UK Goverment IT Chief Backs Open Source Suppliers

Blacklaw writes "The UK government's deputy Chief Information Officer has outlined plans to hand public sector IT contracts over to small businesses and suppliers of open-source and cloud-based solutions in an attempt to balance the books. Speaking at the 360IT conference in London on Wednesday, Bill McCluggage also promised greater transparency over IT procurement, with tenders and contracts published online. Outlining a commitment to 'simplify, standardize and automate', McCluggage said the government would make it easier for open-source suppliers to compete for contracts, making the public sector less reliant on individual suppliers, or locked into proprietary systems."

Comments

For the first time!

[cappp]

My interest is somewhat moderated by a distinct feeling of deja'vu - almost as if the last administration made similar claims that apparantly went nowhere? Lets see....

The UK Government has announced that it will consider open-source software on an equal footing with proprietary commercial software when awarding multi-million-pound IT contracts.

In a paper issued on Tuesday, Tom Watson, the Minister for Digital Engagement, said: “Open Source has been one of the most significant cultural developments in IT and beyond over the last two decades: it has shown that individuals, working together over the Internet, can create products that rival and sometimes beat those of giant corporations.”

And the date on that? February 25, 2009.

Re:For the first time!

[dangitman]

The UK Government has announced that it will consider open-source software on an equal footing with proprietary commercial software when awarding multi-million-pound IT contracts.

Why wouldn't you consider Open Source on equal footing with commercial software by default? It seems like a redundant statement.

They very well might have been considering Open Source as an option since that announcement - the question is whether Open Source has ever actually made the the grade and been accepted as a better solution.

Re:For the first time!

[julesh]

Yes. The news here is (1) the reduction in multi-million-pound contracts in favour of more, smaller contracts. This means that the bidders themselves can be smaller (UK government tenders have, in the past, often had existing turnover requirements that mean most IT consultancies can't bid on them, leaving the field open to just a few large specialist companies, with most contracts apparently going to Capita), and (2) an apparent _preference_ for open-source solutions, rather than just (as the last government did) a requirement to evaluate open-source solutions as well as closed-source ones.

Wonder how long he'll last

[SplashMyBandit]

Usually courageous people like that get removed from office pretty quick. Also, his proprietary software opponents (vendors) will probably be very quick to pounce on any delays or missteps while systems transition to Open Source (while delays in proprietary software projects are quietly swept under the carpet due to 'commercial sensitivity'). I hope this guys pulls it off and levels the playing field - which should also save a lot of taxpayer pounds/dollars

Re:Wonder how long he'll last

[Linker3000]

"Ah, but Minister, it works like this... Open source products cost zero to procure. Admittedly there are the associated installation and support costs, but that holds true for commercial products, so let's take the installation and support costs out of the equation. This leaves the cost of acquisition, which, as I said, for Open Source products is zero. Now, consider a commercial software alternative that would cost, say £15 million to acquire, yet we negotiate the price down to £10 million, so we can rightly say that we have saved the taxpayer £5 million - an not inconsiderable sum - but look at the Open Source alternative; it costs zero to acquire so there is zero that can be saved by negotiation - nothing - so what is better for the taxpayer: something on which we can save zero, or something for which we can negotiate a £5m discount? Basic maths and economics, Minister. "

Wrong target

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Whether it's open source or closed source isn't the most important thing. Whether it's run locally or in the cloud doesn't make that much difference.

What really matters is whether the data is readily accessible in a known format. If you can get your data in some sane way that is independent of your current software, then you are in control. If you cannot, then you are not in control.

Of course, going OSS and going cloud-based each have their pros and cons as well, but IMHO they are secondary to controlling the data. For example, while OSS theoretically implies being able to access your data in a known format, I would still rather use a closed source solution with a cleaner known data format than an OSS solution where the code that manipulates the file format is difficult to understand and the format itself is more awkward.

End of Microsoft agreements..

[malkavian]

This seems to come hot on the heels of the end of the Microsoft licensing deal with the NHS.
One of the side effects of the "Age of Austerity" is that the Government really doesn't have the money to throw around anymore. Real savings are having to be made in the Public Sector.
A simple choice is: Do we really get sufficient added value from having all the pretty functionality from the Microsoft Office suite, or do we really just need the basics (i.e. from Open Office, which is being used in Bristol City Council to a large extent) to create documents which can be stored. They may not look quite as slick, but they do the job nicely at a fraction of the cost (including support).
As Open alternatives start to be used, companies are increasingly finding that the myth of "there are no readily available skillsets in them, unlike Microsoft applications" really is a myth, and that there are a good many highly skilled people available at prices largely in line with the Microsoft setup, but often with a broader skillset behind that. It just seems to be that this is filtering into the view of Government now..
I'll be watching this one with interest; when used correctly, Open Source can be a huge cost saver. It's not the panacea for all ills, but when used as the right tool for the right job, everything works far better.

Re:Lets hope this brings an end ...

[TheRaven64]

Campaign funds in the UK are capped, and none of the candidates from the major parties has any trouble reaching this cap - they don't need contributions from HP, and all other gifts must be declared on the Register of Members' Interests. We don't have the same system of institutionalised bribery as the USA. The closest thing that we get is Ministers being offered directorships once they leave government in exchange for services rendered while there, but this only really works for bribing the people at the top. The other 400 or so MPs don't tend to get offered this kind of thing.

The UK has a lot of small IT businesses, while HP has just reduced its UK workforce by around 2,000 and generally uses non-UK workers for these contracts. Employing British people to work on government projects makes financial sense for the government (they will be paying taxes and buying things in the UK), and is likely to be a vote winner.

Re:clouds in a bottle

[TheRaven64]

That depends on the cloud. For government IT, it might make sense to have a few large government-run datacentres that individual departments could buy time on, rather than having each project build its own separate infrastructure. The data and software would still be in the cloud, but the cloud would be in a bottle.