...its policy be rejected. He warned that a decision to go ahead with OpenDocument as a standard could result in the loss of electronic records.
"The rigid policy, such as the initiative before you that excludes any vendor or any process and relies on questionable, untested and unreliable practices or tools, does not suit the commonwealth well," Cote said in prepared remarks. "It may very well result in many electronic records being lost or destroyed."
Cote added that the company's records management system renders what format a document is saved in as moot.
In earlier comments, the IT Division counsel Hamel said the organisation has become the de facto archivist of electronic records for executive agencies, keeping track of data such as payroll.
"The problem of how to solve (records management) has fallen into the lap of the IT Division and the secretary of finance and administration," Hamel said.
One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Cote's harsh rebuke of the policy reflected a turf war between Secretary of State Galvin and the Secretary of Administration and Finance Thomas Trimarco. With the rise of electronic archives over traditional records, "(Galvin's) power is being eroded," the official said.
Pacheco said Cote's remarks echo the concerns of many other high-ranking state politicians.
"It verified what I've been hearing and my concerns, quite frankly," Pacheco said, adding that the IT Division has not operated in a "collaborative" fashion with other state agencies involved in setting IT policy.
He said he feared that the current situation has become a stalemate between the executive branch and legislature over how to set IT policy for the state.
Pacheco called on Quinn and Hamel to do a more thorough cost/benefit analysis and to submit a written analysis to explain the legal basis for the IT Division's policy.
Quinn said OpenDocument-based products do need to be improved to address people with disabilities. He noted that IBM and Sun in the coming weeks intend to launch an effort within OASIS to improve the standard in regards to accessibility.
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.