Upload
ina
View
25
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Creating a 'level playing field' for open source software options in IT selection and procurement. http://oss-watch.ac.uk @osswatch. 1. Strategy. What Are We Talking About?. Free Software. "Free as In Freedom" The freedom to run the program, for any purpose - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Creating a 'level playing field' for open source software
options in IT selection and procurement
http://oss-watch.ac.uk@osswatch
1. Strategy
What Are We Talking About?
Free Software
"Free as In Freedom"0) The freedom to run the program, for any
purpose 1) The freedom to study how the program
works, and adapt it to your needs2) The freedom to redistribute copies so
you can help your neighbour 3) The freedom to improve the program,
and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
Open Source
• Freely Redistributable • Source Code Included • Derived Works Permitted • Integrity of Author Source
Code • No Discrimination Against
Persons or Groups • No Discrimination Against
Fields of Endeavor
• Distribution of License • License Must Not Be
Specific to a Product (or distribution)
• License Must Not Restrict Other Software
• License Must Be Technology-Neutral (no 'click wrap')
Open Development● Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) just
refers to the licence● Open Development refers to projects
which are developed with engagement and contribution from communities, which promotes sustainability.
● Not all FOSS software is produced by Open Development, e.g. Android, MySQL
Why does this matter?
Sustained Value● Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is often
(although not necessarily) lower for FOSS solutions
● No license fees to pay when purchasing/upgrading
● Open market for service providers● Option to provision some or all of the solution
yourself
Sustained Value● Sustainability
● Risk Management● What if the company disappears?● What if the software is bought and killed off?● What is the exit strategy?● Transparency of open development makes
judging "health" of a project easier
Meeting User Needs● No restrictions on your use of the
software● Design your own trials and pilots● Make changes (or have them made)● Share the costs of niche requirements
with others in the community● Access to the "best of breed" solutions
Case Studies
Department for Culture, Media and Sport● Replaced proprietary intranet platform with
open source Wordpress● Procured development services from and
SME through G-Cloud● Developed the new system through an
iterative process● Solution realised for £15k, with ongoing
monthly costs in the hundreds, a 90% saving
NHS● Developing Spine2 communications
infrastructure using Riak database in place of current Oracle solution
● Riak chosen "to deliver a more flexible and resilient solution"
● No major proprietary solutions in Riak's field● Riak developed by Basho, Spine2 being
developed by BJSS, engaged through G-Cloud
Case Studies
City of Munich● Migrated all municipal systems from Microsoft
software to FOSS● Switch instigated by end-of-life of existing
products, and the prospect of further lock-in in the future
● Migrating office documents and apps costs €200k more than if they'd upgraded to newer MS Windows
● However, €6.8m saved on licensing costs● Total savings exceeded €10m, although "Our main
goal was to become independent"
Case Studies
French Profile● Gendarmerie Nationale switched 37,000
Windows Desktops to Ubuntu Linux, with double that due to by migrated by summer 2014.
● Lowered TCO by 40%, 2m per year● "Using Ubuntu Linux massively reduces
the number of local technical interventions" – ongoing savings made on support costs
Case Studies
2. Policy
Agnostic● Don't mention "open source"● Has its merits, avoids creating "Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt"● "Open source software, while it can be useful in many
instances and appear to be cost effective, may present a security risk because open source developers don’t typically follow security best practices when developing their software." - IRS Memorandum on use of FOSS
● Relies on already-instilled culture to be effective
Agnostic● Don't mention "open source"● Has its merits, avoids creating "Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt"
● Relies on already-instilled culture to be effective
● "Open source Software, while it can be useful in many instances and appear to be cost effective, may present a security risk because open source developers don’t typically follow security best practices when developing their software."
Equal consideration● Require that both open source and proprietary
solutions are considered on a level playing field● "The Government will actively and fairly
consider open source solutions alongside proprietary ones in making procurement decisions" - UK Cabinet Office Open Source Policy
● Encourages an awareness of open source options
● Need to put in place a process for ensuring that solutions can be considered equally
● Need to monitor the procurement process to ensure that such a policy is followed
Preferential● Explicitly prefer open source solutions● "Where there is no significant overall cost
difference between open and non-open source products that fulfil minimum and essential capabilities, open source will be selected on the basis of its inherent flexibility." - UK Government Digital By Default Service Manual
● Maximises the advantage taken of the inherent benefits of open source
● Particularly relevant when selecting technologies for development of new software and services
3. Process
Levels of Engagement
Deep Engagement
Shallow Engagement
PureProcurement
Customisation Contribution Leadership
Selection and Procurement
• Does the traditional IT procurement process work against open source?– RFQ/RFPs require investment from the seller,
recouped from subsequent licensing and mandatory support fees.
– Companies offering support for OSS typically lack a sales team working overtime to understand, master, and win procurement competitions.
– Pre-sales trials and installations are also at cost to the vendor. For closed source, this can be recouped in later fees. For open source, its not clear how this would happen
Active Pre-Procurement• How do we ensure a good range of solutions are
considered if we don’t get responses to RFPs for some of the best options?
• One answer is to spend more effort identifying and analysing potential solutions available before issuing RFPs/RFQs. – An open relatively free-form open RFI could be
followed by a closed RFP.– SSMM is a methodology developed by OSS Watch
involving iterative evaluation and selection phases– Open Source Options (CO) and Open Source Options
for Education (OSSWatch) are resources to help identify candidate solutions
Paid Discovery Stage
• Include a budget for a paid discovery stage for OSS candidates
• In other words, engage potential OSS vendors commercially - or fund an in-house team - to help answer all of the same questions you may be expecting from closed-source vendors as part of their pre-sales activity
• Example: Moodle vs. Blackboard competition, University of Bolton
Unbundling Pre-RFP
• The pre-procurement analysis process can be used to identify ways to unbundle solutions
• For example, pre-procurement may identify an OSS product such as Drupal as the best-fit, and then go to RFP for customisation and support services.
Unbundling Post-RFP
• In some cases there are options to unbundle parts of a proposal (services, applications, middleware, database, infrastructure) and to ask the supplier to consider open source alternatives
• If open alternatives are not considered possible (e.g. “it only works on SQL Server”) this needs to be considered as a lock-in risk
Parallel Purchasing• It may be worth considering parallel processes
- and parallel RFPs - for closed-source and open-source procurement and then comparing the outcome of each in a runoff
• An example of parallel procurement is the Swedish public sector framework, Öppna programvaror
• However, the argument can be made that better value can be realised by a combined process where considerations are balanced– e.g. looking at how areas such as lock-in and exit
strategy are considered versus sustainability
Evaluating Sustainability• Sustainability involves asking questions like:
– Is anyone else using it?– Is anyone around to fix issues/apply patches?- Can I buy services and support for it?- Will it be around in 5 years time
• All software solutions should be evaluated for sustainability. However, for open source the process is different from closed source– For OSS much more of the data needed is publicly
available, and tools exist to help analyze it, from informal guidance-driven models to complex frameworks such as QSoS and BRR
– For closed source we’re more reliant on company-provided evidence
Deep Engagement
“request for partnership”
• If there are no clear existing solutions, can we procure a partnership to collaborate on a solution?
• For example, an existing project may be the best fit, but still requires additional investment in software development to support the user requirements.
• Often in the past this has been externally funded as projects e.g. Jisc, EC, and in some cases subcontracted to development partners e.g. Cottage Labs
Evaluating openness
• Where a solution requires development (partnership or internal) another key factor to evaluate is openness
• The OSS Watch Openness Rating is a simple tool for measuring how open an open source project is to engagement and collaboration
Business Case• Making the procurement process a level playing
field doesn’t need to create bureaucracy • The process can scale relative to that of the
potential procurement. – For example, using informal sustainability evaluation
for small procurements, adopting formal measures such as QSoS at large scale
• An effective process can help deliver sustained value and meet user needs
4. Practice
How does procurement practice fit into this picture?
Awareness of policies, processes and toolsUnderstanding of how open source works
and the issues involvedCapacity to effectively evaluate open
source as well as closed source solutions using standard tools
Cultural alignment with the strategy and its aims
Questions and Discussion