By Steve Ranger, 23 October 2009 11:22
NEWS
Despite tough economic conditions, CIOs have not turned to open source software as a way of making their IT budgets go further, according to silicon.com's latest exclusive CIO Jury.
Because it lacks the expensive licensing that is often the hallmark of proprietary software, open source is regularly touted as a way for IT departments to make their budget stretch a little bit further and it has already enjoyed considerable success in certain areas of the enterprise, such as web servers.
However, when asked if they had chosen open source software as a way of cutting their costs during the recession, just two of the 12-strong jury said yes.
In contrast, several CIOs said the costs of migrating to open source and the associated expenditure on retraining staff serve as a disincentive for adoption.
According to Peter Birley, director of IT and business operations at Browne Jacobson LLP, such costs are often greater than potential savings.
![]()
(Photo credit: JasonRogersFooDogGiraffeBee via Flickr.com under the following Creative Commons licence)
"Regardless of any possible functional benefits of an open source system, the cost of change and retraining would outweigh any benefits certainly in the short term and the project would distract from other more pressing needs," he said.
Retraining costs also figure into SMEs' thinking around open source adoption. Alan Bawden, IT & operations director at The JM Group said for most SME organisations, open source is not an option for two key reasons: the cost and difficulty in finding the specialised IT talent to configure and support the software, and end users' lack of familiarity with the software.
"This could add 'hidden' costs in the form of additional training and time lost with users familiarising themselves with the new system," he said.
Andrew Wayland, CIO of Michael Page International, agreed there can be costs that are not immediately apparent with open source software. "You have to do this with your eyes open, as there are hidden costs that don't immediately present themselves. Building enterprise systems based upon open source software means you end up having to pay to manage the additional risks," he said.
Paul Haley, director of information technology at the University of Aberdeen said the total cost of migrating to open source, coupled with the size of educational discounts on proprietary software, means "it does not represent a practicable solution".
"A more effectual way of managing cost is by ensuring appropriately managed and optimised licence management. This does not mean that there is not an important role for open source, just that it is not necessarily an appropriate mechanism for cost reduction," he added.
This week's CIO Jury was:
- Alan Bawden, IT & operations director, The JM Group
- Peter Birley, director of IT and business operations, Browne Jacobson
- Chris Ford, IT director, Nottingham City Council
- Steve Gediking, head of IT and facilities, Independent Police Complaints Commission
- Adam Gerrard, CIO, Avis Europe
- Paul Haley, director of information technology, University of Aberdeen
- Jane Kimberlin, IT director, Domino's Pizza
- David Pirie, group IT director, BCA
- Jacques René, CIO, Ascend
- Richard Storey, head of IT, Guys & St Thomas Hospital
- David Supple, head of IT and creative services, Ecotec Research and Consulting
- Andrew Wayland, CIO, Michael Page International
Want to be part of silicon.com's CIO Jury and have your say on the hot issues for IT departments? If you are a CIO, CTO, IT director or equivalent at a large or small company in the private or public sector and you want to be part of silicon.com's CIO Jury pool, or you know an IT chief who should be, then drop us a line at editorial@silicon.com



Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
It always surprises me that supposedly intelligent people can't differentiate between fact and FUD.
Where's the un-biased evidence for FOSS having a higher TCO?
2. Eugene M.
This article and most of the opinions stated are just so misleading. I've performed an extensive office environment simulation of converting from MS Windows and propietary software to Linux utilizing KDE, Open Office, GIMP, Firefox, PostgreSQL, PGAdmin, Inkscape, Pidgin, Xtuple Postbooks Accounting/ERP, Scribus, Mplayer, and countless other open source utilities and software, and very little 'training' and 'downtime' was encountered. Linux performed just as well, or even better, than its Microsoft counterpart. All the point and click functionality necessary in a typical office environment is there at your fingertips when using Linux with KDE and Open Source applications. An added bonus of Linux are a secure firewall, quality file systems, low resource usage, speed, and stability. Open source IS excellent for cost cutting, it's only that 'politically' oriented articles such as this one are published to misinform public opinion on the subject. Linux with KDE and Open Source apps are ready and available for all firms to download and utilize for free. It's just a matter of making the easy conversion. There are no excuses.
3. Charles Smith
No wonder the likes of Microsoft can charge such bloated prices for their products. Their clients get themselves into positions where they cannot negotiate competitive prices.
There's always space for both proprietory and Open Source software in an organisation. It will show the business users that you have flexibility and will allow them some choice in their cost base.
4. CJP
The IT world is divided in two on this one.
ISPs and Internet related organisations generally run on open source platform with *NIX/Open Source enthusiasts runningthe tech environments.
Then you have the corporate world running on Microsoft platform maybe with occasional exception of large databases which may run on *NIX platforms. For this world Open Source seems to be a no-go area and judged not to align with how things should be done. There is huge prejudice and mis-conception but seems to be how the world is divided. Those in the ISP/Open Source world are just as bad - will always create a cross with fore-fingers at mention of Microsoft!!
5. Simon
Interesting attitude !
When Microsoft comes along with it's new "improved" products then CIOs don't seem to take the attitude that they'll "never consider it because of the huge retraining costs".
Quite frankly what they are doing is making it an excuse. Yes, if you take out something already working and in use and replace it with something else - then it's going to cost. The trick is to take each forced upgrade as an opportunity to look at the alternatives.
Simple example - "We should stick with Office because everyone is familiar with it". Now, how much does it cost to switch someone from the old MS Office to OpenOffice ? How much did it cost to retrain everyone in the stupid totally different and unfamiliar user interface in the new MS Office ?
6. Alex C.
I agree, there will be a cost when training users on a new system. The cost may be higher than the licensing fee's of the proprietary solution. Fast forward 5 years, and the cost of upgrading the proprietary solution and retraining on the proprietary solution, will outweigh the initial cost of retraining on the open source solution. I'm amazed at the lack of forward thinking of companies.
7. Jim
This thinking that the initial cost of Open Source is to expensive to make the move.
We have so many short sighted managers that can't think of anything but today, What about the years on down the road, when your cost will be very low using Open Source.
8. anonymous
The top500.org shows that the 85% of the top 500 computers on the planet run linux...the most common operating system on the planet (including embedded systems, etc.) is linux. And innumerable organizations, CIOs have stated that "training costs" FUD, etc., are just that, FUD. There are many 5 year olds who don't seem to have a problem learning linux, etc. (EVERY elementary student in every school in the ENTIRE country of Uruguay are using linux computers...etc., et cetera)
9. paul
It's odd that all those countries and government agencies that are moving to Linux and OSS are experiencing huge cost reductions and next to no learning curve. That's not to mention better security, better up-time, more efficient use of resources in that they don't need to buy new hardware to upgrade. It's also interesting that this "article" would be published just when Windows 7 is being released.
10. anonymous
re-training costs? how clueless... training? wtf is that? 25 years ago maybe there was "training" not any more. what is their salary?
11. Anonymous Coward
I wonder what the kickback is on FOSS? Oh, wait...
12. Richard Chapman
I see you're getting hammered by the FOSS contingent. Don't worry Steve, help is on the way. I heard from a "reliable" source that GNU/Linux and Open Source users are outnumbered 89 to 1 by Microsoft Windows users. As of this post you should be getting 979 favorable responses from the Microsoft contingent. They should be here any time now. Yep, pretty soon....