3 ms·

It really does not. Conservative sketch: assume 10k ppl, avg cost $50k/y, process/procedure/policy overhead 30%, is 150M/y. For that to make sense you'd need 15

It really does not. Conservative sketch: assume 10k ppl, avg cost $50k/y, process/procedure/policy overhead 30%, is 150M/y. For that to make sense you'd need 15x $10M fraudulent or single point stupidity errors per year. And that is assuming that the bullshit actually catches most errors. In my experience the 30% is conservative, from my measurements of large orgs. High overhead does not reduce errors, instead it increases both frequency and severity. It also kills innovation, thinking, adaptability, etc.

jiggawatts 5y ago
This pales in comparison to the tender process required of government. The logic goes something like this: Before: In the past, companies would bribe bureaucrats in order to land sweetheart deals. There was not enough competition and hence the government was paying too much. After: There is now a 10% chance of landing a contract after a month of paperwork. Only Accenture, Deloitte, and a handful of their direct competitors can afford to risk the time and effort required to win a contract. They don't actually do anything, they just subcontract everything while skimming their cut off the top. This isn't corruption however, it's just a nice legal business transaction. I regularly see projects that might take 1 guy 6 months balloon out to 20+ people for multiple years across three orgs and costing tens of millions of dollars, all in the name of "avoiding corruption". The best part is that because the projects end up costing so much, they have to be "taken more seriously", which means that the tender process must be "thorough", which means more papework and more managers and paper pushers on both sides of the fence. There's an exponential cost to this a bit like the rocket equation...