LA City Council delays Google Apps decision

(Credit: City of Los Angeles)

The city of Los Angeles has decided to delay making a decision about whether or not to adopt Google Apps across its network, citing cost concerns.

The City Council's Budget and Finance Committee did not take any action regarding the proposed contract, which has been debated for months as one of the more high-profile public sector Google Apps deals. That means the matter will pass to the full City Council for a vote later this month, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Security concerns had been prominent during earlier discussions of the proposal, which would see the city move off a Novell system and use Google's hosting service for e-mail and office applications. But the council was more pragmatic, noting that implementing the system would cost $1.5 million more than continuing on with the current system and asking for further details before voting. "The urgency case hasn't been made," said Councilman Bernard Parks, chairman of the Budget and Finance committee, according to the Times.

Google's argument is that the cost of adopting Google Apps would be far less than the cost of upgrading to a different type of modern system, estimating that the city could save $13.8 million over the contract.

[Vegaman_Dan]

If they are still using a legacy Novell base for their systems, then they need to update in any case. It's hard to get governments to move forward and when they have to spend money for something that is working now, it's even harder.

I wouldn't be surprised if this keeps getting delayed time and time again until the system fails and then a lot of blame pointing will happen as to why this wasn't done way back when, etc.

[bigpicture]

Maybe if Google made a big political donation this would move forward faster. Or maybe they didn't make a big enough donation, or make it to the right persons?

I don't think any government agency should 'house' their emails or any other private information on some other company's servers... especially when politics could play into this.

I think the fatal flaw with Google is the fact they want to own it all.. as in house all of the data and services.. where businesses in general don't want their intellectual property to be outside of their walls and thus their control.

[westrajc]

The Google Apps platform is good (not great) form many collaborative uses among workgroups. However, to think that any current web-based collaborative solution could replace a current generation network infrastructure and security system is laughably naive at best and criminally ignorant at worst. What happens to the dozens, if not hundreds of legacy and future applications that are not web-based, such as finance, GIS, HR, etc.? How do you deliver, secure and manage them? Has anyone checked LA's CIO or the LA Times reporter on this story for drug abuse!?

[YankeePoodle]

A Google fanboy CIO imposing his fanboyism on the City. Google Apps are not ready for primetime, certain to some SMBs yes, not primetime. There are exceptions but that is what they are exceptions.

[kaiman75]

Considering the recent Gmail/Hotmail breaches, I hate to see the city of LA (or any city government for that matter) put their network in the cloud rather then update their existing infrastructure. If they are using an old Novell system, I wonder if they've given any consideration to updating to a newer Novell system or other Unix/Linux variant, which seems like it would be cheaper, and certainly more secure...?

[dougbugl]

going with Google Apps would be a good step toward an open government. when government must constantly meet behind closed doors and limit what the public sees, hears, and reads then there is a real threat that that government is no longer working for the people.

my first reaction to this was how involved has Microsoft become considering it is well known that they have people watching all aspects of government issues which could move those governments off of the Microsoft software lockin they enjoy now. Tying governments to Microsoft products also goes a long way to tying companies who work for or with the governments to Microsoft software. That's why Microsoft has been willing to spend millions annually putting personnel onto these kinds of possible threats to their market position. Some have called these people Microsoft in Black( MiB ) because of how quickly and mysteriously they show up when a switch from Microsoft products gets mentioned in government and legislation. The cost of upgrading a very old system can be daunting in this economy and that could be all there is to it but I doubt it.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Unless you are referring to Microsoft being the desktop OS in use at the city, then the rest of your comment has no bearing on the subject as the city is looking to replace their Novell, not Microsoft, dependancy.

I think you're seeing conspiracies where there are none.

[Endbringer]

Relying on the Internet to do a job that does not require access to the Internet is, IMO, stupid. Don't get me wrong; programs like Google Earth are a great help. But, to move your email system and file management off of a local network is not the way to go about doing it. I work for a local government and relying on our IT department for simple tasks causes headaches. For instance, we have a $60,000 GPS permanent base station that requires full-time internet access. The problem is our surveyors get out in the field and sometimes they can't work because the network keeps dropping the connection to the base station. Our IT department doesn't really know how to fix it and they don't understand how important the Internet actually is to do our jobs. I know that is mostly an issue with our IT department personnel, but I know we aren't the only ones to have this kind of problem. Our building permit software was recently "upgraded" to allow contractors and owners to request, view and submit for applications online, but it is not working correctly because of our Internet connection.

Something like using Google Apps just should not be done in a government type setting. Too many outside factors would affect production and cost more money in the long term. Not to mention the issues of security of having vast amounts of taxpayer identification and information on the Internet.

[boredofit]

This email fiasco in LA is funny (to me) on so many levels.

First, I am surprised that govt is thinking about saving money (minuscule) by putting so much energy and time on some mundane thing. Govt's IT budget in CA is huge, and LA city consumes a substantial amount of that IT budget. Ton of money is wasted on really large system contracts (which run in multi-millions) given to large system integrators, and the politicians are trying to justify their existence by showing the citizens that the city govt cares about saving money on a email system. Citizen taxpayers are wasted on so many large systems, and all they are doing is playing games with the taxes of citizens.

Second, it is funny that govt doesn't even realize that they will be getting rid of their employees (Infrastructure, Operations) by going with Google's email system (which is ugly and looks like 15th century email system). It will start with email first, and then the city may tell other folks (managing application infrastructure) that they are not not needed. Instead of complaining, city officials can provide better training and resources to let them do their job.

Third, govt officials are forcing decisions down the employees throats . Decision won't be made on the merits of the technology, but govt officials will make the decision on which firm is in their backyard. Trips by the Google CEO (and other management folks) in LA is all about showing the power of money, and that will be deciding factor. LA City Mayor and city officials will bow to the power and money of Google.

All this should give us more reasons to trust our politicians and the city officials. Really funny to me.

[rshah29]

Boredofit has some good (and valid) points. However, there are SMBs and large universities that get around #2 and #3 that was raised in his post.

#2 correctly states that Google's email system is archaic. I agree. But you can use a desktop email client (like Microsoft Outlook) in conjunction with Google. What's more, there are ways to sync data (contacts, calendar, tasks) between Outlook and Google using third party tools developed by Google or companies like CompanionLink.

#3 is subjective. However, how is this really different than how any other county, city, or state works? Aren't decisions always influenced by someone or something?

[basharbd]

I run a small business and manage a team of 5 salesmen plus 3 admin staff. After taking over the running of the business from my father, I decided to use technology to increase efficiency.

I used the free version of Google Apps for my business for a little under a year. I eventually switched because I had issues with document management using Google Docs and had issues syncing contacts, calendars and tasks/notes with mobile devices. My marketing team and I spend a great deal of time outside the office and we need to be able to access information and coordinate our activities. Google Apps, while it sounds good, simply didn't cut it for us. Tasks could not be synced and calendar entries were always a day off (I wonder if Google execs are ever a day early for meetings?).

I've now switched to another service. I spend less than $1000/year for a web-based exchange alternative that syncs with Outlook, my Blackberry and Nokia (my employees use the Nokia E63) devices.

Google Apps will have to provide a stable service in order to convince businesses, especially enterprises, to make the switch. And with enterprises, there is the security issue as well