John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 272: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the accumulated cost incurred by each Department, State Agency and local government of migrating to Microsoft Office versions 2007 and 2010; the future annual expenditure commitments for each Government Department, State Agency and Local Government in relation to the continued use of Microsoft Office versions 2007 and 2010; the cost benefit analysis carried out in each Government Department, State Agency and local government to establish whether upgrading Microsoft Office 2007 and 2010 was a more cost effective option than migrating to open source alternatives such as Open Office; the total cost including staff costs of rolling out Microsoft Office versions 2007 and 2010 for each Government Department, State Agency and local government; the total cost of training staff in Microsoft Office 2007 and 2010 for each Government Department, State Agency and local government; the alternatives, if any, that were examined prior to the decision to roll out Microsoft Office version 2007 and 2010 and the reason that they were discounted; his policy in relation to the use of open source software in the Public Sector here and if any public body can show the way in which they are making savings on software licensing by using open source alternatives rather than proprietary products. [29769/12]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, while my Department is responsible for the overall sanctioning of ICT expenditure in the public service, the responsibility for day to day operations rests with each Department and State Agency. Consequently, the decision on what particular office productivity software to deploy and its specific costs are matters for each Department and Agency, subject to the normal sanctioning arrangements. Advice issued by my Department requires such decisions to be made on the basis of functionality, available support, overall lifetime value for money, compatibility with the existing environment, compliance with applicable standards, and other considerations.

Naturally, the form that such an analysis takes will very much depend on the size and complexity of the deployment; one would probably employ a very different methodology and level of formality in deciding on the appropriate software for a small agency as opposed to a large central Department with thousands of staff. However, in every case the purchasing decision will involve a procurement exercise. Where the analysis for a particular public body concludes that the Microsoft Office suite is suitable, that body can avail of the lowest possible price for this software by using a public service pricing agreement that has been negotiated by my Department with Microsoft.

My Department currently provides IT services to the Department of Finance on a shared service basis. In the two Departments we are currently examining whether to migrate from a much older office productivity system to an updated version of the same. This decision will be based on the criteria mentioned above. As part of our evaluation we have rolled out updated software to a limited number of units. The total cost to date of this deployment is €18,199 (VAT inclusive). The estimated on-going cost is zero.

On the broader issue of open source software policy, it remains the position of my Department that the appropriate basis for making decisions about software is through robust analysis, open procurement and compliance with underlying open standards, rather than mandating the use of a particular software licence. However, my officials are always happy to hear the views of open source proponents as to how an explicit open source policy might drive further cost savings.