UK Government Spending £6,000 Per Computer Every Year To Maintain Desktops
girlmad writes "The UK government's chief operating officer Stephen Kelly offered a frightening insight into the world of government IT spending this week. According to Kelly, the government spends £6,000 per year per PC just to maintain the devices, and wastes 3 days per year per person due to slow boot-up times."
What exactly is "maintaining"? I've spent nothing on "Maintaining" my PC for some six years. And you can buy four PC's for that fee. And you can get a techie at $20 an hour for five hours a month every other month, so call it $500 per year. (Skipping currency games.)
So can we all have a piece of that slush fund?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
So if we make a day equal to a full work day, 8 hours, and there are 240 work days per year (48 weeks) then that would be 6 minutes of boot time per computer.
How did they come up with their statistic?
-
What comprises maintenance? I'm curious if this includes hardware/software purchase costs and IT salaries. How is "slow boot up time" quantified? The devil is in the details.
Why don't you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number...and make that a little louder?
I believe the writer of the article does not consider enterprise items like geo-redundant infrastructure, storage, backup, auditing compliance and enterprise level servers. The majority of the cost is probably generated by slow IT processes to change, acquire and deploy software or features. A lot of meetings and paperwork is often needed and those people need to be paid also. A lot of large organizations do not know the meaning of the word "agile".
offered a frightening insight into the world of government IT spending this week.
Is there some reason he thinks government employees waste any more time dicking around with computers than private sector computers do?
Also, whenever people start screeching about how much computers are costing us, stop to think how much it would cost us to go back to doing things the way we did 50 years ago. Want to run a government agency or a megacorporation with typewriters and filing cabinets?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Whoa, so I like talked to this guy and he was all like "Dude, I bet the UK spends like 6k pounds per desktop." And I was all like "Whoa, that number is so fucking high, man. How did you figure that out?" And he was all like "Dude, you just had to be there." And then I was like "Whoa, you could buy like so many fucking iPads with that money." And he was all like "Dude, sooo fucking many." And then I wrote this article about it.
The right man for the job? https://www.gov.uk/government/people/stephen-kelly--2
I had to comment to say that I work in the UK public sector and this is so far from the truth it's amazing. It's complete crap. I'm sure someone wanting to make a point about waste could find a department somewhere in the country which made some bad decisions and got locked into an expensive contract but the general picture is that public service IT teams are under huge pressure to reduce costs. I suspect this £6000 figure is about ten times what we spend over the thousand-odd desktops in our offices.
But let's not forget that in the UK at the moment, we have both a government with an interest in painting public sector organisations as slow, lazy and wasteful in order to lay the foundations of their plans to privatise it (i.e. sell it to their old etonian school chums). We also have a press which is more than happy to press home the same idea. Why let actual facts get in the way of that?
When I worked as a SysAdmin (on to an IT Manager) at a Healthcare system, I inherited a PC system spanning 16 counties, 300 machines all running various iterations of Windows on a mixture of new and incredibly aging machines. We spent so much time and wasted so much money on supporting some of these machines in the remote sites that I eventually got fed up and made a PXE booted custom mini-Linux distro (I dubbed it Spork Linux because it was so damned handy) that included basic web browsing, rdesktop (rdp client), citrix client, helpdesk access and a few misc tools and just setup a central Windows terminal server. This gave us better control over what people were accessing and where, removed licenses for apps that some people really didn't need.. (c'mon.. how many people really needed Microsoft Office suite? So.. we set OpenOffice and made them think some of them had MS Office.. LOL) and helped us "recycle/reuse" some old machines that now acted simply as dumb terminals but booted up in about 5-20 seconds since all that extra bloat wasn't there anymore. After all that license reclaiming and monitoring how much we spent on travel, repairs, etc.. we saved over 75,000$/year easily. It's definitely not that impressive but when you considering that's for a small org covering the geographic distance of a US state.. that's decent enough.. those numbers from the UK government don't surprise me all that much in comparison considering how many machines/people/locations they'd have to support. It's wasteful and awful, but unless someone changes it.. and for the better, they are going to hemorrhage money.
Question Reality, Find Your Own Truth...
Your incompetence and inefficiency astounds me! You are true disciples of the bureaucratic side.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This article is simple FUD.
You have to remember that we have a government in the UK who have an interest in misrepresenting public sector organisations as slow, wasteful, lazy and out of date because they want to sell the work they do off to their old-etonian friends to make huge profits from. We also have a press who are (mostly) happy to help them spread this crap.
The department I work in probably spends a tenth of that on it's somewhere around 1000 desktops.
What does this £6,000 cover? Network services and wages to support all these machines? £6,000/user/year for IT isn't that unreasonable for a very large organization that has to handle sensitive data, maintain strict access controls and comply with a lot of legal requirements on document storage. People would be upset if the government claimed to have lost important emails due to a HDD failure.
A 7 minute boot time doesn't equate to three days a year lost either, especially since few people fully shut their machines down and few people stand there staring at the screen waiting for it to boot.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
- Hello IT
- (Inaudible)
- Have you tried to turn it off and on again?
Windows CALs, Exchange CALs, Sharepoint CALs, license servers, license compliance checks, purchase depreciation and administration.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised just the Microsoft CALs came to over a grand on their own.
Remember, it takes many more admins to admin a windows network, and because of the BRAINFUCK way windows "works", you "need" AD to do what UNIX have done for decades to allow roaming users.
One admin doesn't scale to thousands of users, not even really for UNIX, but a Windows admin doesn't scale to hundreds and has problems scaling beyond dozens of desktops.
So your "large number of PCs" is only as many as your admin can administer on his own.
That's not relatively large.
Those particular costs are shared among a relatively large number of PC's however.
The title actually says in it:
" £6,000 per year per desktop".
A few gems:
“I came into the office and I pressed my PC and it took me seven minutes to boot up,” he told attendees. “That’s government in the old world, that’s three days of the year I waste of my time booting up."
Urm, just gonna sit there and watch it boot, eh Steve? Go grab a coffee, make some calls...whatever.
"You wouldn't believe how much (it costs), I think the average cost of a desktop a year is about £6,000"
So he "thinks" a "desktop" costs that....I wonder what the definition of "desktop" is? The PC, the PC & support? The PC, support & s/w? etc...
The Fine Jounalist challenges the £6K figure.
"According to my estimations – verified by a CIO – this figure should be less than £1,000 per year taking into account the cost of the hardware, office suite, and support and server costs over a three-year period"
Seems more reasonable, but does not say it's a like-for-like comparison. Support costs for Govt. PC may include additional security, network and application maintenance, which for Govt crapware can be insanely costly.
Could only find one other article here, but really just the same information...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10097514/State-workers-spend-three-days-a-year-waiting-for-PCs-to-start.html
- No. It's a heart-lung machine that's currently in use. I did not turn it off. - No. I run Fedora. - No. I can't find the switch.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
The original study seems to be using PCs as a quick way of counting the users that they support. Many computer intensive organizations spend GBP 6000 per person per year in - here's the catch - total IT costs. Government administration is probably typical here, and GBP 6000 is not at all unreasonable.
The author of this article quickly points out that she can buy 22 iPads for that price. That's great, but it doesn't pay her website, server, ERP system or the people to run it all. Her CIO friend who thinks a spend of GBP 1000 (EUR 1500) per person per year was either answering a different question, or is clueless.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
...UK Police computers are absolutely shocking.
What the public think we've got https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX_i2vhnVKQ
What we aspire to have https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSJDIGiepgU
I really wish it wasn't true :(
I've worked for government in the Netherlands and I know how much a government desk top PC costs there. The Dutch government isn't as efficient as they can be with these, but 6000 UK pounds is still a lot more than the governmental institute I was working for was spending on their office IT infrastructure, per seat. If you would count in not just the Windows desktops but the Linux desktops they had there as well, you'd be looking at another 30% saving per seat, over the 2 platforms combined. The article may not be looking at "hidden costs" as much as they should, but even if you do, it's way too expensive.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
As they don't provide any information how they arrived at the £6000 figure going to assume they did it the lazy mans way:
Total IT Costs/PCs = cost per desktop
While i have no doubt the government overpays (actually worked the sector and seen some of the prices they pay, just makes me want to cry because of the sheer stupidty) anyone with half a brain knows calculating costs that way is not only pointless but downright unhelpful
Slow boot up times?? Not in my house!
It'll be impossible to take in-house, because doing the work in house would be "anti competitive", and "socialist".
The golf club set feel entitled to help themselves to taxpayer funds, and -- like the fool who steps between the pigs and their swill -- God help you if you dare to challenge you, because you will get mauled by their lobbyists, PR and paid shills.
As laptops are much easier to "misplace", there are a couple of policies that virtually every government department (and big business, for that matter) requires are in place if the unit might get even the slightest sniff of sensitive information.
1 - Hard drive encryption must be in play before the OS boots.
2 - Laptops must be fully powered off when in transit to ensure the hard drive encryption is fully engaged and no residual data is available in RAM.
When I worked for the NHS, the encryption software alone doubled the boot time of every laptop it was installed on. When you start to take into account the sheer weight of software installed on even desktop computers - remote access tools, network access control layers, auditing and management systems - and consider that this isn't your usual pre-installed system bloatware but packages custom-built by highly-paid consultants, monitored and maintained across thousands of sites by teams of technicians, not to mention the other standard software packages (Office, Citrix, developed applications, etc), the hardware itself suddenly becomes a tiny part of the TCO. Depending on how you calculate that (include/exclude network infrastructure/bandwidth/server costs? Divide the whole IT budget by the number of people at your desks?) I could easily see that figure being inflated to £6k if that's what the weasel wants to see.
They could start by making some changes that cost nothing and would reduce their boot times. Most critical of all is the need to use an enterprise management tool (Altiris etc.) to run the fleet and automate maintenance. This alone combined with a competent staff and policies that allow them to use best practices should drop maintenance costs by 75% within a year.
For an immediate free impact you can start by stopping the scheduling everything to run overnight! This doesn't work when combined with shutting down PC's. The net result is that as soon as you turn the computer on it immediately starts processing 'overdue' jobs. Your now combining boot up, establishing connections, software distribution, patching, antivirus scans, inventory scans with the time of day the user most pays attention to their computer - first thing in the morning.
This problem is readily fixed at no cost by using maintenance windows during the day hours for anything that doesn't require a reboot. Anything that runs in the day can be throttled and set to run silently. Run your virus scan at 10, patch at 12, distribute software at 2 and so on. By distributing the load during day hours, after the computer is up and running your cup of coffee boot ups. By scheduling things you avoid the user impact and perception issue and insure the computer is powered on when you need it.
...and I can tell you, this is not surprising at all.
All the desktops are the lowest CPU version possible - usually with not enough memory either. Because you can't put a value on waiting for bootup/ apps/ etc., but you can show how much money you've saved by going for a Celeron instead of an i3/ i5, you can guess which one happens.
Then there's citrix, and other money-saving wheezes that ultimately do nothing to lower the TCO, rather just shift the expense to the server-end instead of the desktop. And that's before we get to staff (or rather, senior managers etc.) that then demand a PC anyway.
And let's not forget the stupidly low money that gov. techs get paid - see peanuts/ monkeys, because anyone that has a real aptitude for the job will be gone within a year because this. As a result, contractors do very nicely out of it but the value-for-money aspect goes out of the window.
And remember, the decision to save-money-now-even-if-it-costs-more-tomorrow are legion - I just finshed a domain refresh, where I had to replace all the DC's across a London borough with brand-new HP boxes...loaded with Win2003 because the client 'didn't want to change anything'.
What's annoying is when politicians start complaining about the system they preside over and are ultimately responsible for - I suggest we remove them and replace them all with contractors :-)
Shit, you're a massive security risk.
So you wait for the ~1-2min boot-to-login-prompt on windows, enter your credentials, then, WALK AWAY while it boots with those credentials entered and hang around getting a coffee.
Meanwhile your computer, with possibly confidential and compartmentalised data readable with them, is left unlocked and accessible to anyone who walks by...
You're a fucking bookend all right.
Their considering boot times to be costs.
When I read this in a story about UK, reminded me of the simple question. Have you tried turning it off and on?
I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
I'm so sick of this dumb-assed American bullshit about government being inefficient.
Britain was once at the top of the world's economies, completely debt free and overall the best place in the world to live.
Now after these fucking American-lapdog idiots can and stopped the 98% top tax rate, and stopped the unprofitable make-work coal mining...
You can buy TWELVE good PCs for £6,000, that's £500 each. You can buy TWENTY for £300 each (presumably you will still use the old monitor, mouse and keyboard).
No doubt the governments 'friends' are running the PC maintenance businesses... absolutely sickening. These scumbags are totally corrupt, they will do anything to screw more money out of the British taxpayer.
Arrest the lot of them and then imprison them for life, hard labour, traitors the lot of them.
wastes 3 days per year per person due to slow boot-up times
That's why I only shut down my computer once a year. Granted, it takes about three days to boot up...
My Agile 'Point' that I 'Share' declares WAW on BAD data entry desktops
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
You don't have to download your entire HOME directory before you can finish logging in with Linux.
You DO have to wait until all that crap has been moved over before windows will let you do anything, even lock the screen (hence be able to walk away from the logged-in computer and maintain security).
This is at the same level of silliness as the figure I heard to maintain one railway level crossing in the UK - £17,000 per year (17,000 pounds in case that doesn't render for you). Yet, having lived in the UK all my life I have never once seen a level crossing undergoing any maintenance; they are obviously extremely reliable and don't need much. So where does the 17,000 go? No doubt replacement parts are very expensive, but as I said I have never seen anything being replaced. The figure is crazy, even allowing for some parts of the system being out of sight (circuits back at the control centre?).
As an experienced engineer (have even been a railway engineer myself) I would love to take over the maintenance of say half a dozen of these crossings at 17,000 for the lot.
And that can take 4-15 minutes to log in.
They must have added software licenses and/or the programmers to write software for them or something because it's about $5/PC here at my company. I even only replaced 2 mice in 2013.
12X the industry standard is an extraordinary claim but as usual there's absolutely zero detail of how the "maintenance" figure was calculated, eg: did they just divide the entire IT budget by the number of desktops?
It seems to me that the point of the article is to convince people that, and I quote, "it looks like the government is getting completely swindled by their PC supplier". The whole story smells of "negotiation by press release" to me, are the big IT contracts coming up for renewal by any chance?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I can't tell you how many times I've grabbed my android tablet to get to the web while waiting for my PC to recover from either losing it's mind or getting an update.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The 6k number is not out of line. About 15 years ago we did a TCO study for a (US) nationwide firm. We got $10k per year per desktop. Plus $1000 for every time anyone from support had to touch a machine (Some are close, some are far away). That has to count the machines and software itself (amortized over the refresh cycle or the depreciation cycle either way some percentage of the capital cost gets recognized each year), the wires, switches, routers and servers in whatever facility(also amortized over their refresh/depreciation cycle). Salaries and benefits (i.e fully loaded personnel costs) for everyone in the chain for whatever percent they support the infrastructure. This would include admin and support staff who don't do anything computerlike directly. The costs of the buildings, desks, electricity for lights, cleaning, trash etc all have to be apportioned.
In addition, any support activity has a finite probability of messing up and taking a long time. To properly account for costs, the reduced productivity of the user (i.e. opportunity costs) needs to be factored into support and upgrade costs. When software is changed in any way, there is a probability curve that occurs. Some folks have nothing bad happen, some folks come to a dead stop: to do TCO, it all has to be counted.
What's often not clear is the cost of the refresh cycle in a big organization. If a company is on a 36 month refresh cycle and they have 12k desktops, that means they have to install/replace 4000/year or 16 per day, every day. That is probably 2 people at say $100k fully loaded; so just moving new machines costs on the order of $50 per machine for people.
Everyone having the same image. Your tech people have a dvd with Image all repair are a reimage. For the money it is the best you can hope for.
"I can only assume" is your problem, not mine.
Your assumption is wrong.
If you're using roaming profiles, then that is negated by having it hibernate, since it is locked to the hibernating account, and all that STILL has to be redownloaded if someone else logs in to that machine.
So, no, it's not possible to use Suspend to Disk and save time: it would cost MORE time.
But you DO care if your government's data on you is insecure.
Did you miss the title of this article? "Government" is in there. There's a reason for that.
PS to the other retard, who the hell has an office in government any more???? And if your government spent that much on buildings to house their staff to afford everyone an office, you'd definitely howl to the high heavens at the "feather bedding gubmint wastin me taxes!!!!".
Hell, I'd do it for 4,000 pounds a year per desktop and save them a bundle...
Linux has some of the SLOWEST boot times known to man. Mac is better but still slow. Windows 7 is pretty good but Windows 8 is blazing fast. I can cold boot my Lenovo W520 in about 10 seconds.
Sounds like their using Windows...
Why does it take three days to boot a goverment PC?
Like many projects in the UK, such as Private Finance Initiatives, I suspect it is ill-informed or under informed individuals not grasping the nature of the items they are procuring a contract to maintain. This can occur because IT procurement takes place at a local level where technical expertise may be scant so leading to poor decision making. Another factor is they are likely factoring labour costs, which could include the salaries of senior personnel in the operating costs. This is obviously somewhat speculative; the article does not give any insight into how they concluded the £6000 figure.
*Insert ridiculous, apparently intelligent but ultimately meaningless phrase here*
So you work for Accenture.
They're just trying to help UK taxpayers shed those... unwanted pounds ! :)
Before people get their panties in a bunch, this should be explained.I work for government and see these sorts of costs all the time. The UK, or any place for that matter is not unique in this regard.
"Maintaining" is bad wording.
Governments (or none that I am aware of) never "own" anything. Everything is a Lease. First off, I would agree that usually the Leases are TOTAL rip offs. It is questionable why this is. Perhaps corruption, or pay off. Perhaps political, buying from a particular company or region not really competitive, or it could be that only a handful of companies have the capacity to fill an order of that size, and thus change a premium.
So there is one thing, high lease which is usually a 4 years term, by which you can figure out what 1 year costs you. Again, this isn't really "maintaince", but would be called such.
In addition, and more importantly, each "seat" is usually charged a number of fees on top of whatever the lease rate is. The fees are everything from providing basic IT helpdesk support, to network changes, to IT infrastructure costs such as maintaining corporate servers, websites, software, etc.... pretty much EVERYTHING to do with IT. Now then you take that large number divide, it by seats, and apply it. That is how much a "Computer" costs to a business area, so yes, each one will be much more than what you might find at the bargain bin at futureshop.
It is usually pretty damn high, but it is more to do with crappy leases, and an IT payment structure tacked on. So it is a bit misleading to say the least. Don't get me wrong, it is still bad, but not nearly as bad as it is being made out to be.
Now let's compare to what costs are in Munich.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/442894/switching_linux_saves_munich_over_11_million/