3 ms·

There is an unfortunate culture prevalent in the government sector that biases towards "buy" vs "build" to the extreme that only vendor-supplied solutions are e

There is an unfortunate culture prevalent in the government sector that biases towards "buy" vs "build" to the extreme that only vendor-supplied solutions are even considered. What this leads to is pathologically bad solutions that result from the RFP process because of the odd incentives that favor private sector profit over public benefit. I don't know the "right" solution, but the current one overly favors corporate/private interests heavily, and this has caused a strong feedback loop that lobbying allows to strive. The deeper problem is that powerful corporate interests yield so much power in the first place and allows them to prop up systems like this that continually favor them over, say, governments developing and retaining competent internal teams that can actually make or are empowered to make the right technological decisions. Phrases like "government waste" and such are thrown around, but even a cursory examination of the current situation should be enough to demonstrate that problem hasn't been solved and the current situation is probably worse than if we allowed governments to run more like the private sector is allowed to. If that means the government can compete with private businesses in the service of the public, I am struggling to see the downside to that compared to where we are at now.

AtlasBarfed 7y ago
Which is weird because government workers are, at least by reputation, very stable and static in employment patterns. So a custom system would be less risk than for most companies.
- DanielBMarkham 7y ago
  You'd think so, wouldn't you? I have no idea what happens in general, but I can share that several experiences I've had is that the attitude is "we buy it and the vendor comes and makes it work" which, by necessity, is hands-off. Do that for enough years and you lose whatever skills you might have had to start with. I would hope that my small experience does not represent the overall situation. I don't know. Just wanted to point out that there are side effects of the build/buy decision if you stick to it over a number of years that might not be noticed by folks outside looking in.
- adolph 7y ago
  Is it paradoxical for a “stable and static workforce” to be risk averse? Maybe the stability has something to do with outsourcing risk?
- someguydave 7y ago
  Yes but: 1) relatively few government workers have marketable IT skills 2) they get paid the same whether they do any work or not, and they are required to spend the budget. Therefore, farming out the problem to contractors and writing checks is the incentivized path.
tdhz77 7y ago
Federal Government IT workers are paid significantly less than private sector. It’s easier for federal workers to buy into private sector products because they can blame these products/companies if they fail. They would not be able to do the same with open source “building”. Investment needs to be in a digital team. Disclosure: I’m a federal IT worker. I have argued for building as opposed to buying and people think I’m crazy.
- voicedYoda 7y ago
  As a technologist whose built for both private and public, I'm always amazed at how little a contact can be for the public sector to purchase, only to realize that the price tag did not reflect the true cost. Government usually will go with the lowest bidder, but that project always will balloon way beyond expectations. They could've easily built in house, but that would've cost too much up front... It's easier to get a yes on a cheap, long tail expensive project then a yes on an extensive short term project...

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

Which is weird because government workers are, at least by reputation, very stable and static in employment patterns. So a custom system would be less risk than for most companies.

DanielBMarkham 7y ago
You'd think so, wouldn't you? I have no idea what happens in general, but I can share that several experiences I've had is that the attitude is "we buy it and the vendor comes and makes it work" which, by necessity, is hands-off. Do that for enough years and you lose whatever skills you might have had to start with. I would hope that my small experience does not represent the overall situation. I don't know. Just wanted to point out that there are side effects of the build/buy decision if you stick to it over a number of years that might not be noticed by folks outside looking in.
adolph 7y ago
Is it paradoxical for a “stable and static workforce” to be risk averse? Maybe the stability has something to do with outsourcing risk?
someguydave 7y ago
Yes but: 1) relatively few government workers have marketable IT skills 2) they get paid the same whether they do any work or not, and they are required to spend the budget. Therefore, farming out the problem to contractors and writing checks is the incentivized path.

tdhz77 7y ago

Federal Government IT workers are paid significantly less than private sector. It’s easier for federal workers to buy into private sector products because they can blame these products/companies if they fail. They would not be able to do the same with open source “building”. Investment needs to be in a digital team. Disclosure: I’m a federal IT worker. I have argued for building as opposed to buying and people think I’m crazy.

voicedYoda 7y ago
As a technologist whose built for both private and public, I'm always amazed at how little a contact can be for the public sector to purchase, only to realize that the price tag did not reflect the true cost. Government usually will go with the lowest bidder, but that project always will balloon way beyond expectations. They could've easily built in house, but that would've cost too much up front... It's easier to get a yes on a cheap, long tail expensive project then a yes on an extensive short term project...