3 ms·

The big company probably eats the risk of the small company stuffing up, or the government changing requirements halfway through the project. They also do all

by wisty 15y ago

The big company probably eats the risk of the small company stuffing up, or the government changing requirements halfway through the project. They also do all the unexciting tender work, certifications, negotiations, rainmaking, etc. If a government employee asked a savvy web dev to scope out and implement a solution, it would be cheap. But they can't work that way. The project has to be specified upfront, in advance, because otherwise the government might get cheated by an unscrupulous developer. They would rather be sure they are getting cheated, that way there's no way they can be accused of favoritism.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>But they can't work that way. The project has to be specified upfront, in advance, because otherwise the government might get cheated by an unscrupulous developer I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying the risk of losing a few £10k is worth paying a few £100k over the odds to avoid? Surely the gov should be using their own web devs and having a consistent CMS used across all gov online estates. Yes there will be db integrations and things but a single shop of web dev working for the gov would surely save money. They could get 3 whole websites and employ a 4th body to choose the best and still do it cheaper than hiring the big firm in the first place.
ZoFreX 15y ago
> The big company probably eats the risk of the small company stuffing up Completely the other way around, actually - our business relationship with the larger company was that we fixed their messes, some of which were gov contracts. Their sub-par developers would hack something together which eventually collapsed under its own weight, at which point they'd try to sell it anyway. If the client didn't accept it, we would then be brought in to close all the blocking bugs. > or the government changing requirements halfway through the project I don't think we were very insulated from this, but obviously by definition I can't tell you anything that we were shielded from!

by wisty 15y ago

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

>But they can't work that way. The project has to be specified upfront, in advance, because otherwise the government might get cheated by an unscrupulous developer I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying the risk of losing a few £10k is worth paying a few £100k over the odds to avoid? Surely the gov should be using their own web devs and having a consistent CMS used across all gov online estates. Yes there will be db integrations and things but a single shop of web dev working for the gov would surely save money. They could get 3 whole websites and employ a 4th body to choose the best and still do it cheaper than hiring the big firm in the first place.

ZoFreX 15y ago

> The big company probably eats the risk of the small company stuffing up Completely the other way around, actually - our business relationship with the larger company was that we fixed their messes, some of which were gov contracts. Their sub-par developers would hack something together which eventually collapsed under its own weight, at which point they'd try to sell it anyway. If the client didn't accept it, we would then be brought in to close all the blocking bugs. > or the government changing requirements halfway through the project I don't think we were very insulated from this, but obviously by definition I can't tell you anything that we were shielded from!