3 ms·

For public sector it's inherently risky to buy software and even devices. They often lack the capacity to properly outline what they need, to understand what's

For public sector it's inherently risky to buy software and even devices. They often lack the capacity to properly outline what they need, to understand what's possible, to know the real cost/price they'd need to offer to get good results for tenders, and most importantly lack the ability to write for technical tenders to get what they need. The effect of that if something is running well often the most rational solution is to leave it running. Yes it might not be the most efficient solution, but it might still be more cost effective than losing 3 months of work due to conversion to a new system, in addition to all the extra cost, training, downtime, ... In the current ecosystem more and more also seems to be license based. Do you really want to change a decently running system with just occasional maintenance cost for an untested system that will change all existing processes and in addition ups your annual cost by quite a bit? Any time you change a system you probably have to change some additional systems too as suddenly things don't work together anymore.... Cities are often stretched for resources ranging from (good) personnel to financial to physical space to ... It's probably in many cases the rational decision to stick with how it is if the system mostly works.

pergadad 8y ago
Can't edit, so just to add that public admin also has to be conservative. Seems like you were running a startup with a great new product. That means they have zero idea whether you'll still be around in a year's time! Really dangerous to commit to a system where you don't know the long term perspective- especially if you're a public admin which means your switching costs are high, timeline to make decisions long, and you have a legal or moral obligation to fulfil your tasks... To give one other concrete example, i know of a country that chose a great new software solution to provide information exchange between medical providers. The tool runs well, they got long term commitment and a safe provider. BUT they then found that there's literally no one except the provider itself who can train all the users as the UI, process and exisiting training materials are all copyrighted (or otherwise protected, maybe through contractual clauses) by the provider. Means they found s gigantic additional cost even when they thought they'd done everything right in the choice of software. Again, risk can be bigger than the reward.

pergadad 8y ago

Can't edit, so just to add that public admin also has to be conservative. Seems like you were running a startup with a great new product. That means they have zero idea whether you'll still be around in a year's time! Really dangerous to commit to a system where you don't know the long term perspective- especially if you're a public admin which means your switching costs are high, timeline to make decisions long, and you have a legal or moral obligation to fulfil your tasks... To give one other concrete example, i know of a country that chose a great new software solution to provide information exchange between medical providers. The tool runs well, they got long term commitment and a safe provider. BUT they then found that there's literally no one except the provider itself who can train all the users as the UI, process and exisiting training materials are all copyrighted (or otherwise protected, maybe through contractual clauses) by the provider. Means they found s gigantic additional cost even when they thought they'd done everything right in the choice of software. Again, risk can be bigger than the reward.