Interesting to learn today that the CMA has now confirmed they are investigating ESS SIMS on the issue surrounding 3-year contracts.

As schools will be aware, they were required to sign a new 3-year contract directly with ESS by the end of last month if they want to keep using SIMS. What ESS has also said is that there is a 6-month break clause, so if schools do want to move to another supplier then they are free to do so, they just need to let ESS know before the end of September 2022 to leave the contract.

The big question is: is this long enough to conduct the necessary market testing exercise, and go through a satisfactory procurement process, in order to decide if staying with SIMS for the next 3-years is the right thing for your school?

Many schools have told the CMA that it isn’t long enough which has prompted the formal investigation to allow them to consider this matter properly.

Realistically, when a school has used a solution for several years, it does take time to properly assess the alternatives out there. There’s so much more to it than simply ‘getting quotes’ from providers. It involves taking a fresh look at how everyone utilises their MIS:

– What we would like an MIS system to achieve?
– What are our top priorities as a school?
– Is there a way of improving how we do things?
– How have solutions innovated and improved since we last looked at the market?

It was around last Autumn when schools were made aware of the new contract arrangements. The question around the procurement process is a tricky one. Physically making the purchase can be done quickly (there are frameworks, etc. out there) but undertaking a proper market testing exercise involving all the stakeholders in school is a LOT harder.

Any procurement process needs to be rigorous, and any decision justifiable as it can be challenged. And, should the school choose to switch MIS, adequate time needs to be available for a successful implementation.

It doesn’t help that, if a school has used one system for a long time (which tends to be the case for LA schools) they’re really starting from scratch. A lot of innovation has happened in the last 10 years alone; there’s no way of understanding what’s out there until you’ve had the chance to really dig into the possibilities. Creating requirements for an MIS can be equally challenging; just because something’s “always been done that way” doesn’t mean they want to continue with that process.

And then there is the implementation to consider. This is an area MIS suppliers have invested in like crazy so it’s possible to get a school up and running on their system really quickly. But there does need to be a plan for how the changeover will be managed. These are systems that are not just used by one or two people in school, they are used by operational staff, teachers, SLT and parents.

It’s also very difficult for schools to be able to look at things on a truly like-for-like basis as so much has changed. For example, it’s pretty usual for a SIMS school to have bought into the core MIS (inc. support from their LA team) and then, over the years, purchase additional modules to meet different needs (e.g. to manage dinner money, or offer an online payment solution, or a texting solution, or an app for parents/students, etc.). The more modern MIS solutions don’t usually require all these extra modules or products to be purchased at all, they tend to be part of the core MIS as standard and the whole thing is cloud-based so it’s a seamless, complete solution.  But this means it can leave schools with an even more complex procurement ahead when they realise there are far more factors at play  – and better potential savings to be made.

(What’s also interesting is that, as part of its investigation, the CMA has said they will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how SIMS is being sold alongside FMS – check out our separate post on this thorny issue.)

What do you think? How long should a school allocate to procuring their school management system?

If you’ve gone through a procurement process, what’s your advice?

What options are open to schools when it comes to financial management solutions?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating whether ESS SIMS is abusing a dominant position to push schools into accepting a new 3-year contract.  What’s interesting here is that, as part of its investigation, the CMA has said they will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how SIMS is being sold alongside FMS.

The press release from the CMA says:

“As part of its investigation, the CMA will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how ESS’s management information system product is being sold alongside its financial management software. This could encourage customers to buy both products and deter customers moving away from ESS.

The CMA is concerned that, by adopting such a pricing strategy, market players that only offer one of these services may be unable to compete, potentially leading to an uncompetitive market in future.”

How ARE schools handling what they do in terms of a finance package when they switch to a new MIS?

Product functionality and data extraction aside, one of the biggest challenges schools always used to face around FMS was how costly it was to buy it directly from ESS (then Capita) if you want to buy it as a standalone product. e.g. not bundled with the MIS via an LA-wide deal.

For many, the new total annual cost of an MIS + finance solution would simply be driven too high to justify the change so they stayed with their existing systems.

But as schools choose to move to new MIS solutions, what are they choosing as their finance system?