Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
MR ROB
SHED, MR
BARRY WHITE,
MR MIKE
BLACKBURN, MR
MARCUS ORLOVSKY
AND MR
NICK KALISPERAS
5 JULY 2006
Q280 Chairman: Not everyone is using
an LEP?
Mr Blackburn: That is the standard
way that DfES would like you to use an LEP. We would rather in
some cases to not necessarily form an LEP.
Q281 Mr Chaytor: You do not have
to form an LEP?
Mr Blackburn: No, you do not.
There is a framework to be used where we prefer not to. Can I
point out that when you are at the back end of a construction
contract, you are a very small element of a construction contract
and some of the terms and conditions of those contracts sometimes
then mean that you can lose some of the innovation within the
ICT framework. It is very difficult to get it to work. It does
work in some cases, I absolutely agree with that, but not in all.
I think the local providers, the local people, should be choosing
which way is the most appropriate way to go. Is it an ICT only,
is it a building only or is it a combination of both?
Mr Kalisperas: Just to follow
up on that, we have done a lot of work in the last three to four
years with organisations like the Office of Government Commerce
and the E-Government Unit looking at why projects fail or the
difficulties that projects encounter.
Q282 Chairman: IT projects?
Mr Kalisperas: IT projects. A
lot of those examinations have focused very much on that initial
phase before a tender is issued and the level of interaction that
takes place between the customer and the supplier over their requirements.
One of the conclusions we have reached is that there has been
insufficient dialogue and insufficient understanding of what your
requirement is, so once you issue the tender, you do not have
a tender that accurately reflects the supplies.
Q283 Chairman: I hope you read our
Report on individual requirements because that is precisely what
we found.
Mr Kalisperas: To this end we
have also launched a service called "Concept Viability"
which seeks to bring together public sector customers and suppliers
in the forum before tenders are issued which basically asks, "Are
their requirements suitable? Does it meet the needs of the market?
What other options can they consider?" The service has been
running for at least three years now and we have approached a
cross-section of the public sector community. It has helped the
procurement process because once you go at the tender phase and
then you realise you have not got the right requirements, you
start making changes to the tender and then to the contract, that
adds to the cost and you do not get the solution you want. I think
from our perspective what we want is precisely what Mike said,
we want a dialogue with the customer where their ICT requirements
are discussed fully and openly and they are aware of the solutions.
We do not want a blank cheque, we just want to be able to use
the money that is allocated towards IT effectively.
Q284 Mr Chaytor: We have certain
technologies available, we can predict what is likely to become
cheaper or more accessible over the next five or 10 years, and
we can imagine what is likely to be available in 20 years, but
to what extent are the ICT requirements going to vary school by
school? I cannot get my head around every school having a different
set of ICT requirements, given every school is working to broadly
the same National Curriculum and every school will have broadly
a similar range of community involvement.
Mr Kalisperas: There will be an
element of standardisation, a baseline, to which every school
should reach, but over and above that one size does not fit all,
nor should it.
Q285 Mr Chaytor: Can you give me
a specific example of where secondary schools in different parts
of the country in different geographical circumstances might require
a fundamentally different ICT provision that has to be built in
at an early stage?
Mr Kalisperas: As I mentioned
previously, where you have got, say, an inner city secondary school
as opposed to a secondary school in a rural location, the inner
city school is probably going to want something which is much
more classroom-based because of the geographical location of its
pupils, they will be much more within the classroom, whereas those
within a more rural location will be more geographically spread.
Therefore, you are looking at potentially offering people things
such as distance learning, greater distance learning and perhaps
the use of mobile devices. I think that sort of difference needs
to come to the fore and we need to be aware of it so companies,
such as Mike's, can develop solutions which are tailored to meet
the needs of individual schools as opposed to developing, say,
one standard solution which, ultimately, probably will not do
what it is supposed to do.
Q286 Mr Chaytor: If you have got
a school in the Outer Hebrides, I can see the point that there
is an advantage of having broadband, what else do you need? I
cannot see this is a big deal in the negotiation of the contract.
Mr Blackburn: There are some differences
in some senses. It depends on what they have already got and what
they used to do, how they have built their pedagogy, their teaching
and learning around what kind of equipment they currently have.
To use an extreme, if you take all of that away and give them
a completely different set of devices and software, there is a
massive amount of re-training to be done for teachers and for
pupils as well. There are thousands of different software vendors
out there in the educational arena.
Q287 Mr Chaytor: Here we are talking
about hardware.
Mr Blackburn: I agree.
Q288 Mr Chaytor: The software and
the training and professional development of teachers come later.
We are talking about installing hardware and, while we are talking
about this, how would the basic hardware and the basic infrastructure
be different in secondary schools delivering broadly the same
curriculum across the country?
Mr Blackburn: You go to some classrooms
and they will have a lab of computers and that is how they are
going to teach; others will have a completely integrated and open
environment, that is how they teach. They are markedly different
teaching environments and, therefore, you do not have the same
solution for one versus the other. If you then try and impose
a wireless environment on that, you have a completely different
set of problems, changing one from the other into wireless and
then into homeworking, how your security is run within the school.
They are quite different in both hardware and software or could
be quite different in both hardware and software terms. I would
absolutely agree that there are not thousands of different options
for this, but you have to be able to allow that innovation and
use in the classroom to be taken forward by the teacher and the
pupil as well in the way they want to take them forward rather
than mandating, "You must use that little machine that is
going to sit in the corner between 9.30 and a quarter to ten".
Q289 Mr Chaytor: There are also issues
of good practice here because schools that are locking themselves
in now for the next 25 years with having a small number of computer
rooms with fixed banks of computers, that cannot be good practice
for the next quarter of a century, can it?
Mr Blackburn: I would agree with
you.
Q290 Mr Chaytor: That is an option
then that should not be subject to negotiation.
Mr Blackburn: I absolutely agree
with you. If you look at the research that both BECTA and the
NCSL have done in those areas, and then the SLICT (School Leadership
in ICT) programme for head teachers and aspiring heads that NCSL
have done, there is some really great practice going on there.
My point before was how do you take that really great, innovative
practice, and look at making it available for the 80%, so that
at least they know about it and can use it.
Q291 Mr Chaytor: Can we just switch
over to Barry and Rob again; how do you feel about this viewpoint
that it would be far better if the whole project was ICT-led rather
than construction-led, that the ICT people are being squeezed
out on the LEPs?
Mr White: My view is that I do
not believe they are being squeezed out. The evaluation criteria
are set on most projects with ICT very high as part of the valuation
criteria and out of all proportion to the actual value of ICT
in terms of pounds money. It is actually saying as a consortium
if you are not delivering strongly in ICT you will be unsuccessful,
so from that point of view there is a very clear message. Coming
back to a point I made earlier, as part of us actually deciding
to bid a project, having the right ICT partner is an absolutely
critical part of that selection process, to say can we actually
deliver what the customer wants for this particular project. Where
are we actually going with all this is a very big question and
the danger of divorcing it and saying ICT is separate from the
actual building is that where we are going is that we will start
designing smaller schools, we will design schools that have more
than planned spaces. That is already happening and it will happen
more, but what is actually happening at the moment is that we
are coming together and working together in a way that has never
happened before, so out of all the design team meetings the ICT
partner plays a key role in actually developing the physical design
of the building. That is about two things, it is actually about
how teaching and learning is delivered but it is also how the
technology all works, will wireless work in that building, will
different delivery methodologies work, will the CCTV system feed
into the managed learning environment so that the head teacher
can view CCTV through his computer? All these aspects, that actually
are very important on the ground, are being achieved through actually
that linkage that is there at the moment.
Mr Chaytor: Following that could
I just ask Marcus, because you are squeezed in the middle between
the ICT people and the construction and facilities management
people, earlier you were talking about the radical changes in
the delivery of education over the next generation and how the
BSF programme contributes to that. The difficulty I have is that
it is easy to talk about this being transformational, which is
the current buzzword, but it is more difficult to visualise what
the typical secondary school might be like in 20 years time. How
would you envisage that, what are the main differences going to
be in the delivery of secondary education, for example, in 20
years time as of now? What will the impact of ICT be and what
will need to be the impact of the design of schemes, how will
the design of schools have to be different?
Chairman: Marcus, you can take that in
bite-sized pieces if you like.
Q292 Mr Chaytor: Sorry, yes, there
is a series of questions there.
Mr Orlovsky: At the heart of it—and
that is probably why this group of people is coming out with some
of the frustrations—the reason why some of the PFI schools
have not been very good is because we have had a client—let
us use the word loosely, a user—who has had some procurement
done under him. It is difficult for anybody who is currently in
an educational environment, dealing with the day to day issues
of their own environment, to then face a group of professionals
coming in, in whatever is that time frame, whether it is 13 weeks
or 18 weeks, and asking "So what is it that you want to do
so that we can then deliver the solution to you?" If I have
not had a clear lead of thinking I am going to find it impossible
to respond to such wide-ranging questions. The work which has
been alluded to all over the place, from the National College
of School Leadership, through to BECTA, through to Partnership
for Schools, has been trying to see where our teachers on the
ground and deputies are starting to see this as coming to them.
There are some key components and one of the key components is
if we want to encourage young people to pick up a raft of different
skills in order to be able to participate in our wider society,
then we are going to have to move ourselves, as at the stage of
the intervention of the secondary school, into offering a much
wider curriculum. That is a generally accepted desire, but it
brings with it a bit of a change because that means I may not
be able to be carving people up into groups of 30 and delivering
such a wide curriculum in classrooms, which then leads on to how
will I do that. That makes the move from the teacher being the
passer of information and skills to the teacher being the facilitator
of an independent learner picking up those skills. That is a big
move for the teaching profession, and at what stage are learners
ready to embrace that.
Q293 Mr Chaytor: Just pausing there,
to what extent do you think that is understood by the LEPs that
are currently progressing the building programme?
Mr Orlovsky: At different stages
people probably know that, but at the end of the day if there
is a procurement here, most organisations want to make a profit
and want to deliver that which the users have asked for. If push
comes to shove I think it would be a very brave bidder who says
"I know what you have asked for, but I do not think it is
right and this is what I am proposing", because I do not
think they would win it. An awful lot of projects are won when
people know it is not the right one and that is actually the reason
why I started Bryanston Square because I heard people say "I
know the solution is not right educationally, but it was affordable
and is what the client wanted", which I think is outrageous.
Q294 Chairman: Or the financial package
was the right one for them.
Mr Orlovsky: Or whatever. We just
have to look at the reality which is that I do not think there
are very many organisations in this country who are bidding for
long term projects that have any intention of holding those projects
for 25 years. I am sorry, I just believe that most want to recycle
their equity so that they can move to the next project, and whether
one is a constructor or a facilities manager, you just have to
look at the growth of the secondary market and the infrastructure
funds and you can see there is a desire to win a bid, to create
a great project, to sell it, to move on, to be able to do the
next one. To some extent if there is a process flaw in the LEP
it is that the incentive in the private sector participants is
not geared around delivering better quality young people, that
does not really come into it; it is usually about building-related
issues.
Q295 Mr Chaytor: I am sorry to interrupt
at that point, but this brings us to the whole question of the
way in which projects are subject to evaluation and these key
performance indicators; you are saying the key performance indicators
are all wrong really and there should be a stronger educational
input.
Mr Orlovsky: I am not saying they
are all wrong, but if we want to encourage the private sector
responders to move towards thinking about the educational outcomes,
then one wants to have that KPI there; if we do not, if we want
people to focus upon being really good at delivering what the
requirements are, then we do not need those key performance indicators
but we do need to get our users, our initial group of people,
to spend a bit more time in really working through what they want.
At the moment a lot of that is incumbent upon the dialogue process
in whatever is that short period of time in delivering the solution.
Barry is right in that the actual bidding time from starting to
bid to actually achieving preferred bidder may be quite long,
but a lot of the major decisions are taken quite early. If one
has a user base which has not had the chance of really exploring
what it is that that future might be, if we are not asking the
private sector to be tied into the outcomes of that future, then
it sort of says that the process should put much more emphasis
before the private sector responder is being invited to bid. One
of those options would probably solve what we are all grappling
with at the moment as being a bit of an issue. My colleagues on
my right would probably say if users had spent more time knowing
what is possible, and if they had spent more time dialoguing with
the ICT providers and exploring how they were going to change
learning, it would better for them; my colleagues on the left,
if they knew that users had thought through various different
concepts and knew roughly where it might change over 15 or 20
years time, we would be able to respond to those requirements
as well.
Q296 Mr Chaytor: Can we test that
thesis then with Barry and Mike? At the moment the only thing
that you seem to have in agreement is you say there should be
more money in the system, but you would say that, would you not?
I am trying to see if there are other things on which you can
agree?
Mr Shed: I am not sure the picture
is as black as has been suggested. The buildings we are currently
building are becoming much more flexible and if you look at the
basic design of a school things change—the methods of teaching
change and the schools that we are now trying to design with Bristol
are much more flexible and have got many more flexible spaces,
primarily by employing people like Marcus to help us and advise
us so that we offer the very best solution for the kids of Bristol.
The ICT issue is one whereby we can provide a more advanced ICT
coping system, such that when the changes come and people require
a much higher quality system, our system can take a further change.
By installing our cableways in an accessible way we can replace
those cables in 10 years time if we need to, so the flexibility
in the schools recognises some of these issues that we are talking
about; I guess it is impossible to come up with a school that
is going to be perfect for 25 years time, but education fundamentally
is still being taught in the same way as it was taught 25 years
ago. I am sure the educationalists will argue that there are some
changes, but primarily it is very similar. There will obviously
be a revolution in some ways regarding ICT, use of computers,
and kids are much more accessible, but all those sorts of issues
we are trying to accommodate in what we are doing at Bristol.
For example, we have designed, in consultation with our ICT adviser,
big hubs for the equipment, we have security properly designed
into the system, so we have actually gone an awful long way in
giving this flexibility. The other issue that perhaps has not
been picked up is that the very reason for BSF including ICT within
the schemes—and I am fairly neutral as to whether it is
in or out of our schemes—is that it comes under the same
measures as the construction does, so it is treated the same,
so delivery of the ICT system which traditionally has been challenged
in some quarters, comes with the same measures as the construction.
There is no argument in future on our schemes as to whether a
room is inaccessible because the room has not been cleaned or
whether the ICT is not working, it is the consortium's issue.
If that was outside of the consortium, that issue would still
be there as a problem for the school, so it does give the school
great clarity, and if we are looking at it from an educational
point of view, you can see the benefit of including ICT within
the scheme. There will always be this argument that technologies
change, technology refresh needs to be accommodated, but perhaps
that could be done by this educated design of the buildings whereby
they are more flexible to accommodate future change.
Mr White: One thing that Marcus
said is absolutely right: it would be a very brave bidder who
said we have listened to everything you said you wanted and decided
to offer you something totally different; that would be a very
short-lived experience. Genuinely we have to listen to what our
customers are saying they want and if that is motivational or
more innovative we have to take the view that it suits how that
local authority and how that head teacher wishes to continue to
deliver things.
Q297 Chairman: What we are trying
to get at is that these are—as Marcus has said—very
busy people who are running a school, have a fulltime job and
suddenly these top professionals arrive and it is difficult. If
you are looking for a house, often you go and look at a show house,
do you not, because you can look at the sort of thing you guys
are going to build; are there, for the schools of tomorrow, opportunities
to actually build in partnership some of these schools that you
could actually take people to? You could have one of these John
Prescott challenges to build one, not for £65,000, but you
get my meaning, do you not? You need somewhere to take people
and say if you used all the technology, if you really did this,
you know, BT, you guys and other partners—or do they already
exist in schools you have built? I suspect from what you are saying
that they do not, so why not build one?
Mr White: Our ICT partner that
we work with at the moment on some of the projects has a classroom
of the future, so he would take people to show them the classroom
of the future and the technologies available in that. That is
already happening and I think what Partners for Schools are doing
or appear to be doing, from what we believe, is that at an early
stage, before the procurement even starts, they make much challenge
of their educational vision to make sure that is in place so that
by the time we become involved there is a very clear view as to
what vision is trying to be delivered.
Q298 Chairman: At the very beginning
of this session I said to you, "Barry, would you guys educate
this Committee?" I would challenge you then, where would
you take us to see this superb good practice, where would you
tell us to go? Would it be somewhere in Europe, would it be somewhere
here, and if you cannot tell us how can you tell a head teacher
you are talking to? You are the head of education at one of the
leading construction companies in the country, is it not your
responsibility to know exactly where you would take us and take
that head and show them the future?
Mr White: There are places we
would recommend you go to see what we believe is currently very
good or best practice.
Q299 Chairman: You do not want to
build the school of the future in Huddersfield for me and say
that everyone can go—you could do it there but we would
have to find you a site.
Mr White: We would be very happy
to do so. The schools we are delivering in Bristol we would be
happy to take anyone to and say this is what is possible under
the BSF programme because we believe it is a step change from
what has been delivered in the past.
|
