3 ms·
They're essentially an internal dev/consulting shop and they needed to approach it from this stand point or they'll continue to be underwater. Every contract th
by aplomb 10y ago
They're essentially an internal dev/consulting shop and they needed to approach it from this stand point or they'll continue to be underwater. Every contract that IBM or Accenture, et al wins, 18F should have made the sale that they'll be there guarding the hen house as the project progresses - easy sale and easy project staffing. Branch off from there and take down small dev jobs to build mass and it'll snowball from there if managed properly.
Leadership heads need to roll, ranks thinned, and they need to focus on the mission.
- brazzledazzle 10y agoSo they should nickel and dime them on scope changes and deliver solutions that meet the requirements but are useless? I know I'm straw manning a bit here but asking them to operate like these contractors is highly questionable. Their mission isn't to be cheap and competitive but to change how the government uses technology and make it more agile. To drive culture changes and set standards that allow government agencies to produce solutions that are aligned with their goals. How many failed government IT projects have we read about that fulfilled a contract but was ultimately useless? Or stories about government inefficiencies and a failure to keep pace with modern technology? I don't know why there's an expectation that they do this cheaper or at the same price as government contractors. Have we forgotten what happened with the healthcare.gov site already?