Newham has a cow over Microsoft MOU
Read it for yourself
NEWHAM LONDON Borough Council has refuted claims that its 2004 memorandum of understanding with Microsoft has failed to meet its key performance target.
The INQUIRER can clean up any remaining confusion by publishing the original MOU.
Richard Steele, CIO at Newham, defending his council's decision to favour Microsoft over open source software, told CIO magazine today that the original MOU had not been scrapped, it was just being reviewed.
Yet he told the INQUIRER on Friday that the MOU had been scrapped and a new one drawn up.
He refused today to publish the second MOU, drawn up with Microsoft after the first 10-year agreement was scrapped.
"Concerning the MOU, on reflection, and having discussed this with Microsoft colleagues, it's confidential to us both, and I cannot let you have a copy," he said in an email.
The first MOU was published under Freedom of Information laws that clearly gave no credence to the confidentiality claims.
However, the FOI request did refuse to publish the amount of public money Newham spent with Microsoft.
After the INQUIRER published details of the deal's failure, Steele told CIO magazine: “Our commitments under the original MOU have been fulfilled, bar one, the benchmarking against other cities with Microsoft accounts.”
Yet the original MOU specified that the Microsoft deal would bring Newham into the top 10 per cent of councils in the UK, as recorded by the independent performance measures of the Audit Commission. On this measure it failed.
These were the terms by which Newham's elected council accepted the Microsoft deal in 2004 against the recommendation that open source software would give it better value for money in the long run.
Failing also to have met its other key performance criteria, the council has been unable to demonstrate that the original decision was merited.
The MOU required Newham to design with Microsoft a benchmarking methodology that would demonstrate the benefits of using the vendor's software. This work has not been done yet.
However, Newham has supplied the INQUIRER with internal studies that it says do demonstrate that its decision to commit to Microsoft was justified. The studies were performed by Socitm, a private public sector consulting firm of which Newham COI Steele is a vice president. the INQUIRER will report on these findings in due course.
Meanwhile, the original MOU is enlightening. As well as claiming the deal would enable Newham to achieve high rankings in Audit Commission assessments, it committed Newham to moving all "competitive technology" to Microsoft, regardless of the feasibility of such a move.
It also required Steele to promote Microsoft software.
See attached file: Memorandum of Understanding.doc µ
Comments
Newham MS sales team
How can a government department be asked to promote MS? Given that they have a duty to the public, such a lack of impartiality would maybe find favour with Tony Blair (remember him being at an MS launch?) but would IMHO be in blatant conflict with their main duties.In addition, one MS MOU not an expert maketh - it is not said that the "solution(*)" in Newham would fit anyone else. As a matter of fact, it didn't seem to fit Newham either..
(*) As someone who had to repeatedly bail out MS from such "solutions" in a past life I have yet to develop any respect for their capability..
Nice try, but it won't change anything
The studies were performed by Socitm, a private public sector consulting firm of which Newham COI Steele is a vice president. the INQUIRER will report on these findings in due course.What a farce, so he found a way to justify spending public money on his own company. I wonder if there was a tender for which company should do the studies at all. It is so in our faces and we still take the crap from them while they openly steel from our taxes.
Well, what is one to do if one feels that one is above the law.
Unberf*ckinglieveable
Brown envelope city, jesus f*cking christ WTF. FFS Do as I say NOT as I do LOL. Gotta get away from this place Oz seems the only place left."it's confidential to us both"
Ere 'ang on. So the taxpayer pays for something and doesnt get to even read it?There can be no such thing as Commercial Confidentiality in government, only corruption.
Interesting article
Not a bad bit of work Mark - it'll be interesting to follow this. However, describing socitm as "a private public sector consulting firm" is misleading as it is a profesional association more akin to a union than than a commercial organisation. Members of socitm are elected to the various positions so while the Newham COI may currently be vice president, it is not a permenent or, afaik, a paid or salaried position.While I think it was, at the very least, disingenuious of Richard Steele to claim that the MOU is confidential when it is not, misrepresenting his position within socitm, and socitm itself, doesn't do your article any good either.
This is an interesting story where someone is not telling the full truth and I hope you pursue it further.
It also required Steele to promote Microsoft software?
Now that is interesting. The local municipalities (that's what we call them in Canada) that I deal with regard such terms as evidence that the company in question is dodgy. Any company that tries to have something like this inserted in a contract is regarded with great skepticism, and is generally the last to be chosen as a supplier.
Of course you Brits do things differently, driving on the left and all, so maybe this is normal over 'ome.