[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 08:53:02PM +0100, Rob Beard wrote:
>
> Yep, I think really it could possibly do with something more
> concrete, such as set procedures.
>
TCO etc are all very subjective issues (for example what is the correct
discount rate to be used for valuing future costs).
IMHO what is therefore important is that the public sector should be required to
justify
why Floss is NOT used. (I would prefer to have the Public Sector publish
the successful contract details and the associated business cases).
I am also sure that no matter what is decided proprietary software is too
important not to be used in some cases, and while Division of Labour is a
well known economic principle, experience seems to illustrate that Floss
can save money and time:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10278308-16.html
Lest you think this move to open source is inspired by a cloud of cannabis
smoke, the report also mentions significant improvements in
interoperability (31 percent), cost reduction (8 percent), and quality
improvements in the municipal governments (22 percent).
The guardian article on Council Costs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/aug/26/local-government-spending-open-standards-saving
is also illustrative.
Conversely as Adrian pointed out there is Newham
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Microsoft-Services/Newham-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust-and-NHS-Newham/NHS-Trust-Support-Agreement-Boosts-IT-Skills-Without-Increasing-Overheads/4000007615
--
Henry
Photocopies or faxes of my signature are not binding.
This email has been signed with an electronic signature in accordance with
subsection 7(3) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.
Digital Key Signature: GPG RSA 0xFB447AA1
Tue Sep 28 07:20:01 BST 2010
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq