3 ms·
And this is miniscule. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost hundreds of billions more than they needed to (not talking about whether they should have been sta
by poof131 10y ago
And this is miniscule. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost hundreds of billions more than they needed to (not talking about whether they should have been started, just the effects achieved for the cost). I flew F/A-18s off the carrier for 6 hour missions that could have been handled by a small propeller plane in country. These missions required a carrier (millions to operate), extra more-costly flight hours ($10k/hour for F/A-18s), and 3 air-to-air refuels (cost of tanker flight time and gas). Not to mention the deterioration of incredibly expensive assets that need to be replaced. I also saw artillery and tanks in country that had no use. Could go on about the waste.
The sad truth is government bureaucracies spend all their budgets so they can ask for more. Limiting cost is the least of their concerns. I applaud 18F and the Digital Service for their efforts to advance and streamline IT and development costs. It’s an uphill battle. There is no reality check in the public sector as there is in the private sector, where inefficient behemoths eventually go bankrupt to more efficient companies.
Outsourcing is supposed to prevent this, but the big contractors just milk it for all it’s worth (Oracle failing to build Oregon’s healthcare website for $250 million is an example, HP and NMCI is another). I don’t believe it’s just the byzantine contract bidding process but the fact it is easier for leaders to say they chose a big “reputable” company so it’s not their fault it failed, whereas if they had chosen a small no-name company and it failed it would be their ass. So real competition and efficiency end up being non-existent in government, unless the president’s legacy initiative is in jeopardy and he throws his weight behind the fix. I don’t know of any way to fix this behavior except to limit the size of government and make it more local so accountability is easier to maintain by the electorate. I wish more good people in government could change things, but there are already a lot of good people trying their best in a top-down system where CYA and optics are more important than efficiency and results.
- hunvreus 10y agoGovernment and non-profits alike: people shoot for mediocrity and avoid taking risks. This is how you avoid getting fired. This is what happens when incentives & accountability are misaligned with your organization's supposed goals. There's also a culture of not recognizing or admitting failure; they're spun into success stories. This means people don't learn from mistakes and keep repeating them. Smaller teams are weeded out very early. The barriers to entry for working with government and non-profits are high, demanding all kind of certifications and processes to be implemented. If you don't have teams to build excruciatingly detailed (and inaccurate) proposals (complete with 100 slides presentations), jump through the hoops of procurement and fill up the deluge of paper associated with tracking every single hour working on the contract, you won't land the big contracts. Personally, I threw the towel in. Enterprise pays more, is more loyal and while procurement can still be a PITA, the overall organization is clearly aligned behind growth and revenue. If you help them do that, you can circumvent or negotiate things.