3 ms·

Part of the problem is the ridiculous procurement processes that the government departments make you go through. The cost of sale is therefore amazingly large,

Part of the problem is the ridiculous procurement processes that the government departments make you go through. The cost of sale is therefore amazingly large, which leads to large project costs for the few companies that are willing to put up with this process, while erecting a barrier of entry for smaller and cheaper organisations.

Silhouette 16y ago
Most of the high profile, high budget projects they are talking about have been outsourced to big name consulting companies at absurdly high rates. Cutting those en masse is probably no bad thing. In other news, there is talk of changing the rules so that a substantial proportion of such work must be given to smaller, independent companies, who frankly could probably do a better job given the track record of places like EDS. As long as they don't then find they "need" to bring in expensive management consultancy firms to co-ordinate the smaller teams, that is...
- gaius 16y ago
  I think the new government could get away with levying a windfall tax on all the big outsourcing firms.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
buro9 16y ago
Having come from a background in which I saw a lot of how the tendering works I wholeheartedly agree with you. Most large suppliers build into their bid a lock-in period and extra revenue streams tied to that. For example if Company A supply server hosting, hardware and support for the Government Department then if you want to get new servers in there you have to pay the prices they quote and you have no choice (it's way above normal cost, of course it isn't comparable as your configuration differs from the mass market configuration). Then to install a new version of SharePoint on the server will mean that the server isn't supported unless that specific version of SharePoint has been through testing with the Department version (so many group policies in place that it's best to think of them having their own version) of Windows Server an Windows desktops. Of course, they will charge for testing and that will be at least £50k for a basic server app, head skywards for anything else. Finally when you have paid £60k for a £12k piece of hardware, and perhaps £100k for your testing, and £50k in software licenses... you get into maintenance mode. During maintenance mode nothing will happen... nothing at all. If you want a change you will have to accept all responsibility for the impact of that as they manage the server and don't want any risk. Any risk at this point is a cost to them so they will damn well act to limit change, usually by charging to implement any changes (effectively a cost penalty). And if Windows Updates come along, well who needs those anyway. Service Packs on the other hand can re-trigger the test cycle (ka-ching!). So for a team installation of something like SharePoint it isn't unrealistic to be thinking in terms of hundreds of thousands of pounds... wherein you and I know perfectly well that it can be achieved for less than a tenth of the cost. This isn't just a procurement problem, it's a problem with the whole lifecycle and how the incumbents shape contracts that benefit the vendors rather than the service being provided.

Silhouette 16y ago

Most of the high profile, high budget projects they are talking about have been outsourced to big name consulting companies at absurdly high rates. Cutting those en masse is probably no bad thing. In other news, there is talk of changing the rules so that a substantial proportion of such work must be given to smaller, independent companies, who frankly could probably do a better job given the track record of places like EDS. As long as they don't then find they "need" to bring in expensive management consultancy firms to co-ordinate the smaller teams, that is...

gaius 16y ago
I think the new government could get away with levying a windfall tax on all the big outsourcing firms.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

buro9 16y ago

Having come from a background in which I saw a lot of how the tendering works I wholeheartedly agree with you. Most large suppliers build into their bid a lock-in period and extra revenue streams tied to that. For example if Company A supply server hosting, hardware and support for the Government Department then if you want to get new servers in there you have to pay the prices they quote and you have no choice (it's way above normal cost, of course it isn't comparable as your configuration differs from the mass market configuration). Then to install a new version of SharePoint on the server will mean that the server isn't supported unless that specific version of SharePoint has been through testing with the Department version (so many group policies in place that it's best to think of them having their own version) of Windows Server an Windows desktops. Of course, they will charge for testing and that will be at least £50k for a basic server app, head skywards for anything else. Finally when you have paid £60k for a £12k piece of hardware, and perhaps £100k for your testing, and £50k in software licenses... you get into maintenance mode. During maintenance mode nothing will happen... nothing at all. If you want a change you will have to accept all responsibility for the impact of that as they manage the server and don't want any risk. Any risk at this point is a cost to them so they will damn well act to limit change, usually by charging to implement any changes (effectively a cost penalty). And if Windows Updates come along, well who needs those anyway. Service Packs on the other hand can re-trigger the test cycle (ka-ching!). So for a team installation of something like SharePoint it isn't unrealistic to be thinking in terms of hundreds of thousands of pounds... wherein you and I know perfectly well that it can be achieved for less than a tenth of the cost. This isn't just a procurement problem, it's a problem with the whole lifecycle and how the incumbents shape contracts that benefit the vendors rather than the service being provided.