4 ms·

Such projects are expensive since it's not only development but also rollout including training of users. The development is also more expensive than in other

Such projects are expensive since it's not only development but also rollout including training of users. The development is also more expensive than in other areas since there is need for documentation. And then there is a flaw in the process: Producing the software has to be done via some bidding process. For writing the requirements documents they already rely on companies, which can add clauses making it hard for competitors, after that the lowest bidder wins. In case there is a competitor and not some big player like T-Systems as the only one the offers typically are "optimistic" meaning that at some point in time the budget will run out and extra budget has to be granted (or the project would fail, which doesn't look good and they'd have to restart the whole process, thus wait another two years) and there a "smart" company can find quite a few extra costs. ("Oh wait, you updated from windows XP to 10, we have to redo a lot and then re-twst and re-certify") It's a game some companies can play quite well. That all said: Software is expensive. Gathering requirements is hard. Bureaucracy, which among other things tries to prevent corruption, causes extra work.

berkes 7y ago
That, and they are expensive, because people expect them to be expensive. When, say, the national Police asks companies to come up with sofware to manage contact details for all employees, you could come up with "Install and Configure SomeOpenSourceCRM on a VPS" for €3000. Whereas typically some Enterprise Consultancy quotes a factor hundred of that to "integrate" it in a crappy way. I've worked in such projects, for governments. The overhead is ridiculous. the NIH-syndrome is rampant. The specs and "but this is how we do things"-requirements are cut in stone. Very often a evening of tuning some Open Source tool could suffice; But either some rule disallowing the language/server/deploy-speed, or some manager disliking it because last year they decided that from now on everything must be Java+XML, or you need at least three weeks of meetings before you are allowed to even start. This is not a joke. I've had a simple off-the-shelve Rails tool cut down, because "we don't allow dynamic languages". I've had projects delayed with 3+ weeks because "we require a deploy-window to be announced 21 days in advance" and I've worked as only developer on a project with four(!) managers managing me. That is why government projects are expensive: a catch22: "Because they are".
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  Well for many things there are "good" reasons. > we don't allow dynamic languages I would translate as "we have now experience in running and maintaining those platforms, which causes issues" > require a deploy-window to be announced 21 days in advance" This sounds a bit like ITIL or similar processes in oalce, which are there to ensure the systems are in defined state. > with four(!) managers managing me. Usually those should have different roles. Like technical oversight, communicating with the actual users and getting their requirements, then the IT management for operations and than oversight (variance exists, but lots of things, different stakeholders and as they spent public money they have to do extra documentation of processes for accountability reasons)

berkes 7y ago

That, and they are expensive, because people expect them to be expensive. When, say, the national Police asks companies to come up with sofware to manage contact details for all employees, you could come up with "Install and Configure SomeOpenSourceCRM on a VPS" for €3000. Whereas typically some Enterprise Consultancy quotes a factor hundred of that to "integrate" it in a crappy way. I've worked in such projects, for governments. The overhead is ridiculous. the NIH-syndrome is rampant. The specs and "but this is how we do things"-requirements are cut in stone. Very often a evening of tuning some Open Source tool could suffice; But either some rule disallowing the language/server/deploy-speed, or some manager disliking it because last year they decided that from now on everything must be Java+XML, or you need at least three weeks of meetings before you are allowed to even start. This is not a joke. I've had a simple off-the-shelve Rails tool cut down, because "we don't allow dynamic languages". I've had projects delayed with 3+ weeks because "we require a deploy-window to be announced 21 days in advance" and I've worked as only developer on a project with four(!) managers managing me. That is why government projects are expensive: a catch22: "Because they are".

johannes1234321 7y ago
Well for many things there are "good" reasons. > we don't allow dynamic languages I would translate as "we have now experience in running and maintaining those platforms, which causes issues" > require a deploy-window to be announced 21 days in advance" This sounds a bit like ITIL or similar processes in oalce, which are there to ensure the systems are in defined state. > with four(!) managers managing me. Usually those should have different roles. Like technical oversight, communicating with the actual users and getting their requirements, then the IT management for operations and than oversight (variance exists, but lots of things, different stakeholders and as they spent public money they have to do extra documentation of processes for accountability reasons)