Quarkside

14/11/2010

CapGemini Commission Questions

Filed under: Education,Policy,Standards,Technology — lenand @ 11:16 pm
Tags: , , ,

The interaction between the SIF Association and DfE has generated most interest on Quarkside, and justifies continuing with no answers forthcoming from DfE.   This post focusses on the Capgemini commission for the DfE System-wide interoperability review.  The following items should have been delivered in the final report:

  • business drivers and requirements for data exchange
  • assessment of current ESCS sector capability (including SIF)
  • assessment of UK government direction of travel and capability
  • target conceptual architecture for the sharing / exchange of data
  • solution options for delivering the target architecture and recommendations
  • consideration of issues relating to the ongoing provision of any required business services, including options and recommendations
  • high level investment case
  • outline delivery roadmap

Great stuff.  They are all most pertinent input to deciding a local interoperability strategy for schools. The Department should be pleased to publish them since there is now no possibility of conflict with Becta advice.  Policy and strategic direction is now in the right, accountable, place.  They quark the needs, the business case and the technology direction. [Process>Governance>Technology].

Previous SIF Association conferences have covered all three in their proceedings.  They have the Specification, a draft Business Case (with Atkins Global on the spreadsheet properties) and the Technology.  This investment should not be written off without due cause or rational explanation.  The ‘only kid on the block’ should be nurtured by DfE, not neglected.  When all schools become freed from local authority control, they will really need all methods of minimising administration complication and costs.

If CapGemini have not delivered the goods, then here are three questions worth asking:

  1. What were the contract value, terms and conditions?
  2. What was the correspondence between the DfE and CapGemini that authorised reducing the scope?
  3. How much has been paid for the report?

A Freedom of Information request may drag out some answers, but maybe some readers of Quarkside already know them.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: