3 ms·
The issue, at least with the government, is that you can't win. Whenever you hear people complain about how impossible it is to comply with all the procedures
by ubernostrum 11y ago
The issue, at least with the government, is that you can't win.
Whenever you hear people complain about how impossible it is to comply with all the procedures and processes and regulations for getting a government contract to develop some software, it's a safe bet that those procedures and processes and regulations were all put in place by well-intentioned people who wanted to prevent corruption. But as people found more inventive ways of being corrupt, the countermeasures had to grow more complex and invasive, until finally they reached the point where only a handful of companies would actually bother to achieve compliance, guaranteeing them a steady stream of contracts regardless of performance. Which is precisely the result that wasn't supposed to happen.
Also, the mixed socialist/capitalist economies of Europe seem to do better, on average, than our much more capitalist-leaning system, largely because they aren't afraid to implement certain programs and regulations that in the US would be screamed down as creeping socialism even when they'd be more effective than what we actually do.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoWhy. You can. Line up suppliers, round-robin contracts between them, assess after completion. Then downrank ones who did bad work and uprank those who did good job on good money. For new companies, give them a few contracts, maybe backed by insurance in case they fail horribly. And then you can literally left suppliers to their own devices.
- qudat 11y ago> it's a safe bet that those procedures and processes and regulations were all put in place by well-intentioned people who wanted to prevent corruption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P9Y4H2GyS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P9Y4H2GyS4