Carl Gipson wrote:
Josh, thanks for writing.
The bottom line is that we feel government procurement policies should not favor one particular business model to the exclusion of the other. There are pros and cons to OSS and pros and cons to proprietary models (i.e. Microsoft). If it makes financial sense and meets the IT needs of the Department to use OSS-based programs, then great. I agree that no state agency should be using the Microsoft Office-model of IT simply because we are in MS's backyard. In this time of lower-than-expected tax revenues, I think it's great that you are spearheading an effort to lower DNR's IT costs. Hell, that should be done regardless of the state's budget crunch.
Regarding the upfront costs of proprietary software versus the back-end costs of OSS software, one of the biggest helps to me was the Texas legislature's finding on the subject. That report can be found here and goes from pages 6-18 (although much of their debate is over Open Document Formats). One thing the legislature did well in their analysis, and I hope the WA legislature and agency staff do as well, is establish a formula for Total Cost of Ownership. In this instance, they found that sometimes TCO was higher with OSS systems and sometimes not (particularly with the free software/expensive hardware business model). It, among other publications, does go to great lengths to point out that licensing and possible customization fees are often overlooked during the initial procurement considerations.
One of our major concerns when dealing with this on the policy side, is the confusion this discussion often causes. Most legislators are not IT-oriented (this is not a denigration of them, it's just reality) and, in fact, I am a policy analyst, not an IT professional either. But we have seen examples from around the world where policymakers are mislead into thinking that OSS is practically free, whereas it is actually a different type of business model, and not free at all. And I am speaking in more generalities here, not just on Office/OpenOffice products. Obviously, there are examples where proprietary software is usable right out of the box with minimal training, customization, and maintenance costs (e.g. Firefox or Office to some extent) and there are instances where that is not the case -- particularly when you start talking specifically-tailored programs from Sun, IBM, et. al.
Take, for instance, this BBC article where Sun co-founder Scott McNealy advocates for Open Source, which is fine, but then OSI's president Michael Tiemann morphs McNealy's arguments into essentially our government must go Open Source because it would be more democratic. This is the type of argument that gets muddled in with what I think should be the bottom line, and that is the agency's bottom line (TCO). And once the President started talking about "open source government," he merely confused two legitimate issues: 1) Open Source vs. Proprietary and 2) Open and Transparent Government. Two important, but completely different issues.
The point is that I think both systems are legit and should be encouraged. I use Firefox and Safari for browsing. I use MS Office on my computer at work and Open Office at home. I, as a consumer, tap into applications and programs that I pay for up front and ones that are considered freeware.
I do not think that the old way of issuing proprietary software is going to fall by the wayside anytime soon. As long as there is a market for this business model it should stick around (sans government subsidies or other artificial supports). I think it's the competition and innovation that drives better products and technological advancements and consumers (DNR being a consumer in this case) benefit.
I am glad you read my Policy Note and I would be happy to discuss this further.
Best wishes.
--
Carl Gipson | Director, Small Business, Technology and Telecommunications
Washington Policy Center
206.937.9691 (ph) | 206.915.8902 (cell)
washingtonpolicy.org | washingtonpolicyblog.org
On Apr 17, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Josh Dressel wrote:
Dear Mr. Gipson,
I'm a proponent of the OSS model. I've been working towards getting the Department of Natural Resources to adopt OpenOffice.org and the Zimbra email client in place of Microsoft Office. I've emailed John Barnes and Jason Mercier on a number of occasions and I support the work of the Washington Policy Center. Though you and I have different views on OSS, I believe we're saying the same thing. Sound data should be behind the decision of which software is being used by a state agency -not blanket policies.
In regard to the policy note though, I'm confused by the following statement:
"OSS requires more labor and technical assistance than proprietary software, and the extra time and cost should be taken into account when making procurement decisions."
Could you provide the data behind this conclusion?
Based on the overall theme of the policy note, I offer it makes more business sense to use the Corel WordPerfect office suite than Microsoft Office. Both are proprietary, both are equally capable of creating and working with the word processing, spreadsheet, and database files presently in use throughout our state agencies. One has a cost of around $80 per machine while the other $318. If procurement is to be truly neutral, we'll possibly be using WordPerfect soon. However, we know Microsoft will continue to be the product of choice. This continuation will not be based on sound research or neutrality but on the lobbying power of the Microsoft Corporation.
As a technical support professional, I can tell you the argument of training costs is redundant. Training is inherent to technology regardless of whether it's proprietary or open source. The technical support team at the DNR was put through costly training to support the conversion to Microsoft Office 2007. The Department of Personnel provides ongoing training for Microsoft Office applications. The idea it would take more labor and technical assistance for an open source product lacks any supporting facts.
I believe research will show open source technology as an essential force behind Web 2.0, the success of Google, and the social networking outbreak. The popularity of Mozilla Firefox is in contrast to being high maintenance or having open, easily tampered code. The only reason IE remains popular at all is the pre-packaging with the Windows operating system. I can go on endlessly with details supporting the validity of open source software but we ultimately want the same thing -government to make sound business decisions and use the best tools for the job.
For the sake of neutrality, I believe your policy note needs to be modified and more research done to clarify what open code, open standards, and open source really are.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Josh Dressel
