|
BT Input
to
Education and Skills Committee inquiry into Sustainable Schools
11 July 2006
This document contains proprietary information of British Telecommunications plc and may not be reproduced in any form or disclosed to any third party without the expressed written permission of a duly authorised representative from BT.
Nothing in this document forms part of any contract. Any service discussed in this document will be subject to contract with British Telecommunications plc.
(c) 2004 British Telecommunications plc 81, Newgate Street, London EC1 7AJ Registered in England No. 1800000
Sustainable schools under BSF
This paper presents the response from BT Education and Local Government to the call for input issued by DfES Education & Skills Select Committee inquiry into sustainable schools.
The views expressed are those of BT as a potential ICT provider in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. We have not commented on issues outside the scope of this capability but we have attempted to show how the role of ICT provider is affected, and in some cases compromised, by the interface with other BSF participants.
If any of the comments require clarification or amplification please contact,
Ian W Paterson BT Education & Local Government Telephone; 10977 594004 e-mail; ian.2.paterson@bt.com
BSF provides the opportunity to achieve true transformation of teaching and learning, and by virtue of that, real sustainability. ICT services have a key role to play in facilitating this transformation, as acknowledged by the DfES harnessing technology strategy. BT has first hand experience of operational and service transformation within the local government arena and if this could be effectively provided within the BSF programme the following could certainly be achieved.
The first wave of BSF projects have failed to achieve any of these results and the programme is missing opportunities, and potentially substantial efficiencies, that could be gained from the development of shared services. This appears to be at odds with other government strategies where the development of shared services across multiple agencies and establishments is being positively encouraged.
There seems to be a variety of reasons for this. Some of them are associated with the punitive commercial and legal framework of BSF, others relate to the procurement process and to a lack of real commitment to transformation.
The attitude and approach we have seen in BSF is better described as merely securing new buildings and treating ICT as a commodity service.
Commercial Terms:
These place unrealistic terms and risks on ICT providers and the effect has been to discourage participation in the programme. We know of several examples where significant ICT providers (including BT) have left BSF bids because of the unacceptable nature of the commercial terms. The result is that BSF projects are dominated by construction issues and much of the potential for transformation and delivery of genuinely sustainable learning environments is lost.
Procurement Method:
The procurement method is overly time consuming, complex and expensive. Average bid costs for each project can be up to £350,000 for an ICT provider and significantly more for a construction or prime bidder. Also, resultant revenues are several years downstream. This creates a significant cash flow and risk issues which are often not justified by the resulting contract value.
Commitment to transformation:
Whilst BSF loudly acclaimed the role of ICT the reality is that it consists of little more than a pre determined technical specification to be delivered at least cost. The most important element of ICT enabled transformation, change management, has only recently been brought within scope, and requirements are defined in terms of outputs rather than outcomes. In most cases it appears there is adequate funding for impressive new buildings but the percentage of cost associated with ICT is inadequate.
We believe sustainability in terms of energy efficiency and building methods probably is being achieved. This however only emphasises that BSF is emerging as a building programme, rather than a transformational one and that it likely to fall far short of delivering genuinely sustainable learning environments that are fit for purpose in the long term. The ICT agenda is focussed almost exclusively on the teaching and learning process. Little consideration has been given to the way that ICT could be used to influence school design and operation. Opportunities that would have a positive long-term impact on sustainability but which require a "spend to save" mentality in order to implement are being lost. The role of ICT in BSF is being seen as that of a supplementary teaching and learning facility rather than a transformational tool. This actually adds unsustainable cost and little is being done to change the existing cost and environmental parameters. This means that BSF projects are likely to end up with the same number of schools, teachers, teaching assistants, the same curriculum, hours of operation and unproductive holiday periods. All of this, in our view, mitigates against sustainability. ICT has not been established as a differentiator in BSF. The approach we have seen has been to procure ICT to satisfy a minimum standard at least cost. This has resulted in many of the opportunities for innovation, value-add and transformation that ICT can facilitate being lost.
ICT funding in BSF is inappropriate and inadequate. The BSF approach to ICT provides lump sum capital of £1450 per student for ICT services, plus £200 per student for ICT infrastructure. This gives the clear impression that all ICT should be affordable within these limits and activity discourages innovation. The approach also ignores the fact that delivery of good and sustainable ICT service is dependant on a consistent revenue budget and an ongoing commitment to refresh expenditure. BSF has ignored both of these issues and passed the responsibility directly onto schools.
With a view to enabling delivery of sustainable ICT infrastructure we believe that BSF must be carefully interfaced with revenue budgets. Adequate revenue funding, to provide for items such as ongoing managed service, training and refresh of ICT, is in many ways more important than the initial capital investment and so coordination in this area will be vital for the delivery of effective, long-term ICT services.
The procurement process in BSF is unsustainable for the supplier industry in terms of cost, complexity, scale, risk, and value. Supposed managed services are being watered down to least price component purchase and the most important elements of delivering transformation with ICT as a key lever are missing. Experience of the procurement process also shows that opportunities for innovation are squeezed out by the focus on fixed funding levels.
Projects which have attempted to procure ICT separately from building and property aspects of BSF have been discouraged, but in our view this approach should be given further consideration. If a business model could be found that allows this approach it would encourage ICT innovation and value-add approaches, that would in turn support long term sustainability.
It is essential that BSF capital investment is conducted in a way that will integrate with other investment programmes. This applies to programmes in other public service agencies, such as health, as much as it does for other schools. It is also important that individual schools are recognised as part of an overall school community and that BSF investment is conducted with consideration to wider area issues. Only in this way will it be possible to enable technology and innovation, such as delivery of professional quality ICT managed services, which will be vital to the delivery of a sustainable service.
Particular ways in which BSF could provide sustainable schools, which play a role at the heart of the community would be,
o Driving innovation and development of ICT systems that support building management, administration functions and utility management.
Current arrangements and particularly the partnership and legal framework of BSF make all of the above virtually impossible to achieve.
It is our belief that the transformation and sustainability ambitions of BSF could only be achieved if the programme was ICT rather than construction led. It would also require a genuine commitment to transformation of traditional processes, cultures and rules and a realisation that decisions about buildings and ICT are largely dependant upon an agreed model of change.
June 2006 |