procurement soon if they are to complete the purchase within the time allowed under their current contract renewal decision clause. The majority of customers will have to complete the procurement by the end of December 2012 to stop the "roll over clauses" in their contracts being enacted, locking them to their current supplier for the following year. It has been highlighted that a high proportion of customers presently have contracts which may not be legal and are therefore open to the prospect of a legal challenge if they do not run a full and fair competition. Schools and local authorities are encouraged to check their contracts to ensure they do not unwittingly fall foul of the contract regulations. If you are a school that is considering becoming an academy, you are also advised to review your local authority’s contract, as a number of contracts have transfer restrictions that can leave schools facing large cash sums to find for transferring the contract to the new academy, even if it is with the same supplier. There are also potentially large cost savings indicated for procurements through the Framework, of up to 75%. Further information can be found here or guidance can be sought from [email protected].

A good starting point for the project LA-Survey. When you think about it, DfE itself should have carried out such survey a long time before now!

@GREED we need volunteers / heroes like you in this market if we will make itwork. Amazingly even Becta Report 2010 then IMLS Framework didn't break the mold!Next test is OFT Market Study 2014. I have following proposal for @GREED. Whilst MIS Challenge is an interesting concept, suppliers are overloaded with individualschools seeking tenders and some LAs formal RFI (Request For Information - beforetendering). With seasonal peak period for such activities resource will be farstretched at present time. Even more important as OFT found out the biggestproblem of the market is identified as below extracts. We believe we need tocrack the main problem before MIS Challenge can work. In this thread "naming and shaming" and then legislationwere mentioned. We believe there is nothing better than to listen to theLAs themselves and hear from the horse’s mouth. Hence the proposal below. Background: OFT Market Study 2014 - Annexe (extracts): B72 Thereappears to be a low levelof tendering activity by LAs (see paragraphs B120 toB135). From 2005 to 2010,Becta found that only 18 formal competitions for MIS products and services werelaunched (compared to the 152 relevant LAs it identified).The Becta report alsofound about 50 percent of the LAs who purchased support and maintenance fromtheir supplier purchased the original licence over 10 years ago. B120 As noted at paragraphs B91 andB92, one of the main concerns raised by suppliers in relation to barriers toentry and exit concerned the frequency with which LAs and schools undertookprocurement, the procedures followed and the use of procurement frameworks. In2010, Becta reported on the legal obligations surrounding the purchase of MIS.It noted that there was a lack of understanding from a LA perspective as towhat LAs should be doing with regards to testing the market and expressedconcern about the low level of procurement that is conducted by LAs in relationto MIS products and services. We have noted in paragraph B72 that there havebeen a small number of tenders and this was also mentioned by some suppliers wespoke to. One supplier said there were only two or three tenders in 2013. Wenote that Becta's 2010 report found that' the introduction into UK law of theRemedies Directive in December 2009 makes it much easier for suppliers tochallenge contract awards and makes the implications of successful challengesmore wide ranging'.153 We were told that some suppliers felt it necessary totake or threaten legal action where suppliers felt procurement wasnon-compliant. B135 Overall, it is clear that LAs and schools are not tendering for MIS asfrequently as procurement rules would suggest they should, and may not becompliant with EU procurement law. It is also clear that the IMLS Framework hasnot achieved its aim, partly due to LAs and schools not using it for variousreasons, but also due to the reluctance of some suppliers. What is the proposal – LA Challenge: Someone independent (like @GREED) should carry out a survey and establish whatwill motivate LAs to come out to tender. Is it saving, seachange technology, usability etc.. Such survey will assist the market to understandwhether it is something suppliers needs to do, DfE or any other body. It isextraordinary that after Becta Report 2010 and now OFT Market Survey 2014, LAswill defy the EU/UK Procurement Laws and resist tendering. The market has tolisten to LAs and together move forward for the good of children educationwhere School MIS is identified as critical mission component in managing this mosteffectively. Bromcom-PR is happy to contribute whatever reasonable for this LA-Survey tohappen and we hope other MIS suppliers will do the same.

Please maintain contact with our Helpdesk with any further assistance you may need and good luck with your launch today. Many thanks to @burgermaster for the help provided over the weekend.

Hi @burgemaster, Reponse from our technical sources is as below, please let us know how you get on: RSClientPrint.msi can be downloaded via: http://support.bromcom.com/UploadedFiles/RSClientPrint.msi Or CAB files can be downloaded via for manual distribution of DLL and RLL files: · 64-bit: http://support.bromcom.com/UploadedFiles/RSClientPrint-x64.cab · 32-bit: http://support.bromcom.com/UploadedFiles/RSClientPrint-x86.cab Instructions are below: 12 : Reporting Services Client Print Installation via CAB Files The information in this article applies to: All DESCRIPTION Due to access rights on clients machines client print control cannot be installed by users. This can be done via files distribution of CAB Files. Bromcom MIS Reports are delivered using Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services, a component of Microsoft SQL Server.Reporting Services displays reports to users in a web browser. In order to print reporting services reports to a client-connectedprinter, Reporting Services uses a small ActiveX component known as RSClientPrint. Upon first attempt to use the client printfunction (or first attempt after installing a Reporting Services update such as an SQL Server service pack), IE will prompt the userto download and install the ActiveX control.The ActiveX control may be manually pre-deployed to client machines. This is desirable: 1. To save users having to accept the ActiveX installation prompts; or 2. If Internet Explorer security settings are such that the installation of the ActiveX control would not be permitted. 3. The installation via the 'yellow bar' prompt in Internet Explorer has failed on a previous occasion.The ActiveX control files are in RSClientPrint.cab, this can be downloaded via Downloads section of Support Site.The cab file contains the following which should be copied to the c:\windows\Downloaded Program Files folder on the clientmachine: NOTE: Default Windows system permissions may mask the files in this directory. Copying the files into the folder via a commandline should make it clear that the files have actually been copied.gdiplus.dllrsclientprint.dllRSClientPrint_1028.rllRSClientPrint_1031.rllRSClientPrint_1033.rllRSClientPrint_1036.rll RSClientPrint_1040.rll RSClientPrint_1041.rllRSClientPrint_1042.rllRSClientPrint_1043.rllRSClientPrint_1046.rllRSClientPrint_1049.rllRSClientPrint_1053.rllRSClientPrint_2052.rllRSClientPrint_3082.rllOnce these files have been installed, RSClientPrint.dll needs to be registered: regsvr32.exe "C:\Windows\DownloadedProgram Files\RSClientPrint.dll" If writing a batch file to automate this process it may be necessary to force the installation and registration of files above to rununder a separate account with administrative privileges. The following batch file may be used as a guide: @echo off@Rem Skip if already installed (might not work if attempting to upgrade an older version!)if exist "c:\Windows\Downloaded Program Files\gdiplus.dll" goto endd@Rem Specify source directory (copy of files from cab file)set srcpath=\\eee-server\files@Rem Install Files%srcpath%\psexec.exe /accepteula -u administrator -p my-password cmd.exe /c xcopy %srcpath%\rsclient\* "c:\Windows\Downloaded Program Files" /y@Rem Register A DDITIONA L Keywords Last Updated 29/03/2014 11:33:00

Please contact our Helpdesk Monday morning for assistance. We will also post any relevant information in this thread as well. Thanks to other forum members for their helpful input.i hope the workaround suggested by @psydii works for you for the time being.

We are assuming LAs also have EduGeek forum members and would have interest in this important Market Study by OFT into school MIS sector. We can all pretend there is nothing wrong or there nothing to discuss or can do when clearly there is. School MIS market has been singled out of handful markets considered to be urgent need of investigation. This must say something! The OFT Report and also Annexe B: has very relevant and helpful information likely causes of issues that raising concerns for OFT and hence recommending investigation by CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) as a priority. Sell off by one large supplier and exit by another two major players (one UK based and other US) within space of 15 months must raise alarm bells! Suppliers are key stake holders in the market place and have invariable a pivotal role for serving the schools and local authorities. Coming from a supplier whilst it must sound like whinging, on the contrary we want to be constructive and try to address the market problems together. We hope LA forum members can say how suppliers can help to cure some of the market problems and how they see the market issues from their perspective.

We are not disputing that companies on RM713 Framework would have competed to get on it. However RM713 would have been publicised not for 'school MIS' but as a generic supplies to public sector and absolutely no school MIS requirements to speak of. Whilst there is specific Framework such as RM1500, no school MIS supplier would have applied. LA's have duty to get best value for money by competitive and open tendering and securing as many bidders as possible to provide the true competition. By choosing RM713 LA invariable has one MIS supplier - this is a 'single horse race' - and hardly a competition. We have an e-mail confirmation from Crown Commercial Services as follows (happy to provide a copy to anyone - please PM us): [1] RM1500 is the most appropriateroute to take for local authorities going to tender for school MIS software andmore appropriate than RM713. RM1500 is designed for use by local authoritiestendering for school MIS [2] It is incorrect to say thatRM1500 is designed for use by individual schools and academies [3] You and/or the Crown Commercial Service Help Desk are available to give advice on this matter

Is the BECTA report a LEGAL requirement? or Informed Advice? Many misunderstood when Becta Report 2010 pointed out. Yes, Becta Report 2010 itself is not directive. It provides guidance how to stay legally compliant to EU/UK Laws in relation to MIS Procurement by LAs (and schools/academies). IMLS ... tested the company more than the product IMLS is a Framework and takes out PQQ stage of full OJEU tender process. LAs (or others) can conduct their 'mini tender' where they can be specific about their own requirements and test the offering to their heart content. IMLS can be completed within weeks where full OJEU will take months and costs in excess of £100k! RM713 This is clearly no true competition. Only one MIS supplier will bid! GPS (CCS) are fuming about this and very unhappy that LAs are using it instead of IMLS1500. VEAT We can confirm that an LA considered this route but back down as soon as legal arguments emerged. It is definitely legally unsafe territory! Anyone wants more details please PM us. Fake cloud using client-server software as SoSaaS ie "Same old Software as a Service" Yes, agree with assertion that "Side by side and matching up on all levels, then yes true cloud should win." except as follows. Suitability for cloud should be viewed as an important characteristics of the MIS offering within Quality Weighting as a Sub Criteria quality along side other key aspects eg in red below. The buyer should allocate sufficiently weighting to justify importance of cloud accordingly. Quality Weightingsand Quality Sub Criteria and Weightings [TABLE=class: MsoNormalTable, width: 418] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Quality [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Cost effectiveness [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Technical merit for true cloud [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Technical assistance [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]After sales service [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Price [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Aesthetic and functional characteristics [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Running costs [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Environmental characteristics [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Delivery date and delivery period [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 256, bgcolor: transparent]Period of completion [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] .

Detailed on Page 5 - more of the same - use IMLS 1500 and/or suppliers on it: 5.1 ICT provision The Department for Education has a number of its own ICT contracts and frameworks in place that have been constructed and tested to the specific needs of Academies and contain: • suppliers with knowledge and experience of delivering educational solutions • suppliers who have been evaluated via an EU compliant competition process • quality assured suppliers that have been subjected to technical / quality evaluation and testing process • suppliers who have signed up to a comprehensive set of pre-determined contractual terms and conditions (limiting risk exposure to customers) • suppliers that are subject to contract and performance management and reporting • access to specialist advice as well as tender templates and model contracts. ICT Services – is a department framework, that is free to use, which enables the purchase of most categories of ICT. This is being used extensively within the Academies community with over £100m already committed through it and has become the default procurement mechanism for the Free Schools ICT capital programme. A specific ‘Lite’ version of this Framework’s terms and conditions is available for single school or Academy use. Information Management and Learning Services (IMLS) – is a Government Procurement Service (GPS) framework placed on behalf of the Department and specifically covers educational management information systems and learning platforms.

But how do you ensure the process is fair and all suppliers have opportunity to engage? A very good question @GREED. Probably it is easier to explain in a list of do's and don'ts as below: 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 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) LAs should be output driven with their technical requirements and not prescriptive - part of good procurement practice 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. 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. LAs should not use obscure procurement framework eg RM713 where only one MIS supplier exists - (more details are available on real life cases) LAs should not apply VEAT notice to sign up for software maintenance contracts - (more details are available on real life cases) 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) I hope the above helps to answer @GREED's question.

Adult like: We do not mean badly - but this is very serious market-wide issue hence being taken up by OFT and likely to be followed by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Therefore should be discussed without taking defensive position by reading the subject matter as an attack on to a specific company and product. In our recent thread on cloud topic, the subject matter was kept taken from technology discussions into product comparisons and companies. We even invited a globally renowned cloud specialist to participate on the forum. Yet in the end the thread ended up with T-Shirts being promoted! They want to say something is wrong without actually saying something is wrong, or naming any names: Surely what is wrong is clearly stated - "LAs not tendering for school MIS" and "anti-competitive behaviour". However such Market Study will not name parties. It will be down to CMA to do so in the next stage. Yes we agree that red tape should not be introduced around cloud. That will be a bad outcome!

Let's hope we can enjoy an 'adult like' discussion on very important aspect of school MIS market. Indeed the Market Study is across public sectors. However school MIS is recognized as one of extreme cases and the study makes plenty references to school MIS, Local Authority procurement (LA) practices and questions anti-competitive behavior of incumbent dominant supplier. After DfE and Becta Report 2010, this is central goverment taking keen interest in school MIS market and buyers and suppliers behavior and address issue of non-compliance to EU/UK procurement laws by LAs and anti-competitive practices by dominant supplier. OFT invited Bromcom for a lengthy meeting earlier on during their investigations with the full team working on the Market Study and appears to have taken onboard input provided. We understand at least one other supplier also has been contacted and asked for input over a telephone conference. For good of the school MIS market/suppliers and of course for the children education, the market needs to work. OFT report clearly saying that it is working and hence key recommendation speak for itself: "This is an important sector of the economy and the CMA should give careful consideration to prioritising an investigation into any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour"

After Becta Report 2010, this is new Market Study published today by OFT that also covers school MIS in substantial way. Very notable references to suppliers and local authorities procurement practices: Key recommendation: "This is an important sector of the economy and the CMA should give careful consideration to prioritising an investigation into any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour" (CMA = Competition and Markets Authority) http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/market-studies/OFT1533.pdf Supply of information and communications technology to the public sector - The Office of Fair Trading Previous OFT investigation into school MIS market: See page 12: http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/ca98_case_closures/2003.pdf;jsessionid=B3B9AF043F37824FEC043C8ED5A72EB1