Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Which Gov. Dept. is in charge of paying for software licenses?

  • 07-05-2012 6:50pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭


    Hi all

    I am hoping to find out if anybody knows which department (if it is down to just one) that would be involved in the payment for software licenses for all government computers (also schools, HSE etc)

    Reading recently how more and more governments are moving toward free software instead of windows (Munich for example saved 4 million this year alone) it would make sense for us to move in this direction also.

    any ideas?

    Thanks


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    I'd say each particular public service takes care of its own software licensing.

    If you're thinking of trying to convince the government to migrate to Linux the chances of it occurring are slim. Not because there's anything wrong with Linux but because the cost and downtime that'd be incurred in retraining thousands of staff is prohibitive. That and they probably use custom software solutions that are designed for Windows.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    It's not centralised.

    My organisation was audited by MS and it was found that we were paying for approximately twice the amount of licences that we were using.

    There is room for a lot of progress.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    I should also add that the "if we don't spend the money this year we'll lose it next year" attitude still prevails. For example I was asked did I want the latest and greatest laptop as we had €1m unspent in the IT budget. It doesn't happen very often but I declined on the basis that I didn't use the one I already had.


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    I'd say each particular public service takes care of its own software licensing.

    If you're thinking of trying to convince the government to migrate to Linux the chances of it occurring are slim. Not because there's anything wrong with Linux but because the cost and downtime that'd be incurred in retraining thousands of staff is prohibitive. That and they probably use custom software solutions that are designed for Windows.

    I hear ya, and would have said exactly the same before, but Iceland, Germany, France (I'll get back with the full list later) have done so already, so all that needs to be done is follow the process already proven to work by them.

    as for the cost of retraining, I actually think this is a bit of a cop out, because if you can use windows in the first instance you can use them all (not in the admin sense, i mean in the general UI)

    people didn't need training when they bought Macs, IPhones and android phones, so in that sense it should be relatively painless. (also it needn't be all at once, gradual roll out would be great)

    also you may have a point about the custom software, but surely whatever they are using in France, Germany etc would be comparable or better no?


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I should also add that the "if we don't spend the money this year we'll lose it next year" attitude still prevails. For example I was asked did I want the latest and greatest laptop as we had €1m unspent in the IT budget. It doesn't happen very often but I declined on the basis that I didn't use the one I already had.

    A Family friend in the HSE told me a similar story, can't say i'm happy about it, and im sure its widespread


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭gibo_ie


    its all approved centrally through CMOD in the Dept of Finance, though each department has their own link to purchasing once a need exists.
    They pretty much all have an EA....


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,217 ✭✭✭markpb


    zing zong wrote: »
    as for the cost of retraining, I actually think this is a bit of a cop out, because if you can use windows in the first instance you can use them all (not in the admin sense, i mean in the general UI)

    It might seem like a cop-out but it's true - if you've used the same software for years, there's definitely going to be a need for re-training. You can't expect everyone to go back to work tomorrow and use Linux and Open Office instantly, especially less technical users.
    also you may have a point about the custom software, but surely whatever they are using in France, Germany etc would be comparable or better no?

    If a department has a custom LOB application (for example, ROS), there's unlikely to be another piece of software written in France or Germany which does exactly the same because the underlying processes are completely different.

    Also, why do you assume they'd be better? Are the French civil service renowned for their expertise at developing or purchasing quality custom software?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,123 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Most buy in their own right. The likes of the Local Government Computer Services Board buy licenses for certain software packages for the various local authorities but they can and do buy some packages on their own behalf.

    It's a nonsense of a situation but one I believe they are trying to work on. I'm aware of more than one review of software licensing which has resulted in savings and there's definitely been renegotiations of support contracts over the past 4 years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    gibo_ie wrote: »
    its all approved centrally through CMOD in the Dept of Finance, though each department has their own link to purchasing once a need exists.
    They pretty much all have an EA....

    I guess the Dept. of Finance can set the standard the rest would have to follow would they?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,123 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    zing zong wrote: »
    as for the cost of retraining, I actually think this is a bit of a cop out, because if you can use windows in the first instance you can use them all (not in the admin sense, i mean in the general UI)

    people didn't need training when they bought Macs, IPhones and android phones, so in that sense it should be relatively painless. (also it needn't be all at once, gradual roll out would be great)
    You have no idea how seriously you're over-estimating the calibre of much of our public servants. I know we have plenty of public sector workers who could buy and sell me when it comes to computers and technology but there's more than a significant number of them who are barely computer literate. It's hardly qualitative research but I've personally been the person in the room explaining something to someone for the fifth time that my 6 year old step-son would have gotten on the first explanation. I've been the trainer, I've been the software implementer who understands the business process better than the person tasked with doing it monday to friday and the support consultant wondering how the hell an individual still needs to be talked through a 6 step process after a year of running it on a monthly basis. These people can't be fired for incompetence, made redundant or re-trained and while not every PS worker is one of them, they exist in significant numbers.
    also you may have a point about the custom software, but surely whatever they are using in France, Germany etc would be comparable or better no?
    Comparable or better, maybe. In compliance with, or capable of being tailored to Irish legislation or public accounting requirements? Not without huge re-development, no.

    You'd also have the re-train/re-place the IT support staff who'd be MS rather than *nix trained/certified.

    In short, if we were creating the IT infrastructure in a green-field site, Open Source would almost certainly be the way to go. In an ecosystem where millions has already been invested in tailoring MS software to fit, the Return on Investment simply isn't there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    markpb wrote: »
    It might seem like a cop-out but it's true - if you've used the same software for years, there's definitely going to be a need for re-training. You can't expect everyone to go back to work tomorrow and use Linux and Open Office instantly, especially less technical users.

    I'm not saying there won't be a need for re-training, but I still think it should be relatively painless, using the open office example, "where "print" was here in office, its now here in open office" They aren't really that wildly different, and people can get used to the change quickly. In all fairness, its more about something being unfamiliar for a brief time rather than being unusable. also the end users are hardly idiots, and any cost would be offset by the savings made.

    also, Linux OS's works better for longer on older hardware so less need to upgrade as often or quickly, more money saved :)
    markpb wrote: »
    If a department has a custom LOB application (for example, ROS), there's unlikely to be another piece of software written in France or Germany which does exactly the same because the underlying processes are completely different.

    very fair point, however no reason why we can have our own software written, it isn't as if we haven't the capable programmers
    markpb wrote: »
    Also, why do you assume they'd be better? Are the French civil service renowned for their expertise at developing or purchasing quality custom software?

    I'm not saying that at all, what i am making an assumption about is that they are better funded, so I would assume would be better resourced and *may* have similar or better software for our needs. either way it doesn't matter, we can have our own written/ported


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,344 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Change to open source software, that'll solve the countries problems.
    Not even close.

    As well as the issues already mentioned here (cost of retraining, support of said software, interoperability with existing systems and software, implementation etc etc) there are also less obvious reasons why the whole state may chose not to move to an "open source" platform. (The number of jobs Microsoft provides in this country being one such reason amoung others)

    There is definitely money to be saved on software licensing and as already stated renegotiating has happened a lot in the past few years, as well as the merging of departments for per seat licensing purposes and indeed reviews of licensing compliance in general.

    You'll also find a number of reports (some based around some departments in Germany strangely enough) and in the Scandinavian countries which outline the issues that can happen when you change from paid to open source software, indeed some of these departments moved back again a number of years later once Microsoft came back with improved licensing terms. All the chopping and changing cost time and money.


    Zing zong, the retraining aspect is a real issue for 90% of the staff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Comparable or better, maybe. In compliance with, or capable of being tailored to Irish legislation or public accounting requirements? Not without huge re-development, no.

    You'd also have the re-train/re-place the IT support staff who'd be MS rather than *nix trained/certified.

    In short, if we were creating the IT infrastructure in a green-field site, Open Source would almost certainly be the way to go. In an ecosystem where millions has already been invested in tailoring MS software to fit, the Return on Investment simply isn't there.

    yes Im sure you would have to replace/retrain the IT staff, but isn't that just the nature of life, things change, and if the organisation changes how it operates the staff have to be retrained, happens all the time and the savings *even* with down-time and retraining is millions, I cant really see a downside?

    also several EU countries (including Germany, who in all honesty would have a better track record in doing this kind of thing, in my opinion) and local Govts. have already gone down this route, I don't think they would have if the cost/risk/return on investment wasn't right?


  • Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭seithon


    As someone who's working in a "work bridge" job with a government group in IT I'd love to know that too... It's scary how badly run this stuff is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,344 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    zing zong wrote: »
    yes Im sure you would have to replace/retrain the IT staff, but isn't that just the nature of life, things change, and if the organisation changes how it operates the staff have to be retrained, happens all the time and the savings *even* with down-time and retraining is millions, I cant really see a downside?

    also several EU countries (including Germany, who in all honesty would have a better track record in doing this kind of thing, in my opinion) and local Govts. have already gone down this route, I don't think they would have if the cost/risk/return on investment wasn't right?
    Have you seen the cost of "Open source" specialists?

    There are major downsides, as the Germans themselves have found:
    http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/german-open-source-experiment-things-not-going-plan


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,719 ✭✭✭pawrick


    Seems like an area that the NPS (National Procurement Agency) should be involved in to coordinate the needs for all depts.

    Many have a mentality of re inventing the wheel for each task.

    One of the problems however was that when decentralisation happened they lost a lot of the people skilled in that area, which in turn I imagine set all projects back IT included.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,123 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    You missed my point:

    Many of the staff are not re-trainable and these people cannot be replaced.

    The cost of customising OS software to be fit for purpose would be astronomical. WINE only works with some software. Hundreds of millions have already been spent implementing and customising the ERP and HR systems we have in place in our public bodies. You'd need to spend millions to implement and customise the OS software you're proposing just to get to the point where we're already at.

    Countries don't just run on desktop OS's and Office applications.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,344 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Id like to add, there is a place for centralised IT within the civil/public services (in some areas) and indeed a place for a government "cloud" as well.
    Already there are "some" areas semi-centralised (networks - to some extent) but there's a lot more that could go that way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    kippy wrote: »

    Zing zong, the retraining aspect is a real issue for 90% of the staff.

    I can't say that I have any first hand info, but I really think the retraining issue is being overstated.

    they way i see it is, even after all the obstacles initially, in the end it saves million no matter how you look at it, I really think it should be looked into

    also, as for lost Microsoft jobs, how many do they employ to begin with? its not a little, but it isn't all that many in the scheme of things either. jobs lost surely its not comparable to millions saved, which could be reinvested in indigenous IT sector?

    most cloud services, which many believe is the future of IT is Linux based, Google and face book for example use Linux, as do Pixar etc etc, and android for phones is Linux based, so theres plenty for our IT sector workers to get into?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,217 ✭✭✭markpb


    zing zong wrote: »
    yes Im sure you would have to replace/retrain the IT staff, but isn't that just the nature of life, things change, and if the organisation changes how it operates the staff have to be retrained, happens all the time and the savings *even* with down-time and retraining is millions, I cant really see a downside?

    Throwing away all your sysadmins because you're moving to Linux means you're losing all the knowledge that they have about how your business works so that's a non-starter. It would also cost you millions in redundancies but that's beside the point.

    Retraining them is more likely but I think you're underestimating the scale of the challenge. First you have to retrain all your sysadmins in Linux, Open Office, Open DNS, Postfix, etc. Then you have to rebuild your network infrastructure using those technologies. You can't do that overnight so you need twice the hardware, at least temporarily. During that time, you'll have twice the support costs (not just financial costs). When you're done, you'll have a network which consists of free software but which required you to spend a fortune retraining your IT staff and you'll probably have paid for support for some of that software (how do you think Redhat got so rich?) so the pain will be incredibly while the gain will be small, at least in the short term.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, clearly it's not. I think people think it's easy cause it's just software and the alternative is free.
    zing zong wrote: »
    I can't say that I have any first hand info, but I really think the retraining issue is being overstated.

    I did IT support for a large insurance company several years ago. Every monday morning, we'd spent hours fielding calls from staff who couldn't remember their password from the previous Friday. Every Monday during the summer, the call load would double because staff would come back from holidays and have forgotten their username (eg jsmith). This is no reflection on those people - they just weren't great with computers. If they had trouble with that, how do you think they'd get on if you replaced literally everything they used to do their jobs?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,344 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    zing zong wrote: »
    I can't say that I have any first hand info, but I really think the retraining issue is being overstated.

    they way i see it is, even after all the obstacles initially, in the end it saves million no matter how you look at it, I really think it should be looked into

    also, as for lost Microsoft jobs, how many do they employ to begin with? its not a little, but it isn't all that many in the scheme of things either. jobs lost surely its not comparable to millions saved, which could be reinvested in indigenous IT sector?

    most cloud services, which many believe is the future of IT is Linux based, Google and face book for example use Linux, as do Pixar etc etc, and android for phones is Linux based, so theres plenty for our IT sector workers to get into?
    Look at any of the reports that go into detail about open source software adoption - training and/or perception are one of the biggest barriers to it, followed by hardware operability, support, interoperability with other systems.
    Im just making the point that when it comes to government, there are many indirect factors that come into decision making and I have no doubt that the revenue (not just jobs) that Microsoft put through this country is a big factor in these decisions.
    The actual implementation of a desktop/enterprise architecture would take ages and cost massive amounts of money, especially when not starting from a greenfield site. There are very very few specialists in open source software out there (they cost a lot to hire in) while there are far more windows ones.
    I do believe that where appropriate, opensource software should be investigated and I am sure it is, however there are massive costs involved in transition and ongoing from that.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Then there's the unions.

    "Comrades, your employer thinks they can change the light switches from standard to flourescent ones that glow in the dark without your agreement (the Croker blackmail cave-in notwithstanding). They argue this will make it easier to find the switches on dark winter mornings.

    We believe that this change requires extensive retraining from a functionality as well as from a health and safety perspective for each of our members - two weeks training per member plus a post-training re-skilling allowance, payable retrospectively to the date the original light switches were installed as our members were working with sub-optimal technology.

    If the Government insists on this change and unless they agree to our demands, we will continue to work in the dark.

    Thank youse brothers and sisters and in-betweeners."

    Then of course there's Micro$soft. Are they likely to pull out if Inda & Co switch from Windoze? Will they shift to China with their DVD-in-a-box operation and save billions?


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    Sleepy wrote: »
    You missed my point:

    Many of the staff are not re-trainable and these people cannot be replaced.

    The cost of customising OS software to be fit for purpose would be astronomical. WINE only works with some software. Hundreds of millions have already been spent implementing and customising the ERP and HR systems we have in place in our public bodies. You'd need to spend millions to implement and customise the OS software you're proposing just to get to the point where we're already at.

    Countries don't just run on desktop OS's and Office applications.

    but using WINE would still be missing the point because legally you would still have to pay for the software license (as an aside, im using office 2010 flawlessly in wine :) ) what im am saying is to replace it all

    Im fully aware its not just about desktop OS's and office apps, but if several other large EU countries are doing, we can simply, by and large, just use whatever they are using.


    TLDR; At the end of the day, is initial cost and retraining and rewriting certain applications not worth saving millions of tax euros every year *forever* that can be reinvested in Irish owned/Irish run IT sector jobs?? thats the big picture really


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    zing zong wrote: »
    TLDR; At the end of the day, is initial cost and retraining and rewriting certain applications not worth saving millions of tax euros every year *forever* that can be reinvested in Irish owned/Irish run IT sector jobs?? thats the big picture really
    We can't really afford the initial costs and there's also the problem of trying to appease Microsoft. We need them more than they need us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    markpb wrote: »
    Retraining them is more likely but I think you're underestimating the scale of the challenge. First you have to retrain all your sysadmins in Linux, Open Office, Open DNS, Postfix, etc. Then you have to rebuild your network infrastructure using those technologies. You can't do that overnight so you need twice the hardware, at least temporarily. During that time, you'll have twice the support costs (not just financial costs). When you're done, you'll have a network which consists of free software but which required you to spend a fortune retraining your IT staff and you'll probably have paid for support for some of that software (how do you think Redhat got so rich?) so the pain will be incredibly while the gain will be small, at least in the short term.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, clearly it's not. I think people think it's easy cause it's just software and the alternative is free.

    I can't argue with any of this except that this is all short-term hassle/expense, millions are still being saved no matter what in the long term and thats more important don't you agree?
    markpb wrote: »
    I did IT support for a large insurance company several years ago. Every monday morning, we'd spent hours fielding calls from staff who couldn't remember their password from the previous Friday. Every Monday during the summer, the call load would double because staff would come back from holidays and have forgotten their username (eg jsmith). This is no reflection on those people - they just weren't great with computers. If they had trouble with that, how do you think they'd get on if you replaced literally everything they used to do their jobs?

    This is really an issue for HR though no? maybe they should employ staff with a bit more cop on, who might make a note of their log on credentials at some point (locked away safely obiously :) )


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,344 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    zing zong wrote: »
    but using WINE would still be missing the point because legally you would still have to pay for the software license (as an aside, im using office 2010 flawlessly in wine :) ) what im am saying is to replace it all

    Im fully aware its not just about desktop OS's and office apps, but if several other large EU countries are doing, we can simply, by and large, just use whatever they are using.


    TLDR; At the end of the day, is initial cost and retraining and rewriting certain applications not worth saving millions of tax euros every year *forever* that can be reinvested in Irish owned/Irish run IT sector jobs?? thats the big picture really
    It's not at all the big picture. Its the picture from the perspective of someone who has absolutely no experience in working in an enterprise environment, either public or private sector. I've worked in both, and in some of the biggest organisations nationally and internationally. Neither ran their entire enterprise on open source. Some may have ran certain areas (Webservers, firewalls) but NONE ran the whole shebang on open source.

    If open source is THAT big of a cost saving wouldnt EVERY major player in the private sector be running it all over the shop?

    Its not the complete answer, its part of the answer in some cases, but there are many issues to overcome.

    The costs of rewriting software (you've obviously no idea of the cost of rewriting major applications), training (no idea of the cost of training either), and downtime.


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    mathepac wrote: »
    Then there's the unions.

    "Comrades, your employer thinks they can change the light switches from standard to flourescent ones that glow in the dark without your agreement (the Croker blackmail cave-in notwithstanding). They argue this will make it easier to find the switches on dark winter mornings.

    We believe that this change requires extensive retraining from a functionality as well as from a health and safety perspective for each of our members - two weeks training per member plus a post-training re-skilling allowance, payable retrospectively to the date the original light switches were installed as our members were working with sub-optimal technology.

    If the Government insists on this change and unless they agree to our demands, we will continue to work in the dark.

    Thank youse brothers and sisters and in-betweeners."

    Then of course there's Micro$soft. Are they likely to pull out if Inda & Co switch from Windoze? Will they shift to China with their DVD-in-a-box operation and save billions?


    oh don't get me started on those guys!!!! :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    A lot of posters here are missing the point that MS provide a lot of 'free' training through their Software Assurance programme. This equally provides jobs for 3rd Party companies providing licenced MS training.

    Open Source carries hidden costs sometimes..not the least is having to pay for training. There is a much wider pool of expertise in MS systems too. I'm not convinced the Open Source up-front savings carry through the TCO calculations in many cases.


  • Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭zing zong


    We can't really afford the initial costs and there's also the problem of trying to appease Microsoft. We need them more than they need us.

    can't say i agree, they are here first and foremost for our shady "double-irish" tax system, which saves them millions if not billions, same goes for google etc, they won't leave I assure you


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,344 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    zing zong wrote: »
    can't say i agree, they are here first and foremost for our shady "double-irish" tax system, which saves them millions if not billions, same goes for google etc, they won't leave I assure you

    How solid is that assurance?
    And what is so shady about the tax system, it is pretty transparent and 80 percent of the reason a lot of other FDA happens here.


Advertisement