3 ms·

Pointing to the highest performing companies that have been selected by the market is not really a fair comparison for a government agency. It's more relevant

Pointing to the highest performing companies that have been selected by the market is not really a fair comparison for a government agency. It's more relevant to look at what a median tech company would end up doing, if they had to launch at scale without organic growth but had unlimited funding.

jonnathanson 9y ago
Totally fair, but to play devil's advocate for a split second, let's not forget that the Census Dept has to make people aware of itself and get people to give their info willingly and within timelines, given no real incentive to do so. Facebook, Amazon, and Google are collecting info that is willingly passed their way. We are probably talking about buying data entry and management bloatware from a big mediocre enterprise contractor and then integrating the monstrosity.
- drc500free 9y ago
  Totally agree... Private sector just isn't going to serve people with a negative ROI and stay in business. Facebook's costs would skyrocket if they had to chase down the last 10-20% of the population necessary for comprehensive coverage. These are all structural issues with solving the problem, before we even get to a procurement process that picks a mediocre LPTA contractor instead of Google.
froindt 9y ago
> Pointing to the highest performing companies that have been selected by the market is not really a fair comparison for a government agency. Fair point. All the companies I pointed out are flush with cash, making the annual budget of the census comically small. So if we want large publicly visible government software projects to start going well consistently, what would it take? Recent poorly run projects have included the failed launch of healthcare.gov which was "rescued" by SV techies and this project which is way over budget. There are many more which are smaller, less visible to the public, and I'm sure there are a set of projects which get done on time and on or below budget.

jonnathanson 9y ago

Totally fair, but to play devil's advocate for a split second, let's not forget that the Census Dept has to make people aware of itself and get people to give their info willingly and within timelines, given no real incentive to do so. Facebook, Amazon, and Google are collecting info that is willingly passed their way. We are probably talking about buying data entry and management bloatware from a big mediocre enterprise contractor and then integrating the monstrosity.

drc500free 9y ago
Totally agree... Private sector just isn't going to serve people with a negative ROI and stay in business. Facebook's costs would skyrocket if they had to chase down the last 10-20% of the population necessary for comprehensive coverage. These are all structural issues with solving the problem, before we even get to a procurement process that picks a mediocre LPTA contractor instead of Google.

froindt 9y ago

> Pointing to the highest performing companies that have been selected by the market is not really a fair comparison for a government agency. Fair point. All the companies I pointed out are flush with cash, making the annual budget of the census comically small. So if we want large publicly visible government software projects to start going well consistently, what would it take? Recent poorly run projects have included the failed launch of healthcare.gov which was "rescued" by SV techies and this project which is way over budget. There are many more which are smaller, less visible to the public, and I'm sure there are a set of projects which get done on time and on or below budget.