3 ms·
I'd argue that often it's also like this: 1) incompetence => ill-defined requirements; 2) being afraid of corruption accusations if non-cheapest option wins =>
by jakub_g 11y ago
I'd argue that often it's also like this: 1) incompetence => ill-defined requirements; 2) being afraid of corruption accusations if non-cheapest option wins => cheapest offer wins if it matches the ill-defined spec, regardless of any other factors.
The "cheapest offer wins" is (IMO) in general not how private companies work, but very often how governmental bodies work. The clerks have nothing to gain for choosing the right option, but potentially a lot to lose.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> The "cheapest offer wins" is (IMO) in general not how private companies work. I'd disagree with that assessment - "cheapest offer wins" is pretty much the way private companies work as well any time they can get away with it. See: procurement in any mid-to-large company, or the whole stereotype of "made in China = sucks" when it's not the fault of Chinese factories, but of companies that want to pay as little as possible for manufacturing (if they'd pay for quality production, they'd get quality products even from China). Private companies can be as inefficient as public institutions, but it isn't talked about since they're usually wasting just their own (and their customers') money.
- creshal 11y agoAnother example: The "Nobody was ever fired for buying IBM" mantra.
- Retra 11y agoIn the US, many government bodies are bound by law to choose the cheapest option, precisely because doing otherwise would either appear to be inefficient or favoritism.