Massachusetts state officials have criticised a decision to adopt OpenDocument as a standard, casting doubt over a closely watched initiative.
Marc Pacheco, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, on Monday held a hearing to probe into the process that led to a mandate to make OpenDocument the standard document format for all commonwealth agencies in the executive branch as of 2007.
The policy, finalised in September, was developed by the Information Technology Division, which is part of Massachusetts' Office of Administration and Finance.
The IT Division said OpenDocument-based products will improve interoperability between systems and ensure long-term archiving of official documents. The specification is developed at standards group OASIS (Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards).
There are commercial products that support or will support OpenDocument, including Sun Microsystems StarOffice, IBM's Workplace and the open-source product OpenOffice.
But the IT Division's policy effectively shuts out Microsoft Office because the dominant supplier of productivity software does not support OpenDocument at this point.
During the hearing, Pacheco voiced a number of concerns regarding the IT Division's decision. He called into question the IT Division's authority in setting policy, saying the IT Division acted "unilaterally," and he expressed concern over the cost of walking away from Microsoft Office. He also contended that OpenDocument does not sufficiently address the needs of people with disabilities.
During questioning, the IT Division's chief information officer, Peter Quinn, and General Counsel Linda Hamel defended the decision, arguing that the move to OpenDocument would be in the commonwealth's best interest. Quinn said a standard, "open" format, rather than Microsoft's "proprietary XML" format, will ensure that electronic documents can be read hundreds of years from now. Pacheco then called on Alan Cote, the state's supervisor of public records, as a witness. Secretary of State William Galvin has responsibility for public records. Cote sharply criticised the IT Department's decision, urging that...
Talkback
The cost of dumping MSO? What a joker. Think of the money saved by dumping it though.
I'll agree, I'd rather stay with MSO that Star or the likes, but in a large workplace as such, the savings will be enormus.
It might save the cost of the MS Office licence, but what about the cost of retraining staff, redeveloping any systems that interact with MSO, convertng (and verifying) documents from MSO to whatever it is replaced with?
What about the cost of lost productivity as staff have to learn the new system and figure out work-arounds for any features they used in MSO not found in the suite it is replaced with?
What about the cost of replacing any staff who decide to leave for another position where they can maintain their skills in the Office suite with 90% of market share?
What about the cost of roll out and lost productiviy due to the difficulty in sharing files between those who have been migrated and those who have not?
Wouldn't MS-Office12 require a similiar learning curve, as well as a state-wide adoption of Windows Vista along with its accompanying hardware-upgrade?
What about the cost of verifying that all exisiting Word documents can still be read by MS-Office12? For example, will MS-Office12 still understand Word95 documents, which are obsolete despite being only 10 years old? And 10 years is *nothing* with regards to Government records.
Isn't it true that MS 12 will only work with VISTA? What will the cost be to upgrade? Does MS 12 support ALL of the older versions of office? MS has alread bragged they support OD, to a degree. If true, then where is the learning curve, the high cost of retraining, the savings to upgrade? More FUD, from the masters of FUD. MS is the only loser in this situation. Massachusetts is the winner by going with OD.
I see this has brought out the usual collection of M$ Corp Klingons ERRRrrrr what re training all they are doing is ensuring that documenys saved are saved in an format that is NOT OWNED by some underhanded scheeming conman and his followers .. and the saving in fees to M$ Corp will far outway the costs of a little retraining .
Some (political) friends of Microsoft have been brought out in the open and already facts and figures are swept off the table leaving only room for FUD, emotions, fingerpointing, war of words and hearsay.
Such are the people that Microsoft relies on when pushed back to the wall by facts alone.
And these are the people that have managed our tax money so well so far that it's been one (IT project) success story after the other so far. Not.
Surely high level ranking decision makers have been appointed to lay down what technical solutions from which vendor(s) to use. As if they have more important stuff to do.
In short: if only sales (and lobby) talk goes in at the top guess what's coming out at the bottom.