4 ms·

Stories like this one should be understood not in isolation, but as one point in a pendulum system: Endpoint A: These rules are all "red tape" stopping us from

Stories like this one should be understood not in isolation, but as one point in a pendulum system: Endpoint A: These rules are all "red tape" stopping us from getting things done. Let's just get the job done and save lots of money, time, and overhead. Endpoint B: Our systems are crap; they don't meet specifications - we don't even have specifications so we don't know what's needed; they are unreliable; they don't interoperate; there's no competition for the work, it just goes to incompetent people who have friends in the right places and rip off taxpayers; and military officers know nothing about procurement, bidding, or complex system development. This is ridiculous and unprofessional: We need specifications, competitive bidding, quality requirements, QA, and professional procurement for our $600 billion budget. .... The problem isn't the endpoints, it's the pendulum. If this is your organization, you need to get off the pendulum and make expert, intelligent decisions about trade-offs. EDIT: Some clarifying edits

tabtab 8y ago
Competent internal teams can produce relatively simple solutions within a reasonable budget. However, it's hard to formalize and replicate such teams and/or team habits. That's why the more formal specification & contract approach is often used instead: It's a BIT more predictable. The first approach may get a grade from A to F, while the second ranges mostly from B- to D-. Predictable semi-crap is often easier to accept than something that might easily be an A, F, and all between. The first's probability curve is mostly flat from A to F, while the second peaks around C-, and thus it's somewhat more predictable, and that's why managers and bureaucrats often prefer it.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Competent internal teams can produce relatively simple solutions within a reasonable budget. However, it's hard to formalize and replicate such teams and/or team habits. Tangentially, that is exactly the military's central management challenge (per my limited understanding): Combat depends on replicating competence in internal teams, under extreme stress and extremely unpredictable situations, and with unpredictable turnover of key personnel, including management (they die). The U.S. military, for example, has to accomplish this across hundreds of thousands of personnel. Imagine you get a new manager the week before a major project is due, with lots of critical decisions to be made. Now imagine you get a new manager the day that person is supposed to lead you on an assault up an enemy hill, where a less-than-optimal decision might kill you.
Eridrus 8y ago
I think it's a really tough problem, and maintaining all the capability in house may not be the right move, but there must be some in house capability to use for prototyping and technical decision making, otherwise your procurement gets disastrous because you have no ability to evaluate what you're buying.

tabtab 8y ago

Competent internal teams can produce relatively simple solutions within a reasonable budget. However, it's hard to formalize and replicate such teams and/or team habits. That's why the more formal specification & contract approach is often used instead: It's a BIT more predictable. The first approach may get a grade from A to F, while the second ranges mostly from B- to D-. Predictable semi-crap is often easier to accept than something that might easily be an A, F, and all between. The first's probability curve is mostly flat from A to F, while the second peaks around C-, and thus it's somewhat more predictable, and that's why managers and bureaucrats often prefer it.

forapurpose 8y ago
> Competent internal teams can produce relatively simple solutions within a reasonable budget. However, it's hard to formalize and replicate such teams and/or team habits. Tangentially, that is exactly the military's central management challenge (per my limited understanding): Combat depends on replicating competence in internal teams, under extreme stress and extremely unpredictable situations, and with unpredictable turnover of key personnel, including management (they die). The U.S. military, for example, has to accomplish this across hundreds of thousands of personnel. Imagine you get a new manager the week before a major project is due, with lots of critical decisions to be made. Now imagine you get a new manager the day that person is supposed to lead you on an assault up an enemy hill, where a less-than-optimal decision might kill you.

Eridrus 8y ago

I think it's a really tough problem, and maintaining all the capability in house may not be the right move, but there must be some in house capability to use for prototyping and technical decision making, otherwise your procurement gets disastrous because you have no ability to evaluate what you're buying.