« previous 1 2 3 next »

Yes, minister

History suggests that Tom Watson, the Minister for Digital Engagement, has a fight on his hands. As far back as July 2002, Douglas Alexander, then the Cabinet Office minister of state, announced a levelling of the playing field for open source solutions. His ominously similar, to Watson's, declaration of policy pronounced that "this government is intent on securing the best value for money in its IT procurements by encouraging the development of a flourishing IT industry which supplies both proprietary and open source software [OSS] solutions to the public sector. Government procurement decisions will be based on the ability of the solutions to deliver effective and economic systems and services."

The less than fulsome response of the British civil service to Alexander's open source policy initiative was reflected in a November 2003 hearing of the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee on "Purchasing and Managing Software Licences", which heard evidence from the OGC (Office of Government Commerce) Chief Executive Peter Gershon, and the OGC buying solution chief executive, Hugh Barrett.

Labour MP Brian Jenkins asked: "Am I right to say that the minister announced ... the government's OSS policy in July of last year which sets up a level playing field for procuring such solutions?... You were charged with implementing that policy, yet that was in July 2002 and at the present time you are undertaking a study which is not reporting until 2004. Am I correct?" To which Gershon responded in classic Civil Service speak: "In September [15 months after the policy was announced] my office produced more detailed guidance to departments on the implementation of policy."

The authors of the policy document issued in Alexander's name evidently recognised the extent to which the software map is changing: "The software industry is very fast moving, and frequently throws up new developments that initially promise to make great changes in the marketplace, but which ultimately fail to live up to their initial press hype", they wrote. "OSS is indeed the start of a fundamental change in the software infrastructure marketplace, but it is not a hype bubble that will burst and UK government must take cognisance of that fact."

But incredibly Barrett, the 'buying solution chief executive' for OGC, told the Committee: "I thought I would investigate the use of Open Source software on my personal computer at home. I got a licence, free of charge, but after three hours of struggling to retrain myself from many years of using Microsoft, I abandoned it. On a sample of one, me personally, it was more cost effective to stay with Microsoft. Those arguments, when magnified across the whole public sector, may well sway the balance against the use of Open Source software."

Memorandums of misunderstanding

As it is, adoption of open source software in the public sector has too often relied on the initiative of enlightened individuals, working against civil service conservatism, without access to the otherworldy budgets of the higher echelons of the civil service. Software expertise is a comparatively rare commodity in the public sector, where outsourcing is the norm. This means employing approved suppliers, usually larger companies, and consultancy companies with vested interests in particular proprietary solutions.

By definition, free software has not had the marketing advantages of proprietary software, and this disadvantage has been compounded by the poor teaching of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in schools and further education establishments where ICT has become little more than a training programme for using Windows and Microsoft Office. The short sighted view says that moving to Linux or to OpenOffice.org on Windows requires retraining. The long term view recognises that retraining is also required for each new version of Microsoft Windows or Office, but too often the short term benefit is preferred to the long term view. In the case of the London Borough of Newham, the decision to go with Microsoft was swayed by a report that was commissioned and paid for by Microsoft.

Buried in the latest policy document from the CIO Council is the promise that "The Government will, wherever possible, avoid becoming locked in to proprietary software. In particular it will take exit, rebid and rebuild costs into account in procurement decisions and will require those proposing proprietary software to specify how exit would be achieved." This is an important clause that should be at the front of the consciousness of those responsible for procurement of software for government agencies.

Lock-in and the upgrade cycle result in the escalating costs that are the bane of the IT industry, forcing increased expenditure for smaller and smaller returns. Encouraging a diversity of software products is a responsibility of government, which means avoiding pandering to monopolies - and leads us to question the relationships that are established between the larger companies and the buying agencies.

Microsoft, for example, has been able to draw up Memorandums of Understanding (sic) which have committed education and health authorities to long term caveats and deals. Richard Steel's employer, the London Borough of Newham, for instance, has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Microsoft which states: "Through matching executives from Microsoft, it is expected that the MoU signatories would advocate the partnership to other Microsoft customers, elected members and other interested parties," which implies that the Borough of Newham is obliged to propound the case of Microsoft to elected officials and "other interested parties". According to The Inquirer Newham was expected "to ditch all 'competitive technologies' in favour of Microsoft and then present itself as a 'best practice' site in Microsoft promotions." This should not be a role expected of a body which exists to provide a public service.

Similarly, Becta signed an extension to its Memorandum of Understanding with Microsoft despite warning that Microsoft's licensing arrangements in the education sector pose "significant potential for institutions to find themselves locked in to Microsoft's subscription licensing agreements"... and "very significant complexity... that has resulted in widespread use of inappropriate licensing strategies."

Next: A matter of economics

« previous 1 2 3 next »