Why the government needn't stick with IE6

One of the features of the web that I initially found exciting was the concept of platform independence. One could build a page in HTML and anyone using any browser on any machine running any operating system would be able to see that page and use it just the way its author intended.

I will pause here to allow the hollow laughter of web developers everywhere to fade to an echo and so not interrupt my thoughts.

The truth of the matter is that over the last fifteen or so years we have had a multitude of browsers that work differently on various platforms and that has made both the development and testing of web pages and applications far more time consuming and, therefore, expensive than necessary. At Meantime we develop in whatever we consider to be the most standards compliant browser at the time and test primarily in whatever is the most popular, and both of these are moving targets.

As you would expect, Microsoft have a major role in the history of browsers but it is a surprisingly chequered history. Bill Gates was famously dismissive of the Internet at the outset and, if memory serves me correctly, it was not until IE4 was released that Microsoft really found their feet in the marketplace. Their success lasted 18 months until early 1999 when IE5 was released.

The extent of IE5's problems can be inferred from the fact that, on this one occasion, Microsoft released an interim version of the browser, IE5.5. And when IE6 came out, it was widely agreed that unhappy IE5 users would have been better waiting for that than 'upgrading' to IE5.5. (I remember all this vividly; I was responsible for the team testing the Royal Bank of Scotland's Internet banking software at the time.)

Of course, all of this made life incredibly torrid for those people in organisations who were responsible for the software and applications architecture. It was a period beset with problems and costs, and this was during the period immediately following the nasty surprise cost of the Millennium Bug. But IE6 was stable and remained Microsoft's browser offering for five years.

Despite that long period of stability - or, arguably, because of it - there did not appear to be a strong appetite for change when IE7 came along or, a couple of years further down the line, IE8. And so we find ourselves in 2010 with many large organisations and particularly government departments still using IE6, which is now nine years old.

The problem is that an awful lot has happened in those nine years and right now is a particularly exciting time with the new HTML5 and CSS3 support in the latest browsers: Chrome already has it, as does Firefox 4, which is out in a mature beta, and so will IE9's public beta, which is released in just a couple of weeks' time.

And in the middle of all this excitement, the government has announced that they won't be upgrading from IE6. Such a move, they say, would be "a very large operation" potentially at "significant potential cost to the taxpayer". They say that it will be "more cost-effective in many cases to continue to use IE6 and rely on other measures, such as firewalls and malware-scanning software, to further protect public sector internet users."

This is such a short-sighted option that I don't feel I need spell out the various reasons why it is a bad idea. Indeed, the quote above makes it clear there is an attendant security risk which is a strong argument in itself.

What is perhaps less obvious is that as software is increasingly web-based, software that is used by local authorities, it is not a straightforward transition to move between browsers: there is a lot of regression testing and consequent redevelopment to be done.

But it's not satisfactory for government IT strategists to simply throw their hands up and say it's too difficult or too expensive to change. Yes, I understand this is supposed to be a time of austerity, but that doesn't mean that an economical solution can't be found. In six months' time we will have a clear view of which of the current crop of browsers is the best and, as a first step, this can be deployed across government departments. From there, a two year plan to migrate applications from IE6 to the new browser will get departments to the point where they can look at their next upgrade. Because this is a rolling process and not a one off. Government needs to recognise that fact and start to make the cultural change that will enable them to leverage the benefits of what is still a fast moving (and exciting) technology.

Bespoke software is alive and well.

In a recently posted article on the Business Computing World website, Haseet Sanghrajka of ST Consulting writes under the byline "How Application Platforms Are Killing Bespoke Software'.

Now, I can only assume that the title comes from a bit of over-enthusiasm for his offering because this is certainly not what Mr Sanghrajka succeeds in demonstrating. What he does argue is that application platforms are the best way forward for companies needing software solutions, as opposed to either package or bespoke solutions.

Let's tackle the package argument first, as it is the easiest. I would certainly agree that more complex business software, when taken in package form, is limiting for any business. However, there should be allowance made for packages such as QuickBooks or MS Office: there are times when a package solution is entirely appropriate.

His argument against bespoke software seems to be related to development time, cost and maintenance. So, let's return to those arguments after we've had a look at what Mr Sanghrajka is proposing, which is an 'application platform'. Although this is not particularly well explained in the article, in his terms it consists of some packages - that is, Microsoft Dynamics, Office and Outlook - plus a bespoke development language, .NET. (Packages and bespoke development are, of course, precisely what he is campaigning against.)

Those of you who have any experience of Dynamics will be aware of its eye-watering price tag (although MS have now introduced a cheaper version to try and encourage take up in smaller businesses). Microsoft themselves are pleased to tell their resellers that they can anticipate many times the cost of the package in terms of consultancy fees. Readers of Mr Sanghrajka's article won't be surprised when they reach the end to see that his company sells precisely this type of consultancy.

But back to our argument. Dynamics is more commonly known as Dynamics CRM and it is for this purpose - customer relationship management - that the product is most commonly sold. Extending the product out to cover other functions takes us into the territory of square pegs and round holes, and it is for this reason alone that I struggle to see how this particular application platform can compete with bespoke software.

So, to pursue the argument, perhaps the article is only really supposed to be about CRM. One of the touted benefits of Dynamics is just how powerful, configurable and flexible it is. I don't disagree with that. But you can deduce from those features that it is a complex piece of software, which is why companies such as ST Consulting can make a business out of configuring it.

It is this complexity and the cost of the consultants needed to maintain it that is seeing organisations move away from Dynamics (and SAP, as well) to simpler, bespoke solutions that do exactly what their companies need and nothing more. Certainly any bespoke provider worth their salt can provide a CRM for less than the cost of a configured Dynamics solution.

So, the argument was that bespoke software is too expensive, takes too long to develop and needs maintenance. But Dynamics will frequently be more expensive as a whole, takes time to configure and is too complex for organisations to manage themselves, resulting in ongoing consultancy costs. What's more, working with a good software house - with business and systems analysts, experienced developers, and a strong testing and change management process - will lead to cost-effective software being delivered to spec, on time and on budget.

I'd like you to indulge me in a couple of very specific ripostes, too. Quite apart from the fact that the argument has not been raging for decades (two perhaps, which is technically plural, I suppose), Mr Sanghrajka has it plain wrong when he says "Unlike traditional bespoke development that relies on software coders, application platform technology allows organisations to build on the underlying relational database using point and click development tools. Key concepts such as database fields, data relationships and workflow are automatically handled by the underlying application platform layer." This is disingenuous, at best. Building and maintaining relational databases requires good understanding and experience. Whilst a casual user may be able to add an attribute here and there, by the time they are creating entities and connecting them, they are only a short step from having to call those Dynamics consultants back in to sort out the ensuing problems with performance, reporting and data integrity.

Secondly, Mr Sanghrajka states that "it is estimated that an organisation can create a new solution from scratch in the same time frame it takes to deploy a traditional packaged application." Does this need much more than common sense to disprove it? Unless the new solution is, perhaps, a VAT calculation and the package is, say, Microsoft Dynamics.

My argument here is not with Mr Sanghrajka, who has a business to run and who no doubt has a lot of belief in Dynamics. What I dislike is the false argument. By Mr Sanghrajka's own admission, bespoke is the best solution. However, his arguments against it are flawed and actually apply more acutely to Microsoft Dynamics. Or the 'application platform' if you prefer.