4 ms·
> Private companies are more likely to achieve this, especially if they are not hamstrung by regulations. On what do you base this? If it's too expensive and d
by sidlls 10y ago
> Private companies are more likely to achieve this, especially if they are not hamstrung by regulations.
On what do you base this? If it's too expensive and dangerous for governments, with the ability to leverage overwhelming resources if they chose to and not care a bit whether any revenue were generated, how is it more likely that a severely resource constrained company likely limited by a profit (or at least constrained loss) motive will succeed?
- jp555 10y agoBoth profit-motives and a re-election motives can disrupt efforts. But I think being small is significant leverage for achieving new things, and small + technology is compounded leverage.
- sidlls 10y agoWhat makes you think "small + technology" is an advantage in this space?
- jp555 10y agoI think that a small effort must approach things more from a bootstrapping of minimal effective steps. I've found this often incompatible with the design-by-comitee approach of government procurement bureaucracy. A government approach tends to put more importance on not making any mistakes than doing things fast and efficiently. At a recent government placement I could buy post-it notes with the department budget, but not tissue paper. I could buy an iPad to test my software, but not a new monitor (that's IT!). I could buy an Adobe CC licence, but I couldn't install it or upgrade it without an IT admin. Process can eliminate judgement & autonomy.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago> At a recent government placement I could buy post-it notes with the department budget, but not tissue paper. I could buy an iPad to test my software, but not a new monitor (that's IT!). I could buy an Adobe CC licence, but I couldn't install it or upgrade it without an IT admin. Process can eliminate judgement & autonomy. In fairness, that also describes many large private entities.
- ptero 10y agoOn talking to a few folks I know who work for NASA. Government officials in most areas are VERY averse to risk taking. Managing and sometimes working on a mission with a fatal crash is likely the end of the career. Business as usual and not reaching far enough has no career downside. And safety is expensive -- getting the system from .99 to .999 P(success) leads to a large increase in complexity and makes developed technologies more difficult to reuse -- the systems designed for high P(success) are usually monolithic, tightly integrated, built for a single purpose things, not modular systems of reusable components. This has nothing to do with resource constraints; this is pre-conditioning / expectations that are not going to change for a large government organization. Unless there is a highly visible, universally accepted national need.