3 ms·

The public sector in a number of countries seems addicted to these large-scale high risk forms of procurement. Instead of running a larger number of smaller pr

The public sector in a number of countries seems addicted to these large-scale high risk forms of procurement. Instead of running a larger number of smaller projects, which would be harder for them to adminster, there's a temptation to lump it all into one mega-project and shift the responsibility to a consulting company. The problem with that approach is, of course, that its almost impossible to accurately specify all the requirements of the mega-project up front, so there are lots of amendments, and as any consultant knows amendements are where you make your money as by the time they come along the client is committed to the project, so you have the advantage in negotiations. Unfortunately the litany of failed projects that follow this model, doesn't seem to deter public sector organisations from following them. I don't doubt similar things happen in the private sector, but failures in the public sector tend to be more visible.

leejoramo 9y ago
Indeed many private sector failures are never known to the public. One small city newspaper burned well over $4 million on business software this was never know to the public. The software caused the repeated delays in delivery, which was explained as a mechanical problem with the press. At the time the same paper, ran a highly critical story of the county government for a $100,000 software project over run.
- otakucode 9y ago
  Perhaps attaching a necessity of transparency to the contracts would help? Like, 'to bid you have to provide a publicly accessible full accounting of the status and progress of the project during its performance'?
afterburner 9y ago
Being attached to an expensive project is a big plus in career development. Same as having big budgets and having lots of people under you.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I think the way budgeting and management works the people in charge want to have an upfront price and timeline. It would probably be better to say "let's spend $x/year over the next years and see how far we can get".
pbecotte 9y ago
In the US at least, there is a hard cutoff at a certain price point. Beyond that price point the only legal way is to run through the procurement office with all that entails- written specs, detailed contracts, long term execution, etc. Because the procurement process is so complicated, the only companies that WIN the process are those that are optimized for this (rather then, say, writing software or building roads). Often the contracting companies will not even plan on doing actual work, they only specialize in GETTING work and subcontracting it out. The whole thing is designed to prevent some mid level beauracrat from kicking his brother in law some project for 10% more then "market rate" ... instead we pay 300% more because every project has to get rolled up into some monolithic thing that's big enough for the big contracting companies to get involved.

leejoramo 9y ago

Indeed many private sector failures are never known to the public. One small city newspaper burned well over $4 million on business software this was never know to the public. The software caused the repeated delays in delivery, which was explained as a mechanical problem with the press. At the time the same paper, ran a highly critical story of the county government for a $100,000 software project over run.

otakucode 9y ago
Perhaps attaching a necessity of transparency to the contracts would help? Like, 'to bid you have to provide a publicly accessible full accounting of the status and progress of the project during its performance'?

afterburner 9y ago

Being attached to an expensive project is a big plus in career development. Same as having big budgets and having lots of people under you.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I think the way budgeting and management works the people in charge want to have an upfront price and timeline. It would probably be better to say "let's spend $x/year over the next years and see how far we can get".

pbecotte 9y ago

In the US at least, there is a hard cutoff at a certain price point. Beyond that price point the only legal way is to run through the procurement office with all that entails- written specs, detailed contracts, long term execution, etc. Because the procurement process is so complicated, the only companies that WIN the process are those that are optimized for this (rather then, say, writing software or building roads). Often the contracting companies will not even plan on doing actual work, they only specialize in GETTING work and subcontracting it out. The whole thing is designed to prevent some mid level beauracrat from kicking his brother in law some project for 10% more then "market rate" ... instead we pay 300% more because every project has to get rolled up into some monolithic thing that's big enough for the big contracting companies to get involved.