Unit4 ends support for research costing tool used to plan the Covid vaccine

Software used to cost the University of Oxford's Covid vaccine research has become the subject of an end-of-life announcement from enterprise application developer Unit4. The Research Costing and Pricing (RCP) solution, used by as many as 35 UK universities, was first conceived by Oxford and Cambridge Universities before being …

[gobaskof]

Gone, and hopefully forgotten

This article is written as though the software was helpful and useful to the team at Oxford.

The researchers have to do all of the actual calculations and estimations manually (how many person months for each staff position, the equipment budgets, the travel budgets, etc). Based on the full economic costing rules you can whip up the cost to within a couple of percent in 5 mins on the back of an envelope (or in a spreadsheet if no envelopes are available).

You then go into Agresso (which should really be named Agressor, based on the state of mind it leaves the user in), load up what ever your university calls this system. Then you battle with the atrocious UI for some time to enter the data into the system to get the "exact number". You then contact your Research Services team to tell them the exact number and they tell you that the system is currently calculating it wrong because it doesn't take account for XYZ. The then give you a bunch of ways to mangle the input data so that the output is correct, we know when it is correct because it agrees with the back of an envelope. Someone then gives it the rubber stamp of approval, and you are able to start actually asking for money.

I think Unit4 are probably doing the world a favour by getting rid of it. However, I am sure someone will create a slower, flatter yet equally obtuse interface that can incorrectly calculate research costs very soon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Gone, and hopefully forgotten

Worktribe (one of the alternatives mentioned, used here) does the calculations for you, but does require some training to use, and a knowledgeable eye to make sure nonsense doesn't get out of the University. However there is a hell of a lot of work involved in setting up the costings to start with and keeping them up to date, and I guess RCP is probably the same. The fact that Cambridge has moved on might be an indication it's not the best fit now. Costing applications is one of the more tedious bits of academic life.

We don't use Agresso for costings but it is the main finance system. I found the only way to conceptualize it is as a made over 70s green screen terminal app, so "lipstick on a pig" territory. Once you understand that, it's a bit easier to work out how to poke it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Gone, and hopefully forgotten

"lipstick on a pig" territory. Once you understand that, it's a bit easier to work out how to poke it.

The image gone, hopefully forgotten of poking a pig still leave one wondering how does the lipstick make it easier?

[Jagged]

Re: Gone, and hopefully forgotten

Integrating with Worktribe was some of the easiest integrations I have written.

Its lovely to work with modern tools that feel like they are helping you and you don't have to fight against.

[John Smith 19]

What happens when you hang a large part of your operation on a specialist tool.

You don't own the tool.

It owns you. *

*And if it's a "cloud solution" whoever runs that cloud owns you as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What happens when you hang a large part of your operation on a specialist tool.

And if it's a "cloud solution" ...

You are being (or going to be) screwed over.

Royally.

Cambridge dictionary:

Cloud -> Noun -> a grey or white mass in the sky, made up of very small floating drops of water

.

[Tron]

EOL is not death.

If your software is standalone and works in isolation from the public internet, it should keep on trucking. If it worked on data last week, it should work next week and next year, when it enters an afterlife.

It won't if it is dependent upon vendor server calls, or cloud storage, which is a good reason for avoiding both. Anything web-based is like marrying into the mob.

You really should not put your financial balls on the chopping block for third parties to bring down the knife when they wish. Use less software, use simpler software, use standalone software that doesn't need a net connection. It is time to start using software more selectively, and getting bespoke software produced for your needs, so you control it. And cost this stuff. Some of the sums involved are eye-watering. Paying for this stuff, often on subscription, or for a short period until EOL is declared, makes no sense if you can do it with something simpler, in Excel or on paper. Don't automatically assume that a fully fledged digital solution is the best solution. Most tech players are just after your cash. Service provision is merely a means to an end. It's not so much customer and service provider, as predator and prey. Consider an internet connection to be a security risk and an internet dependency a financial risk.

[williamyf]

Re: EOL is not death.

The article explains perfectly well why the EoL is (eventual) death for this software:

«In a communication seen by The Register, Unit4 told customers that following its Special Interest Group conference in June 2023, it had announced it would "continue to support RCP around statutory changes, but would not be delivering any new innovation within the product."»

Financial software has to work withing the fiannacial system. The GAAP changes from time to time, tax laws change, reporting laws change, this is referred as statutory changes.

5 years from 2026 the software may work as well as it did in dec 31 2026, but, if the laws pertaining the grant request process change, the softare will be, for all itents and purposes, useless

[Jagged]

"users might have to deploy tools that fail to produce the accuracy and granularity of research costing afforded by RCP"

- Ah, thank you for that. I needed a laugh today. Priceless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness

They who Run the Cloud would never stoop so low as to harvest the competition's trade secrets and steal a march in the marketplace.

I mean, what kind of strategic partnership would that be?