I think that's a bit harsh without knowing whether the software vendor was allowed to be effectively involved in the training and integration efforts. Software

I think that's a bit harsh without knowing whether the software vendor was allowed to be effectively involved in the training and integration efforts. Software like this depends on lots of processes around the rollout and usage being properly designed and executed, and the fact that the software is being used successfully in many places suggests that the vendor knows how to deploy the software safely. Whether they were complicit in not doing so in the case of Alameda County is the important question. Maybe the county ran out of money at the last minute and the vendor couldn't stop them from cutting corners on the rollout. Maybe the vendor doesn't think it's good customer relations to go public with the fact that they told the county over and over again that they were creating risks of errors like this. Maybe they even had stipulations in their contract to stop improper integrations from happening and the government ignored them or found a way around them. Hopefully there will be an investigation and the people will find out who screwed up and why so they can be held accountable. It's tempting to say that everyone involved is "responsible" in some vague way, but that lets people off too easy. If everyone is guilty, then no one is guilty.