By silicon.com, 18 July 2003 14:47
COMMENT The news that the NHS is planning to change its Microsoft deal for half a million licences in order to boost the government's block purchasing power and trigger major discounts throws up a number of interesting and unanswered issues. While the move will double the government's block purchasing power and lead to savings mooted to be in the £12 per licence bracket leading to overall savings of millions of pounds - the NHS will actually be slightly worse off per licence. It isn't a vast sum we are told but it would nevertheless still be a sizeable downpayment on a new hospital wing. So is the cash-strapped NHS just being extremely selfless? On face value it doesn't really add up. The government's central buying agency the Office of Government Commerce was unable to say whether any of the millions of pounds of savings that will come about as a result of the NHS switch will indeed be passed on to the NHS itself. One would hope so given the size of the task of modernising the crumbling health service infrastructure over the next few years. The other thing that doesn't add up is the government's figure for how much the NHS spends on Microsoft software. Microsoft and the NHS Information Authority were reluctant to go on the record criticising health minister John Hutton but admitted they didn't have a clue where his figures came from. He told Parliament a week ago that the NHS spends over £60m a year on Microsoft licences. We've had no response from the government yet, so we still don't know whether it was a slip of a civil servant's finger on the department's abacus or whether there is a real discrepancy over the actual figures. We intend to keep you in touch on that front, though. Finally, Microsoft admits that it doesn't usually allow customers to switch from a subscription to a perpetual licensing agreement but that in the case of the NHS it will make an exception. This is indeed a positive side to Microsoft and benefits both the NHS and taxpayers, though the bargaining power of some half a million licence fees also probably played its part. But it also raises the question of whether any large corporate customers will want to try and whether they will be allowed to cut similar deals with the Redmond giant. While on the face of it this is good news for the NHS, Microsoft and taxpayers, there are still important questions that remain unanswered.

Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Nobody knows how many copies of Office or Windows might be running in the NHS.
My theory is that the true drivers to adoption of the licencing agreement, whatever it actually is, were never the prospects of a reduction in costs (no chance of that with Longhorn anyway, and nobody needs Office XP or 2003) but were actually fear of embarrasment and cost if the BSA did an audit of any random NHS Trust.
I expect nobody thought they could get the attention of as many people as would be needed to remove Office and install OpenOffice.org, sensible though the latter would be.
2. anonymous
I have been in the Industry for over 10 years now. I've seen IBM stand by and make money on everything, I've seen SUN losing out on Linux, I've seen MS grow bigger. I see Linux come in an grow. I've seen it go out as well. I've seen MS being dumped for Apple .... I've seen a lot. Mostely what I have seen is irrational behaviour leading IT decisions being covered up by TCO analysis that often leave out the negative and only talk about the positive ... Everyone is in this for the money. Nothing is perfect. IT costs money, no matter what product we use. Pick the right one for the right job or you'll be spending more, not less. MS has great products, Linux has great products, Apple has some great products, IBM ... but in the end they all cost money in licenses, support, consultancy, maintenance, replacing lost functionality with other software ...
So please, give the industry a break ... compare it to Cars ... the all cost money, they all have drawbacks and strong points; But YOU CAN DRIVE ANY BRAND OF CAR with the same drivers licence ... that's where IT needs to get: making dumping a vendor as easy as bying another car. Just imagine the cost of migrating from MS to linux or vice versa for a company ... skill sets, training, restructuring, software incompatiblities, loss of productivity ...
3. anonymous
As an aside, given that the Government buy so much Microsoft software why is Windows not available in British (aka "real") English. I'm not talking dictionaries for Office here, but the OS itself - and I expect the readers of silicon.com to know the difference.
The Norwegians pressured Microsoft into producing a Nynorsk version of Windows for a relatively small number of largely Government workers, so why is our Government so pusillanimous about pushing for a British English version. Or can't politicians tell the difference between American and British English?
For many ordinary computer users, computers are scary enough without confusing phraseology. I had one customer look under the table at their computer when asked to "check the box" by a Windows dialogue box.
If we're going to give in and use US English, let's have a vote to decide to dump British. Which way would you vote?