UK.gov 'pay as you go' IT services cloud to float in March
Clock ticking for suppliers to join the framework
The opportunity for suppliers to join the government's £60m G-Cloud framework is drawing to a close, according to Mark O'Neill, proposition director for innovation and delivery at the Government Digital Service (GDS).
"We plan to launch the first tranche of the G-Cloud catalogue in March," O'Neill told the Cloud Expo event in London.
The G-Cloud procurement process was extended last year to give more suppliers the opportunity to participate. At the end of December 2011 there had been in excess of 500 expressions of interest in joining the framework from suppliers offering more than 1,600 cloud services.
"The billions which we spend on IT is fundamentally changing because too much goes on systems that are unacceptable," said O'Neill. "Cloud can disaggregate systems and to do things differently and dramatically cheaper."
O'Neill has first hand experience of cloud computing: the GDS rolled out cloud desktop services to 125 of its users in October. Over the last four months, the cloud software has worked out 80 per cent cheaper than a traditional on-premise desktop set up, he said.
"At the moment that is for the cost of the desktop services that we use," he told GGC. "So that is for email, collaboration and standard services where we are paying 80 per cent less than equivalent users."
O'Neill said he would never purchase software for email, collaboration, instant messaging, databases, file storage and printers outright again. "I have not printed out anything for six months," he told the audience.
While issues with security, management and ownership are common reasons for a failure to adopt cloud, O'Neill asked delegates if they knew where their medical records were, noting we often do not know who runs such servers.
O'Neill said: "We either grab the opportunity, or we give up."
This article was originally published at Guardian Government Computing.
Guardian Government Computing is a business division of Guardian Professional, and covers the latest news and analysis of public sector technology. For updates on public sector IT, join the Government Computing Network here.
disaggregate means 'to fall apart" doesn't it?
He's the one...
...responsible for the billions wasted - is that what he said?
I cannot imagine how much his desktop did cost if he's managing to save 80% - obvious where the waste was centred.
"I've not printed anything for 6 months" <--- EITHER He does not work in real world, OR he is dissembling, as I am sure he's used something printed in the last 6 months.
Never buy database software again? Really? I guarantee that Gov will continue to buy database software indirectly in the form of custom systems until AI takes off. I know I will - Disengenuous at best.
It does sound like services that were his responsibility were deeply inefficient and real savings were required... but not necessarily these services - case not proven.
Which brings me to the reporter - SLOPPY WORK: sod "80% cheaper" - means NOTHING (except he must have had really inefficient systems/staff). I want to know what they were / are now costing, not savings percentages that can be fudged for headlines.
Sadly AC is required - I have responsibility for Government ICT budget!
Not quite that simple...
Although I agree in principle (about not running hundreds of exchange servers), centralising them into clouds does not in and of iteself make savings at any point.
First, you are increasing WAN networking load and potentially increasing bandwidth to another party. WAN costs are easilly the most expensive commodity I buy (off framework), and bandwidth is always at a premium. I have three "cloud" options available on current Buying Solutions frameworks, and even with staff and license reductions, none would "save" enough to pay for the bandwidth hike alone, let alone the change costs. Don't think the Audit and Risk groups would approve the move to a system with so many single points of failure for ALL systems either!
Second, we're all at the virtualisation and storage centralisation game now, and x86 hardware is phenominally cheap for the loads we can run. Our DMZ servers cost 1/10th (invoice price, not depreciated) than the 6 year old kit they replaced last year, and are way more powerful and vastly more power efficient. If it's "outsourced", however you figure that, you ARE paying profit margins... the providers are in this for their shareholders, not the public!
But I do agree about the ill-though out projects! THAT is where the real waste lives, breathes and lines corporate pockets.