1. Introduction

1.1 This submission has been prepared by Intellect in response to the press notice issued by the Education and Skills Select Committee on 10 May 2006.

1.2 Intellect represents 1000 companies in the Information Technology, Telecommunications and Electronics industries in the UK. Intellect is committed to improving the environment in which our members do business, promoting their interests and providing them with high value services. Our membership spans blue chip multi-nationals through to early stage technology enterprises. Intellect's website is located at www.intellectuk.org

1.3 This memorandum focuses primarily on the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) element of the BSF programme; this is the area where Intellect members have most expertise and are most engaged with the programme. It does not consider in depth the potential for ICT to contribute to improving teaching and learning (details of this can be provided separately if required).

1.4 We are enthusiastic about the educational potential of ICT, both as a tool for making learning more exciting and as a mechanism for improving 'back-office' processes. This enthusiasm is shared by the DfES and many educationalists. We would note though that, whilst many schools offer compelling glimpses of the potential of ICT, technology is still far from being a transforming force in the generality of schools. The BSF programme can play a major role in helping education embrace technology. 21^st Century schools need 21^st Century technology.

2. Future learning needs: BSF procurement approach hinders ICT choice

2.1 The document BSF Educational Vision - November 2004 (published by Partnerships for Schools) states that the mission for ICT in schools is:

"To help all children achieve their full potential by supporting every school in England to become a centre of excellence in the use of ICT for teaching and learning and for whole-school development."

We agree: ICT has as least as much scope to drive improvements in educational standards as does the provision of a high-quality built environment. It is not enough for schools of the future to provide compelling physical environments; they also need to offer compelling virtual environments, delivered through ICT.

2.2 In considering future learning needs, we believe it is necessary to consider how effective the BSF programme is likely to be in providing schools with ICT systems that are educationally effective as well as technically reliable. We are unconvinced that the structure of the BSF programme will allow schools to choose the ICT solutions they need; nor do we think it will encourage suppliers to invest in developing and delivering innovative, educationally-valuable ICT solutions.

2.3 The procurement approach being adopted for BSF projects means that, in many cases, schools will get the ICT service that happens to be supplied as part of the building programme, whether or not it meets their needs. This is because of the consortium nature of BSF projects, which brings together building, facilities management and ICT procurement into a single transaction, with ICT given relatively little weight (c.15%) in the decision making process.

2.4 With the procurement process placing relatively little emphasis on the provision of innovative, educationally-valuable ICT, there is little incentive for suppliers to invest in developing products and services that demonstrate these characteristics. Instead they will offer ICT solutions that are 'just-good-enough' and will focus their attention on selecting the right consortium partner.

2.5 The standard documentation provided by Partnerships for Schools sets out a minimum 'threshold' service level for ICT. This is a relatively low level of service though and is more a reflection of existing practice than an aspiration for future excellence. ICT is more sophisticated - and has significantly more educational impact - than straightforward utility services such as heating or plumbing, and schools deserve better than a 'just-good-enough' standard of ICT.

2.6 We would like to see a procurement process that encourages ICT suppliers to take risks and offer genuinely innovative ICT products and services. This means that the choice of ICT supplier needs to be made on the basis of their educational vision, not which consortium they are part of.

There are a number of ways that this could be achieved:

a. The threshold level for ICT could be set much higher, with the aim of ensuring that all ICT suppliers offered innovative services.

b. The ICT element could be given a much higher weighting in the decision making process.

c. ICT and buildings could be procured separately as part of a multi-stage process.

We favour approach C - separation of ICT procurement.

2.7 The selection of the most appropriate ICT supplier is, of course, only the first stage of achieving transformation through technology. Delivering transformation will require a mechanism for measuring achievement against a well-understood set of goals to be in place. Our experience from other sectors shows that these goals are most likely to be achieved when the client and the supplier share, as far as possible, the same motivation. Clearly, it is easy to identify and measure physical outputs (like the number of computers); however, we would urge the DfES and PfS to strongly encourage projects to reward suppliers for delivering less tangible educational outcomes.

3. Future learning needs: linkage with other programmes

3.1 We would encourage government to actively consider how BSF ICT provision could be more effectively linked to other ICT programmes. In particular, we note that the DfES has provided strong guidance to schools about the adoption of 'Learning Platforms'. These systems also form part of the ICT specification for some BSF programmes. We believe that there needs to be greater consistency here.

3.2 Schools receive advice about educational ICT from many different directions: numerous DfES programmes have ICT elements, whilst guidance comes from a number of national and regional public sector bodies. Whilst this advice is rarely contradictory, it is often difficult for schools to get a clear and coherent view of what they are expected to achieve. We believe schools would value unambiguous guidance about what level of ICT support and service they are expected to offer teachers, pupils and parents/carers.

4. Future learning needs: transformation requires change management

4.1 Intellect members have wide experience, in many different sectors, of introducing transformational technology. It is very clear from this experience that transformation requires more than simply installing an ICT-based system; it also requires a well-executed transformation - or change - process. This is not a novel observation; nonetheless it is an important one.

4.2 Partnerships for Schools (PfS) has recently provided guidance on change management to Local Authorities developing BSF projects. We view this as extremely helpful; improvement will not be achieved by re-housing the same educational processes in new buildings. We would note that the BSF programme does not provide funding for change management; we believe this needs to be addressed.

5. Delivery and Funding: multi-year contracts secure effective ICT delivery

5.1 Richard Bowker of PfS has spoken of schools needing 'industry-strength managed ICT services'. We strongly endorse this view; if pupils and teachers are to place a high degree of reliance on technology, schools need reliable ICT infrastructure managed in a professional and sustainable way.

5.2 We view the procurement model proposed for BSF, with schools committing to multi-year service contracts, and the level of funding available as helpful in achieving this.

5.3 We would note though that, with ICT funding only provided for five years, there is an issue of sustainability beyond this initial period. Clearly, BSF is a capital programme and, as such, isn't responsible for the provision of operational budgets for schools. If the schools delivered by the BSF programme are to be sustainable, the DfES needs to consider their longer-term operational funding requirements.

6. Delivery and funding: BSF procurement model unlikely to encourage ICT supplier engagement

6.1 As we have previously noted, the consortium nature of BSF procurement is unlikely to encourage ICT suppliers to invest in developing innovative, educationally-valuable ICT solutions. We also have concerns that the procurement model may discourage suppliers from participating at all.

6.2 We conservatively estimate that bidding the ICT element of a BSF contract will cost an Intellect member in excess of Ł200,000 over at least twelve months. The process of submitting a tender, even for a relatively straightforward bid (i.e. one without significant innovation) is likely to be expensive because of the complex nature of the procurement environment. Such a high level of investment is difficult for suppliers to justify when the factors which will determine a bid's success or otherwise are largely out of their hands, and the end result is determined by the supplier's choice of consortium partner rather than their bid's merits.

6.3 This is compounded by the terms and conditions imposed by the BSF procurement process. This is a complex area where we would be happy to provide more detail. In summary, we believe that the contractual terms and conditions - which in some situations could result in an ICT supplier having potential liabilities that exceed the value of the contract - may prove a significant disincentive.

6.4 We would note that, at the time of writing, we believe only one BSF delivery contract has reached financial close. This is an ICT-only contract and, as such, does not have the same complexity as a contract to provide ICT under a LEP framework. The experience of Intellect members suggests that legal and contractual issues are a real impediment to progress.

6.5 We are already seeing Intellect members choosing to de-emphasise BSF activity in favour of other work where the potential return on investment is higher. We believe that, unless changes are made, there is a significant risk that only a limited number of suppliers will participate in the programme and that schools will receive lowest common denominator ICT.

7. Next Steps

Intellect is happy to give evidence to the Education & Skills Select Committee to explore the issues discussed in this submission in greater detail.