30 July 2008

Dear Mr Reeves

re: Freedom of Information Request - English Heritage use of Intrasis software

I am in receipt of your email for response. As Access to Information Manager for English Heritage (“EH”) I am responsible for responding to requests for information covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).

In your email, dated and received by Eh on 9 July 2008 you have requested the following categories of information:

I can confirm that EH' holds information that falls under the ambit of all parts of your request.

Part A information

While I am able to inform you that the funds to finance EH's purchase of Intrasis came from the existing Research Department capital expenditure budget and that the total procurement cost in 2007-08 was £154,914.16 I afraid that I am unable to provide you with the software cost. In making this decision I have relied upon s.43 of the Act:

Information exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 43(2)

The exemption under section 43(2) applies to information the release of which would affect the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it). I consider that the disclosure of the information in question could be prejudicial to the commercial interests of both the Swedish National Heritage Board (“SNHB”), who developed the software and EH.

The release of the software costs would prejudice the commercial interests of the former by providing market-sensitive information that could have a detrimental impact on their ability to perform their best in a highly-competitive market while EH has an obligation to spend public funds in the most efficient and cost and disclose could compromise our ability to do this.

Section 43 applies to the cost of the Intrasis software. Section 43 is a qualified exemption and is subject to both a prejudice test and the public interest test. The public interest test is that I must consider, in all the circumstances, whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In favour of disclosure I have considered the argument that public authorities should be open and transparent about the spending of public money.

In favour of maintaining the exemption I have considered the arguments that disclosure could give some parties an unfair advantage over others who are not privy to the same information. The market in which Intrasis operate is highly competitive and the software price can affect a business's strategies and development plans. Disclosure has the potential to be adversely affect SWNB's ability to perform to its potential in the market place and it would therefore be detrimental to their commercial interests.

In addition, revealing the software costs has the potential to compromise EH's ability to secure the best possible deal as disclosure may affect the market place. As a Non-Departmental Public Body EH is partly funded by public funds and it is in the public interest that these are spent in the most cost effective way possible.

Having considered the above arguments I have concluded that the public interest is best served in maintaining the exemption.

Part B information

The main infrastructure cost for Intrasis was in hardware, the supply of a number of new laptops to enable data input on site (this is (included in the total figure given in the answer to Part A).. A server was provided as part of the reallocation of an existing EH servers. No additional staffing costs have been incurred up till now, but it is anticipated that the casual staff costs relating to the excavation phase of each project will increase by c. 15% to allow for the creation

of digital archives. Core staff time is being allocated to this project, through the training and work of four super-users and the training of other core staff, but this and the slight increase in casual staff costs will be offset by the anticipated savings in staff time in assessment and analysis.

Part C information

The purchase of the software was authorised by Dr Chris Scull, Research Department Director following approval of the business case for the procurement of Intrasis by the English Heritage Information Systems Programme Board.

Part D information

Intrasis is developed by the Swedish National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet), this organisation has a long-term commitment to the continued use and development of this software package. Our present contract is for four years, and the use of the package will be the subject of a post-implementation review after two years.

Part E information

EH undertook a considerable amount of research into available products before choosing Intrais. The initial project that looked at our business needs, processes and data-flows, and which reviewed the range of then-current alternatives, was known as the Revelation project. That assessment was published in 2004 (May, S et al, 2004, Revelation: Phase 1 Assessment, CfA report 78/2004). At that time, we reached the conclusion that none of the commercially-available software met our business needs, and that we should look to develop our own software solution. The costs of doing so, however, were seen by 2005 to be prohibitive. The release of the Intrasis Analysis module provided us with a plan B. We had included Intrasis in the review of available software, and the Analysis module offered the possibility that it might now meet our business needs. We carried out a detailed evaluation of the software, which included a) checking that there were no other recent releases or developments that might meet our needs, b) field evaluation by a member of our team taking part in an excavation in Sweden, and c) the trial use of the software in our 2006 excavation at Carisbrooke Castle, where it was used in parallel with our existing recording system. From this exhaustive evaluation, we concluded that while it did not provide a perfect match with our business and user needs, it was close enough, and accordingly a business case was developed for its implementation.

Part F information

In the short and medium term Intrasis data will be stored on EH servers with secure back-up and disaster recovery (business continuity planning) arrangements. We are engaged in discussions to develop a longer term archiving solution, which is likely to involve the EH National Monuments Record and the Archaeology Data Service. It is assumed that key archaeological data will need to be preserved indefinitely.

Part G information

Intrasis will only be used for our own fieldwork projects. i.e. those carried out directly by the Archaeological Projects team. We anticipate that Intrasis will be used for all (i.e. 100%) of the

Archaeological Projects team fieldwork during the duration of the present contract, but this will be reviewed in a planned post-Implementation review that will take place after two years.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If however, you are unhappy with the level of service you have received in relation to your request you may ask for an internal review. If you wish to make a complaint you should contact: Mr Mike Harlow, Legal Director, English Heritage, One Waterhouse Square, 138 - 142 Holborn, LONDON, EC1N 2ST

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, CHESHIRE, SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Jessica Trevitt

Access to Information Manager

E-mail: [email address]