3 ms·
Also there's a good chance that the decision to go with IBM as a vendor, and the conduct thereafter, was corrupt from the start. That would go a long way toward
by microcolonel 9y ago
Also there's a good chance that the decision to go with IBM as a vendor, and the conduct thereafter, was corrupt from the start. That would go a long way toward explaining why so little due diligence was observed in assessing whether or not to continue the project with them at any of the stages it could've been.
Yes, people do make huge blunders in powering forward with overpowered, unnecessary solutions to problems they largely do not have; but blunders this big usually don't take this long to suss out.
- saas_co_de 9y ago> blunders this big usually don't take this long to suss out This is actually pretty minor league compared to U.S. government failures. e.g. https://www.wired.com/story/us-border-patrol-hasnt-validated-e-passport-data-for-years/ https://www.wired.com/story/us-border-patrol-hasnt-validated...
- microcolonel 9y agoIdunno, that doesn't really seem like such a big deal. The whole idea was rather pointless (in the face of all the bigger fish they have to fry) to begin with. With such headed, small minded planning, it may have been a blessing if they never bothered to implement it.
- AndyNemmity 9y agoAt the same time, "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM" is a statement for a reason. If you hire someone else, people will say, "Why didn't you hire the best?" If you hire IBM, you're avoiding that reasoning, even if on any given project IBM or other large enterprise vendors may not be the best.