council accused of being wasteful following a Freedom of Information request by James Barber

[trinidad]

According to reports from Southwark News, Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich submitted a FOI request, and discovered The council bought:

281 iPad Airs (128G)

999 iPhone 6s

700 iPhone SEs

for council officers and Councillors.

On Apple?s website, they are priced at:

iPads ?559 each

iPhone 6s ?499 each

iPhone SEs priced at ?265

Southwark Council confirmed the total spend is ?722,659.

the council has stated the reduced spend on paper would save ?28,000 per year, and have the environmental benefits of using less paper.

?As part of our plans to modernise the council, improve services for residents, and increase data security, we are in the process of upgrading the technology used by staff and councillors,? said Cllr Fiona Colley, cabinet member for finance.

What are your thoughts?

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-accused-epic-waste-buying-2000-apple-products-staff-councillors/

[nxjen]

Ridiculous to say there will be environmental benefits through using less paper. The manufacturing of tablets and phones surely brings environmental concerns, as does disposal of the products at end of life.

[Penguin68]

The simple figures are these

1. The council bought these at a 14% discount to the retail price - this is not brilliant. For such a large purchase you might expect up to 25% discount on retail or more - had Android systems been bought this is certainly so, although Apple is a premium brand.

2. At a 'saving' of ?28k a year, the payback period (assuming no discount rate, i.e. 0% inflation) would be nearly 26 years - when most of this kit would be lucky to have a 5 year operational life, and much will have less as it will be lost/ stolen/ damaged. Any practical financial modelling would say that there in no payback for this investment.

3. This makes no assumption about either training costs to use the systems, the cost of any software bought to operate them or the cost of loading up documents so they can be accessed electronically.

(4) The environmental costs of building high spec computers and phones is high, as is the necessary use of e.g. rare earth metals in their construction. The ?28K is at thus at best a headline saving, before other environmental costs are taken into consideration.

Or, to put it another way, this is waste of our (council tax payers') money - as presented above.

[Blah Blah]

I think the use of technology makes sense, but there ARE cheaper alternatives to apple products for the same technological benefits. The same Fiona Colley reported at a past CLP meeting that Southwark Council faces a ?20 million black hole on social care funding next year. This might be something a local Labour Party branch might want to pursue as well - why the council appear to be going for the more expensive option in providing this technology? I personally would also like to know what other alternatives they considered.

[BrandNewGuy]

Here's LBS's reply in the Southwark News:

"Regarding last week?s front page article ?I-watering Southwark splashes out on nearly 2,000 Apple products in it?s bid reduce paper use ? spending over ?700,000? (Southwark News, August 3, 2017).

Southwark residents are already starting to benefit because council staff are getting the tools that they need to do an ever better job:

Far from ?splashing out? we want front line staff and councillors to be able to respond quickly, with the information that they need at their fingertips, cutting down on form filling and costly bureaucracy.

For example, we have created a new app which means that our housing inspectors can much more efficiently manage repairs, doing more in the working day, without the need to come in and out of the office. We are getting much more done, completing more repairs and resolving more issues for tenants as a result.

Far from being forced to give up their Blackberries as Cllr Barber claimed, the LibDem councillors also welcomed the change. Indeed the Leader of the Opposition demanded an apology when her councillors were initially left out of the iPhone pilot and later the feedback from the LibDem chief whip was that the iPhone was ?certainly a great improvement on the Blackberry?.

Southwark News is right to scrutinise what we spend as a council, just as we did when we decided to invest in iPhones and iPads for staff who need them.

We took the decision to change because we had to: our previous Blackberry based technology was no longer supported, so we had to make a change. Your article last week quotes that a Blackberry costs ?20, for the type we were using the last batch actually cost around ?159 and the price was increasing.

When choosing to go with Apple devices we took all considerations into account: as we all know when we buy a phone or tablet, we need to think about the immediate cost and also reliability, data security and whether it offers the apps we need. This is even more important for an organisation such as the council: we don?t want to wake up to headlines that sensitive data has been leaked, or to find that we can?t provide residents with the information they need because we can?t run the right app.

For all these reasons and more, the real story here is weServe and weSave, not iWatering.

Cllr Fiona Colley, Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance Labour Member for Nunhead Ward"

[bargee99]

I think someone is having a Diane Abbott moment. A council spokesperson (not sure if it is Cllr Fiona Colley at the top of the article) said "For instance we will save ?28,000 per year by moving to paperless committees ? this saving alone means that the replacement programme will pay for itself within two years. The change will bring Southwark in line with the majority of London boroughs where some staff and cabinet members are issued with smart phones and tablets as standard.?

How can a saving of ?28k a year (if true) pay off a cost of over ?700k in 2 years. My maths make it ?56k. Less than a 10th of the costs. As Penguin68 says, there are many cheaper options available. Are they allowed to use these devices for personal use? It seems the gravy train just rolls on and on. Thank you James for bringing this issue to light.

[Penguin68]

I really don?t know where to start with this, having read the apparent council justification for the spend. OK, maybe Councillor Barber might like to ask:-

1. What is the financial asset life being given for this equipment (it would normally be no less than 3 and no more than 5 years)? What will be the annual depreciation charges for this equipment?

2. If the equipment is to be used in the field, why was ruggedized equipment not specified and/ or what are the additional costs for cases etc. to protect the equipment?

3. What is the planned maintenance/ replacement budget for this equipment? What is the planned loss/ damage/ destruction estimate in the business case? (as if!)

4. What are the planned annual ongoing costs for data and voice usage for this equipment?

5. What are the costs for installing appropriate (including capacity) WiFi stations to allow the equipment to be used i.e. in Council Chambers.

6. What are the costs for creation e.g. of dedicated aps for the equipment? Is this work undertaken in-house or through consultants? What is the annual budget for software creation and maintenance?

7. What are the council rules regarding personal use of this equipment? Will personal usage be reported through the P11D tax system or will it be reimbursed by staff? How will this be audited?

And I could go on!

[rendelharris]

Good heavens. I'm an Apple tart (see what I did there?) but I recognize that my possession of several of their devices is an indulgence and that there is plenty of non-Apple stuff which could do the job just as well. Am I alone in finding it quite extraordinary that our council is spending our money on the most expensive kit available when perfectly good alternatives are readily available for half the price?

[Blah Blah]

It is right to replace the former Blackberry's in use, because Blackberry is on it's way out of the market. But why iphone over ANY android platform? Apps are not cheap to develop either.

[Angelina]

adding to this the on-going support required. In our company, this is ?20 per month, per device.

This includes building the devices software (has to be compatible with work systems), security, support for all apps, insurance in case of loss/ damaage etc.

Which works out - for the number of devices that the council have bought - around ?40,000 every month and ?500,000 every year.

[malumbu]

I work for the state. We have shifted from Blackberries (had their time) to I-phones (boo I hate Apple) and Samsungs (my preference) as it is cheaper that having a landline.

And wow does it make a difference as I have at last discovered that a smart phone is a mobile computer.

Savings in ??????? productivity and boosting my ego too as I am now 'down with the kids' and their big portable telephones.

And no longer needing to print stuff out as I can work from the screen.

Win win win (win) situation. Celebrate it.

[malumbu]

Love the bit on tax liability for personal use.

I've been subsidising my employer for years using my electricity, IT, broadband, home/heating, cycling on official business (not worth claming back but saving loads on public transport), and crashing a few times over the years with friends or family whilst away on business where I am not allowed to claim vs ?100 and the rest if I stayed in a hotel. And unpaid overtime. Obviously I have to trade this off against toilet paper used when I am at work.

Very right that there is a flexible/proportional approach. Yes you can use the organisation's IT and mobile telecoms for personal use, just don't abuse it.

No don't thank me. I am just happy sitting here on my moral high ground!

[hammerman]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Trinidad. What an unbelievable and diabolical waste of money and for what!

[hammerman]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good heavens. I'm an Apple tart (see what I did

> there?) but I recognize that my possession of

> several of their devices is an indulgence and that

> there is plenty of non-Apple stuff which could do

> the job just as well. Am I alone in finding it

> quite extraordinary that our council is spending

> our money on the most expensive kit available when

> perfectly good alternatives are readily available

> for half the price?

Didn't see what you did there, but saw you spelt recognise with a z!

[rendelharris]

hammerman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Didn't see what you did there, but saw you spelt

> recognise with a z!

Which is the correct "Oxford" spelling as used by the Oxford University Press and the Oxford English Dictionary. The "ize" suffix has been in use in English since the fifteenth century; "ise" is an eighteenth century variant.

[JohnL]

Whats the other options, how long do they last and how effective are they.

Our work apple iphones have lasted 3 years and are still as fast as day 1 (I don't put personal crap on work phones).

[rendelharris]

I'm not hugely au fait with the latest telephones but I would have thought something like the new Sony Experia at ?230 would be fine. In terms of tablets, I can't think of anything that Southwark employees would need that an Asus ZenPad at ?300 couldn't do just as well as an iPad.

[Angelina]

The technologies are compatible across devices and depending on how they are used they can be very effective.

Context is required.

Are the recipients customer facing? Do they each have more than one device? What changes in their working practices are they embracing? Are efficiencies being tracked in terms of reduced time required? Customer satisfaction? etc etc etc

[rendelharris]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The technologies are compatible across devices and

> depending on how they are used they can be very

> effective.

Do you mean they can all work together as they're all Apple? Surely all Android devices can work together too?

[indiepanda]

I saw a presentation on IT security recently that said the Android system is far more vulnerable to hacking than Apple's as Apple are much better at ensuring updates get rolled out - the ugy that did that talk said he used iPhones for this reason. Was a bit alarmed as I use Android phones, am now thinking about changing my personal one when I get a new one this year.

Where I work we are all switching to Apple devices when our phones come up for renewal - and I work for a partnership so the people that own the company are the decision makers as well - doubt they are putting us on Apple just because they think it will make staff happy.

[JohnL]

We switched to Apple from Blackberry.

It's a service provider plan type agreement I think - not asked the telecoms guy why Apple prefered (even though he sits next to me LOL)

I'm pretty sure Apple with it's tied down universe incurs less support.

[malumbu]

When I wss doing research I found the the Motorola G4 (now the G5) does virtually everything you need for quarter of the price of a new i-phone. My kid looked at me incredulously and said how could a young person possibly carry a Motorola (well I suppose on the plus side you wont get mugged).

On the contrary I checked out a variety of tablets before begrudgingly deciding to get an I pad for the family.

On the positive I remember when many raved about Macs - you get them out of the box, turn them on, and they work. And they aren't targeting in the same way as Microsoft.

But we have a variety of Apple products, which seem to make decisions for you including sharing data, and break or be redundant in two or three years.

I resent the power Apple has, and the market control/distortion this leads to.

[Angelina]

that's more than likely the case RH - I would imagine that devices of one brand interface the same way. I'm not techy though but the money we spend (yep, also tax payers money) is also all on Apple.

[JohnL]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When I wss doing research I found the the Motorola

> G4 (now the G5) does virtually everything you need

> for quarter of the price of a new i-phone. My kid

> looked at me incredulously and said how could a

> young person possibly carry a Motorola (well I

> suppose on the plus side you wont get mugged).

In business it's all the senior people that demand something

with higher "kudos" when they meet with all their business

colleagues.

Give into them and you have multiple business technologies running

with higher support costs.

[Loz]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When I wss doing research I found the the Motorola G4 (now the G5) does virtually everything you need

> for quarter of the price of a new i-phone. My kid looked at me incredulously and said how could a

> young person possibly carry a Motorola (well I suppose on the plus side you wont get mugged).

I've just bought the Moto G5 Plus (now made by Lenovo). Apart from the fact that it doesn't have a compass, it has everything else, including fingerprint detection, is really fast, the battery lasts 2 days under fairly heavy use and it set me back about ?230.

If it's not wanted by muggers, then that is a major bonus.