Efficiency in Government Competition

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

There's a lot of talk around my neck of the woods about possible cuts to higher ed, and the focus is always instruction.  I don't think it needs to be.  We live in a mountain west ecosystem; why not zero scape some of the vast expanses of lawn?  The water savings alone would be enormous and ongoing, not to mention sprinkler maintenance, mowing fuel ...

(admittedly, UM isn't as sprawling as MSU)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 17:57:38 PM UTC

uh... (0.00 / 0)

"zero scaping" is what they are doing here at UM as they chew up lawn to build new buildings, being unable to expand onto the golf course yet. Xeriscaping, on the other hand, is a great idea.

Speaking of the golf course here at UM, I wonder how long it is until somebody suggests that the U system start liquidating superfluous properties...???

---

by: JC @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 18:09:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rewards? Google apps? (0.00 / 0)

What kind of rewards are you going to hand out to department heads? Cookies? Extra vacation days? Sick leave? "You only used 10 pencils last month and you were budgeted for 12. Take one home as a reward." I've never heard of a reward system for department heads cutting budgets. There's nothing predictable about a reward system that would satisfy legislators looking to make real cuts. Rewards may be fine during good times, but they won't work here.

And moving the state email system to Gmail? That's ludicrous. Not to mention it wouldn't pass a whole raft of state laws dealing archiving, sunshine, and accountability.

Privatizing an email system and its record keeping mandate would sort of be like making Richard Nixon use Smurfit-Stone to keep his tape library safe, because they make cheap cardboard.

Look, Matt, we're all going to be looking at ways to save money, and innovation at the state IT level is always a good thing. But privatizing things like email hosting are 1) not going to save much money, and 2) create a ton of legal problems. Public record keeping should never be outsourced, or irregularities will happen. It's hard enough to hold our agencies and their employees accountable when public records are kept in, well,public hands. Hand them over to Google, and its anybody's best guess whether or not we'll be able to retrieve them when needed, or the court orders it.

You want an idea about how to save money at the state IT level? Quit buying antiquated technology from the likes of Microsoft and Dell. Quit buying custom software (that never works properly) from vendors  that have no interest in providing anything of value to the state, other than an expensive support contract. You could save 10's of millions with those two ideas alone.

---

by: JC @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 18:04:45 PM UTC

Shifting to Open Source (0.00 / 0)

I've always wondered what the value might be in shifting state computer OSes from Microsoft to some flavor of Linux.  The opposition I've heard is the "lack of IT support," which I think could be mitigated by hiring specific Linux IT support.

Also, eliminating paper voter registration forms and moving to online voter registration may provide some savings in terms of printing as well as man hours spent on data input/transcribing.

---

by: snachodog @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 19:04:33 PM UTC

Not just OSes... (0.00 / 0)

...But shifting towards open source software across the board.  

I also believe that having source code available could help with open government.

---

by: snachodog @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 19:11:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Open source is a cool idea, especially for the long-term (0.00 / 0)

But my experience with a lot of Linux is that it is not quite ready for widespread adoption outside the geek universe. Training expenses during the transition might be pretty high.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 19:39:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Common Misconception, I think... (0.00 / 0)

A release like Ubuntu looks and feels a lot like Windows - little/no training required (I think the peripheral applications like Office would be more of the problem) but at no/little cost, it might be worth learning.  

How many people actually know how to fully utilize Excel/Access?

---

by: snachodog @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 19:51:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cost of roll-out (0.00 / 0)

Two big problems with shifting to open source (a nice euphemism for "free") software are cost of roll-out and compatibility across all departments and applications.  As a budgetary concern, the price of the OS for a workstation is built into the price of the unit.  Unless you have a fleet of assembly geeks, large organizations won't actually save money purchasing units without an OS. Even if you are getting the new OS for next to nothing, the true cost is still in installation and user acclamation.  With any open source software solution (office or otherwise) the cross departmental compatibility is always at risk because the software is open source and can be written onto by any departments IT professionals.  Tracking software and data standards for the state organizations would be like herding cats, with all associated costs of such an endeavor.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 20:25:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your point is well taken (0.00 / 0)

but don't already have software/data standards issues with the proprietary/custom software that JC mentioned about in her comment above?

---

by: snachodog @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 20:40:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, (0.00 / 0)

But a lot of those standards are based on the inflexibility of the licensed products used, and the proprietary data structures in that software.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 20:55:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regarding "free" (0.00 / 0)

I think that open source is an important step towards open government - there might be less issues with voting machines if their software were released open source, for example.

---

by: snachodog @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 20:44:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, open source (0.00 / 0)

isn't always a euphemism for "free." I use many different software packages at my day job (well, day and night jobs ;-) ) that are open source, yet i purchase software licenses to install and use them, and to get technical support.

And, just to open a wider wound, Mac OS X is built on an open source kernel and core--BSD on top of a Mach microkernel: both open source projects. Mac's Safari Browser is built on WebKit, an open source project. And on it goes: Apache, PHP, and MySQL at the OS X server level. AAC and M4a at the media layer.

So open source can have both good and bad connotations. The best open source projects (BSD and Webkit, i.e.) have commercial products built upon them, have robust developer networks, and outstanding support systems.

To scratch a wound a bit further, The Office suite is easily supplanted by Open Office and NeoOffice--both open source projects. And they run on Mac OS X. OS X comes with X11, which allow access to the huge universe of Unix binaries, many of which are open source, free, or with paid licenses and support systems.

To add salt to the wound, if anyone wants to get into the argument about total cost of ownership between Mac OS X (combined hardware/software and support costs) and Windows, that's as Obama would say "an argument I'm ready to have."

Basically, we can point to the behemoth in Redmond WA for much of the bloated cost and inefficiencies in state government IT costs and inefficiencies. There can, and will be, many places where Linux can and will fit in, also.

But there is nothing that beats the versatility of a Mac: multiple OS support, a strong and growing development environment, increased productivity in office environments, lower total cost of ownership figures, a far more secure OS, plenty of open source software packages available to replace Microsoft and Adobe technology, and freedom from the feeling of lining the pockets of the world's richest (or 2nd or third richest depending on stock values) person.

The only reason that people stick with PC's is that they are legacy equipment that have strangleholds on the market. A self-perpetuating monstrosity. And that people perpetuate disinformation about the viability of other computing systems to replace them.

On wednesday Apple will tell the world how it will contribute to saving the world from the implosion in the traditional media markets. How it will provide solutions to enterprise and government problems that don't involve Microsoft or Google. People can listen. Or they can continue to argue for the perpetuation of a software platform that has yet to meet the needs of the 21st century. You can lead, or you can follow.  

---

by: JC @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 21:08:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny that (0.00 / 0)

JC, At my day-job, I'm an IT manager, network admin, full system support and technician, IBM iSeries professional, security admin, technology department retail manager and I'm an Apple sales professional.  Just so's you know.  And that was one of the best sales pitches I've read in quite some time.  Unfortunately, it also completely missed the point.

I think you're correct to laud Apple and open source.  But though such an initiative would solve some budgetary issues in the long run, the problem is to solve the budget issues now.  If you wish to discuss short-sightedness and inefficiency, feel free, but it's still avoiding the topic at hand.  It is not cost effective in the short term to transition publicly owned hardware and/or software platforms.  The comparative advantages to what you discuss may well be there, but that's hardly of use in a 'needs based' argument.  I'm not getting into a Windows/Mac argument here, except to say that the legacy means something to the argument, and the 'better way' really doesn't.

Also, it is rather amusing to me that many advocates of open source solutions fail to grasp a few realities.  1)  Much of the state's research and design software is Windows specific.  Yes, I know all of the work arounds, Vectorworks and the like.  But that means the purchase of very expensive proprietory software, or loading Windows on Mac computers anyway. 2)  The states largest databases are Oracle based.  Works fine with SUN services, Windows machines and Apples, and I wouldn't argue that a bit.  I'm just amused because invariably the "switch platform" argument goes back to a desire to stick it to Bill Gates, with complete disregard for where Larry Ellison falls on that richest-of-the-rich list.  3)  The people making the spending decisions aren't geeks.  They are usually people so wedded to Windows, MS Outlook and their Windows compatible GooseBerry phone doohikies that the thought of crossing platform makes their nuts shrivel.  (Just because they were getting on my nerves in an extreme way, a couple of years ago, I suggested to our corporate Accountant and General Manager that we could reduce our IT costs by more than half if we went to using Open Office and Red Hat Linux.  For a moment there, I thought I was going to have to perform CPR ...)

The only reason that people stick with PC's is that they are legacy equipment that have strangleholds on the market. A self-perpetuating monstrosity. And that people perpetuate disinformation about the viability of other computing systems to replace them.

See, depending on which part of that compound argument you dissect, that's just wrong, JC. To say that people stick with their PCs because they are legacy is directly relevant to the point of saving money.  Call it spending inertia, if you wish, but M$ got a stranglehold on the market because it was cheaper to run, service and replace.  It's fair to say that is no longer the case, except that it is the case, because all the inertia has led us to this point.  One crack dealer offered lower prices for lesser crack, and they monopolized the market.  Fine.  Just because other crack dealers are now offering better crack for lower prices than before doesn't make it any cheaper to switch dealers.  That's not a monstrosity, it's the market, such as it is.

I'm going to pretend that you didn't just accuse me of 'perpetuating disinformation', and simply once again point out that switching to Macs would save money in the long run, maybe, but not when we need it which is now.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 22:54:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hehe (0.00 / 0)

I knew you were an IT person, and I'd probably get a rise out of you. And of course I had to throw out some flame bait (convoluted argument you called it).

Of course you're correct in the assertion that revamping the state's IT services would not provide any immediate relief. But that doesn't obviate the need to plan for the future, and if decisions to save money now prevent making better long term decisions, well then that makes my point about a self-perpetuating monstrosity. At some point with technology you have to make some hard decisions, and move into the future.

And as to the "people" remark about those who perpetuate disinformation, I wasn't referring to you. As I know that most people in university IT departments secretly covet thy co-workers new Mac. And many actually dual boot their Macs so as to have the best of both worlds.

As to specialized apps, yes I know. I have managed many different work environments that needed specialized apps. I particularly hated the point in my life where I had to accept Windows 95 into an office so that we could run Arc. And I always advise my clients that if you need that specialized app, then there are ways to get it. Sometimes a single app or set of apps can be run in Boot Camp or Parallels/VMWare quite adequately, and the worker can do the rest of their days work quite fine in OS X. For any worker whose daily tasks revolve around email, Office and browsing, then there is no reason to not consider Mac.

But just as Windows has a set of proprietary apps, so does OS X. But OS X has access to a full suite of Unix apps that Windows does not. And many of those special Windows apps are accomplishing tasks that some Unix apps do better (i.e. visualization with Osirix).

"M$ got a stranglehold on the market because it was cheaper to run, service and replace."

Well, I'd place the emphasis on "got" with the disclaimer that it is no longer a true blanket statement. You still didn't take me up on my Obama-esque challenge to take on TCO, though.

And I would also add that many IT people, maybe like yourself, have invested a good deal into one technology platform (college degree, perhaps) in order to pursue a career. and that any mention of changes to that platform is like telling an Edsel mechanic that he either needs to go back to school, retire, or start a specialty business working on legacy restorations. ;-)

---

by: JC @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 00:14:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh (0.00 / 0)

JC, my college degree is in philosophy.  Hehehe.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 00:20:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Time to get real (0.00 / 0)

Nickle and dime ideas are mere feel good measures.  Montana should give zero based budgeting another try.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:50:29 AM UTC

If not Zero (0.00 / 0)

Based - how about start off with "here's 75% of last years budget - justify the rest". You bought new chairs and PCs last time - do you need to buy those again? You spent $75k training people and flying them all over the country - do you need to do that again? Etc...

I suspect we are going to see around a 15% budget decline next session. It will not be pretty. But it will still be over 25% higher than it was when the Governor took office.  

---

by: MTLiberty @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:58:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, in other words (0.00 / 0)

You want spending reduced but don't have any specific idea how to do it, other than non-specific departments not purchasing items that you haven't got the first clue about what was actually bought where.  Care to elaborate?  Didn't think so.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 06:07:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]