4 ms·

As a US citizen I do not want a single cent of tax dollars going to Larry. It's infuriating the US government is Oracle's biggest customer.

by snarfy 8y ago

dmix 8y ago
Same with IBM. I just read the Canadian prime minister praising the work done on a new payroll system, so I decided to look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system > In June 2011, IBM won the contract to set up the system, using PeopleSoft software; the original contract was for $5.7 million, but IBM was eventually paid $185 million. ...that's 32x the original price. Everyone in software knows exactly how IBM and Oracle make their money. That part's not a mystery. The bigger mystery to me is why these governments and big companies keep spending money on these professional leeches and expecting a different result. Do other gov contractors charge 32x the original budget? Do construction, or ad companies, or accountants? Or is it just software?
- entee 8y ago
  Defense contractors, construction occasionally. It's pretty nuts. The east span of the bay bridge was something like 5x the original cost estimate. I think some of this ends up being because of the same reasons that home general contractors end up charging far more than the estimate: modifications cost extra. "Oh you wanted this feature? It wasn't in the contract, we can do it but that'll be $X. Oh you need to include this other system? That's out of scope but for $Y we can solve it." Million here, a million there and pretty soon you're talking real money ;) https://www.wnyc.org/story/316201-brief-history-64-billion-bay-bridge/ https://www.wnyc.org/story/316201-brief-history-64-billion-b...
- downrightmike 8y ago
  There was an article on HN yesterday that quoted about the SF Bay tunnel where the original bid was a fraction of the final cost and the legislators basically said, people wouldn't vote for it if they knew the 'real' cost. Of course schedule slips and overtime are abused.
- radiator 8y ago
  Where is the mystery? The answer is completely obvious. And what makes you think that "these governments ... expect a different result"? Isn't is possible that the governments expect (and welcome) exactly this result?
- repolfx 8y ago
  Without a doubt IBM got paid more because they did a lot more work than originally purchased. These sorts of big IT deployment disasters always have complex causes and often are caused by the customers. But that's one reason why not many firms are both big enough and willing to take them on ... hence why IBM seems to be rewarded for failure.
- Gpetrium 8y ago
  There are too many factors to account for before blaming someone for laying 32x the original budget. 1. Were there scope changes throughout the process? This is quite common and costs firms and govs a lot of money yearly. 2. Did the Gov know everything they need at beginning? 3. Are there other services or businesses with the amount of experience this one has? 4. Are there continuous services that will cost you monthly/yearly? Did you decide to increase the number of users in that platform? 5. Were there unexpected support or training needed? 6. Would it be political suicide to put the whole price at the beginning? All these things add up and you can only hope that your gov and big companies take into account before entering this endeavor

As a US citizen I do not want a single cent of tax dollars going to Larry. It's infuriating the US government is Oracle's biggest customer.

by snarfy 8y ago

As a US citizen I do not want a single cent of tax dollars going to Larry. It's infuriating the US government is Oracle's biggest customer.

dmix 8y ago

Same with IBM. I just read the Canadian prime minister praising the work done on a new payroll system, so I decided to look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system > In June 2011, IBM won the contract to set up the system, using PeopleSoft software; the original contract was for $5.7 million, but IBM was eventually paid $185 million. ...that's 32x the original price. Everyone in software knows exactly how IBM and Oracle make their money. That part's not a mystery. The bigger mystery to me is why these governments and big companies keep spending money on these professional leeches and expecting a different result. Do other gov contractors charge 32x the original budget? Do construction, or ad companies, or accountants? Or is it just software?

entee 8y ago
Defense contractors, construction occasionally. It's pretty nuts. The east span of the bay bridge was something like 5x the original cost estimate. I think some of this ends up being because of the same reasons that home general contractors end up charging far more than the estimate: modifications cost extra. "Oh you wanted this feature? It wasn't in the contract, we can do it but that'll be $X. Oh you need to include this other system? That's out of scope but for $Y we can solve it." Million here, a million there and pretty soon you're talking real money ;) https://www.wnyc.org/story/316201-brief-history-64-billion-bay-bridge/ https://www.wnyc.org/story/316201-brief-history-64-billion-b...
downrightmike 8y ago
There was an article on HN yesterday that quoted about the SF Bay tunnel where the original bid was a fraction of the final cost and the legislators basically said, people wouldn't vote for it if they knew the 'real' cost. Of course schedule slips and overtime are abused.
radiator 8y ago
Where is the mystery? The answer is completely obvious. And what makes you think that "these governments ... expect a different result"? Isn't is possible that the governments expect (and welcome) exactly this result?
repolfx 8y ago
Without a doubt IBM got paid more because they did a lot more work than originally purchased. These sorts of big IT deployment disasters always have complex causes and often are caused by the customers. But that's one reason why not many firms are both big enough and willing to take them on ... hence why IBM seems to be rewarded for failure.
Gpetrium 8y ago
There are too many factors to account for before blaming someone for laying 32x the original budget. 1. Were there scope changes throughout the process? This is quite common and costs firms and govs a lot of money yearly. 2. Did the Gov know everything they need at beginning? 3. Are there other services or businesses with the amount of experience this one has? 4. Are there continuous services that will cost you monthly/yearly? Did you decide to increase the number of users in that platform? 5. Were there unexpected support or training needed? 6. Would it be political suicide to put the whole price at the beginning? All these things add up and you can only hope that your gov and big companies take into account before entering this endeavor