"Disgust at your lack of critical analysis"..."Cost the
taxpayer millions"..."This fiasco should cost you your job"..."Made
yourself a laughing stock"..."Borderline illegal
activities"..."Bribe takers".
The launch, last week, of Newham's partnership with Microsoft has
certainly added to the size of my in-box.
My job and that of my colleagues in Newham ICT is to deliver the
best possible IT infrastructure and services for Newham Council and
the people it serves, and I am proud of our successes over the
years and the reputation for innovation and performance that we
have earned.
Our job is not to be defenders or advocates for Microsoft, but we
reserve our right to acknowledge its customer service improvements
where we see them, as we do with any other supplier. Nor is it our
job to champion the fight against the "evil Microsoft empire". If
there are better, practical and cost-effective alternatives to
Microsoft products that we can readily integrate, we use
them.
So let's be clear: in our partnership with Microsoft, we are
committing to a "why not Microsoft?" approach. This means exactly
what it says. If other products represent better value for Newham,
that is reason to not buy Microsoft. Microsoft not only understands
and accepts this, but welcomes the challenge to ensure its
offerings remain competitive.
Questions of accuracy
Understandably, there has been a great deal of interest in the cost
comparisons that were developed through the Capgemini study funded
by Microsoft. I have some reservations of my own concerning some of
the details - not because I think they have been fiddled, but
because the Gartner model on which Capgemini based its assessment
predicts a greater demand for IT resources in than we actually
experience.
That is why one of the commitments in Newham's partnership with
Microsoft is to develop robust benchmarking.
We have set a target of maintaining Newham in the upper quartile
for price-performance among local authorities. What's more, we will
regularly report back concerning this and other aspects of progress
in our partnership.
I can appreciate the cynicism about an "independent" study paid for
by Microsoft. As far as I am concerned, the Capgemini consultants
disported themselves in a professional manner and did operate
independently. However, we were determined to rigorously challenge
the status quo, and had already appointed our own consultants, from
Netproject, who we knew to be pro-open source.
Netproject produced a very professional piece of work, with many of
its conclusions quite similar to Capgemini's, although,
unsurprisingly, quite different recommendations ensued.
We are satisfied that the process we initiated equipped us to reach
a well-informed decision about the future IT infrastructure
strategy for Newham - and this was possibly the most exhaustive
test of Microsoft software procurement in the UK to date.
Negotiating position
We have been accused of using Netproject to improve our negotiating
position with Microsoft. That is untrue. At the outset of this
process, if pressed, my prediction was that a big-bang approach
would be unrealistic, but Newham would set a course that committed
us to developing a strategy built around products based-on open
source.
If Newham has influenced Microsoft's change of stance towards the
UK public sector, then I am pleased, but I think the changes have
been largely coincidental. Microsoft was already realising that it
had to adapt to a fast-changing market - and it has adapted.
The Microsoft I see now is quite different to the "PC software
supplier" I knew 18 months ago. It is no longer about selling bells
and whistles to end-users, but is much more focused on helping us
to develop throughout the enterprise. It has developed a new focus
on the public sector and brought in people that understand us and
can speak our language.
Microsoft now seems to be an organisation that is prepared to
listen to us, is aware of its imperfections, and is striving to
improve. For that, if for nothing else, it deserves credit.
For the sake of my battered ego, and having been accused of
denigrating the open source community - which I absolutely deny - I
hope I may be forgiven for wishing some of its members, the
minority, would not so readily sink into name-calling and
immoderate language.
Richard Steel is head of ICT at Newham Council
Newham Council IT leaders face backlash for choosing Microsoft over
open source>>
Microsoft security: the big question>>