DHBs to test open source alternative to Windows and Office

<http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/39A5FAC6A45E8FB2CC256FDA00319B5C?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,DHB> --- DHBs to test open source alternative to Windows and Office Boards band together to reduce their software licensing costs Stephen Bell, Wellington New Zealand's District Health Boards plan a trial of open source desktop software in an effort to reduce the licensing fees they pay to Microsoft — more than $20 million over three years, according to one estimate. Microsoft licences are a major element of DHBs’ software costs, says Phil Brimacombe, CIO of Waitemata and Counties Manukau DHBs and healthAlliance, the shared services organisation owned by the two boards. While there are some “power users” likely to need the full capabilities of Microsoft Office and related applications, users with less elaborate IT demands may be able to use OpenOffice.org and other open source software at much-reduced cost, Brimacombe says. At a quarterly meeting of DHB CIOs in February, a joint three-part plan to reduce software costs was adopted. First, the DHBs will pilot an open source desktop environment, being put together by Steve Rayner, CIO of Wanganui DHB, to assess how many users it will serve adequately. Rayner plans to support two categories of user: "power users" with Microsoft desktop software, and "regular clinical users" with Novell Enterprise Desktop, OpenOffice.org and GroupWise running on Suse Linux. The pilot will seek to establish how many users there are with basic needs and whether it is possible to meet them with an entirely non-Microsoft environment, Brimacombe says. “The majority of users don’t use Access databases, for example; they wouldn’t use PowerPoint; they’re not advanced users of Excel and they probably only use about 20% of the functions of Word. They may manage quite well with OpenOffice.” There are also open source options for clinical database access clients, “but we don’t know how practical those are”, he says. Brimacombe expects one of the knotty problems will be DHBs’ extensive use of Outlook and Exchange. They will have to find some practical email alternative, he says. Another initiative is to approach suppliers of health software to see if they are willing to develop open source versions of their applications. At least one major provider of clinical systems, Orion, has told the board that it is looking seriously at supporting the open source Mozilla Firefox browser with its its clinical portal, Concerto, as an alternative to Internet Explorer, Brimacombe says. Laboratory software developer Sysmex has also indicated a willingness to explore open source solutions, he says. The third part of the DHBs' plan is to push for stronger representation on the public sector committee negotiating the details of G2006, the next iteration of the New Zealand Government’s bulk licensing agreement with Microsoft. Steve Mayo-Smith, CIO of Auckland DHB, will be the DHB CIO representative on the public sector negotiation group. He says DHBs will collectively have spent over $20 million on Microsoft licences during the three year of the previous agreement, G2003. “In particular the DHBs with a large user population end up with little choice within the G2003 agreement, and feel captured by the structure of that agreement into paying the highest charges, often for products that are not widely needed,” Mayo-Smith says. “The potential cost efficiencies of open source are also attractive to smaller DHBs who do not have the resources of the larger DHBs.” “We’re not expecting any stunning short-term breakthrough,” says Brimacombe, but the joint initiative, alongside individual DHB plans in the open source direction, could go some way to reducing Microsoft expenditure, “which is a big number for the taxpayer”. The push to reduce licensing costs has been building for many months, Brimacombe says; one catalyst came in mid-2004, when Dr Ross Boswell, clinical director of information systems for Counties Manukau and an open source enthusiast, addressed the quarterly CIO meeting. Discussion since then has built up to the point of a formal agreement among the boards. ---

On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 10:20 +1200, Bnonn wrote:
--- DHBs to test open source alternative to Windows and Office Boards band together to reduce their software licensing costs
Stephen Bell, Wellington
[snip] No need to reproduce the entire article if you give us the URL. It's a waste of bandwidth, and a breach of copyright.
First, the DHBs will pilot an open source desktop environment, being put together by Steve Rayner, CIO of Wanganui DHB, to assess how many users it will serve adequately. Rayner plans to support two categories of user: "power users" with Microsoft desktop software, and "regular clinical users" with Novell Enterprise Desktop, OpenOffice.org and GroupWise running on Suse Linux.
As long as this doesn't make the linux desktop users feel 'second class' or give the impression of 'using cheaper inferior software' then this seems like a smart move. $20million in saved licensing could pay for a lot of new hardware, or custom software development... John

No need to reproduce the entire article if you give us the URL. It's a waste of bandwidth, and a breach of copyright.
I seldom click links, and I know many other people don't either. I find it very handy when people simply copy the entire article. Since I'm not redistributing it for money, and Computerworld have already made it available free of charge on their website, I can't see how copyright is going to be an issue. As for bandwidth, I'm not sure how that's really an issue considering the traffic this list sees. But, you know, I am the guy that everyone complains does things wrong, so feel free to continue...

On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 11:27 +1200, Bnonn wrote:
I seldom click links, and I know many other people don't either. I find it very handy when people simply copy the entire article. Since I'm not redistributing it for money, and Computerworld have already made it available free of charge on their website, I can't see how copyright is going to be an issue. <snip> But, you know, I am the guy that everyone complains does things wrong, so feel free to continue...
Don't worry we'll have you trained up in the finer points of nettiquite (sp?) soon, then you can educate the next person to come along... :) -- Matt Brown matt(a)mattb.net.nz Mob +64 275 611 544 www.mattb.net.nz

As long as this doesn't make the linux desktop users feel 'second class' or give the impression of 'using cheaper inferior software' then this seems like a smart move. $20million in saved licensing could pay for a lot of new hardware, or custom software development...
I bought this up with Daniel after the $10million school issue. I said "wouldn't $10 million be better spent on development of software?" He reminded me that the last time the government tried this it was called INCIS, and they weren't likely to be too keen on doing it again. Craig

At 11:31 11/04/2005, you wrote:
As long as this doesn't make the linux desktop users feel 'second class' or give the impression of 'using cheaper inferior software' then this seems like a smart move. $20million in saved licensing could pay for a lot of new hardware, or custom software development...
I bought this up with Daniel after the $10million school issue. I said "wouldn't $10 million be better spent on development of software?" He reminded me that the last time the government tried this it was called INCIS, and they weren't likely to be too keen on doing it again.
I can suggest much better software development 'partners' than IBM NZ's Global Services division. If you are in central or local government and subscribed to this list, please email me off-list for my suggestions. David

From what I understand INCIS was a failure due to poor project management and "Scope Creep", INCIS is also not the first failure the government has produced and will not be the last. Several studies also firmly pointed the blame finger back at the government on it.
David Hallett wrote:
At 11:31 11/04/2005, you wrote:
As long as this doesn't make the linux desktop users feel 'second class' or give the impression of 'using cheaper inferior software' then this seems like a smart move. $20million in saved licensing could pay for a lot of new hardware, or custom software development...
I bought this up with Daniel after the $10million school issue. I said "wouldn't $10 million be better spent on development of software?" He reminded me that the last time the government tried this it was called INCIS, and they weren't likely to be too keen on doing it again.
I can suggest much better software development 'partners' than IBM NZ's Global Services division. If you are in central or local government and subscribed to this list, please email me off-list for my suggestions.
David
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug

From what I understand INCIS was a failure due to poor project management and "Scope Creep", INCIS is also not the first failure the government has produced and will not be the last. Several studies also firmly pointed the blame finger back at the government on it.
I can suggest much better software development 'partners' than IBM NZ's Global Services division. If you are in central or local government and subscribed to this list, please email me off-list for my suggestions.
David
I agree with Andrew totally, but having the media pointing out and
Andrew Thrift wrote: publicsing IT disasters, such as the INCIS project, it's not all that bad, and lets face it, the media are not really interested in success stories. Personally, IBM doesn't feature to me in the same light as Microsoft, Telecom, or TelstraClear. The reality is that if you're not partnered with a large IT Integrator such as Datacraft, IBM, HP, then you won't get a look in with a govt organisation, simply because of ongoing support, liabilities, etc, etc. One of the regional councils in BOP had learnt that the hard way, when the owner of the company that did their entire database system topped himself, fortunately, they were able to employ his key staff member (I gather that he was about to piss off to the UK).

At 10:55 13/04/2005, you wrote:
From what I understand INCIS was a failure due to poor project management and "Scope Creep", INCIS is also not the first failure the government has produced and will not be the last. Several studies also firmly pointed the blame finger back at the government on it.
There is ample material available (publicly) that discusses the INCIS situation in comprehensive detail. Have you read the report of the Ministerial Inquiry into INCIS? For those who are interested, you can access the PDF report here: http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/incis_rpt/INCIS%20inquiry.pdf or the HTML report here: http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/incis_rpt/index.html A response to your statement "... INCIS was a failure due to poor project management and 'Scope Creep'" is found in the Executive Summary: "The reasons why the INCIS Project did not achieve its objectives were numerous, interrelated and complex but they were not unique to the Police and there were other examples both in Government and private enterprise business in New Zealand and overseas. No single cause resulted in the failure but the combined effect of the causes meant that INCIS would almost certainly fail." -- Executive Summary, http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/incis_rpt/exsummary.html However, if you contrast the Executive Summary with part of the Relationship with Primary Contractor exposition, it is easy to understand why the project was doomed from the outset: "IBM appears to have accepted and proceeded within the limits of the technology and architecture specified in the Request for Tender (RFT) and Request for Proposal (RFP). However, in particular, having regard to the Sapphire report, it is reasonable to assume that IBM should have known that key elements of the technology and architecture were unproven in an application of this size and complexity. The Sapphire report indicates that IBM advised that a distributed object computing environment was impossible to achieve and admitted that, in respect of its Object Oriented Iterative Development Methodology, it had very little practical experience on any project, let alone one the size and complexity of the INCIS Project. IBM was also unable to demonstrate the process manager." -- Section 8.2, http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/incis_rpt/relationship.html Perhaps IBM assume that practical experience is an unnecessary or unrelated qualifier when attempting a complex project? I have personally been involved in a project where IBM was also the Primary Contractor and where things turned pear-shaped. In that case that project was abandoned after it had been running for ~20 months. Perhaps I have become cynical? However when it comes to complex projects, cynicism saves a good deal of money when compared to optimism, and truck-loads full of cash when compared to blind optimism. David.

As long as this doesn't make the linux desktop users feel 'second class' or give the impression of 'using cheaper inferior software' then this seems like a smart move. $20million in saved licensing could pay for a lot of new hardware, or custom software development...
I bought this up with Daniel after the $10million school issue. I said "wouldn't $10 million be better spent on development of software?" He reminded me that the last time the government tried this it was called INCIS, and they weren't likely to be too keen on doing it again.
If I did, I was merely expressing a possible reason as to why they Ministry of Education wouldn't bite. I'd really love to see something sensible happen here. The current round of MS funding for schools is approximately equal to $25 million dollars, and includes a range of MS software, a virus scanner, the use of Watchdog's monitored proxy service, and some Apple software which I can't comment on because I've not looked at the package. The MS software includes *upgrade* licenses to WinXP Pro or Win2k (ie, not native license - you still need a license on the computer!), MS Office, MS Works, MS Encarta, MS Publisher, and the VS.NET development suite and MSDN library. You can also apply for server licensing, but they aren't included by default, and I believe you still need to pay for CALs yourself. MS Office is used in schools because it's what people know. At primary school level anyway, there is no compelling reason to use MS Office over anything else (doesn't even need to be office software, they are only doing minimal word processing work anyway!). At secondary level there might be a greater need, but I doubt there is any particular part of MS Office that can't be performed in Open Office instead. VS.NET is perhaps useful, for the few CS classes that might use it, which will only be one or two classes per secondary school *at most*. The other place it might be useful is for in-house development work, but that's going to be marginal. The use of a comemrcial virus scanner is probably ok. I don't know if clamav is mature enough yet, although it's all I use on servers. Mostly because the commercial offerings no longer runs on the server since a glibc update, and a reinstall didn't fix it. I think there could be a lot done with the $15 million NZD or so that is being spent on MS products, if the Ministry got a clue and decided to do something useful. $15 million would create a LOT of NZ oriented content. There are some good resources around for Maori language, but I've not see a huge amount of good quality software on NZ History / Geography. By far the best reader software (teach kids to read) I've seen is made in Australia, and the voices have a slight Aussie accent to them! What are we teaching our young!

I'd assume that: - the project is outsourced - the DHB will pay an arm and a leg for a silly report - the report will find that going Linux/Open Source is too risky The above scenario will be repeated by other govt agencies. Given the size of the government and all their agencies, perhaps the best investment would be to setup something like government computing services (GCS - hmm, why does this ring the bell??? ;). Maybe I don't know enough about politics or the politicians and their cronies network, but it is certainly true that they seldom seem to be getting value for money when it comes to software development. Could it perhaps be that a ROI is not the primary intention, nahh!

On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 15:30 +1200, Pete wrote:
I'd assume that:
- the project is outsourced - the DHB will pay an arm and a leg for a silly report - the report will find that going Linux/Open Source is too risky
The above scenario will be repeated by other govt agencies.
Given the size of the government and all their agencies, perhaps the best investment would be to setup something like government computing services (GCS - hmm, why does this ring the bell??? ;). Maybe I don't know enough about politics or the politicians and their cronies network, but it is certainly true that they seldom seem to be getting value for money when it comes to software development. Could it perhaps be that a ROI is not the primary intention, nahh!
No it tends to be a case of they attempt to please everyone with the development. They attempt to get a "perfect" system, rather than a system that does what is required.
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
participants (10)
-
Andrew Thrift
-
Bnonn
-
Craig Box
-
Craig Mckenna
-
Daniel Lawson
-
David Hallett
-
John R. McPherson
-
Lindsay Druett
-
Matt Brown
-
Pete