4 ms·

I can elaborate with a very precise example. Of course standards are fine and important. But the amount of red tape they require is mind-boggling. I know of a s

by wazoox 3y ago

I can elaborate with a very precise example. Of course standards are fine and important. But the amount of red tape they require is mind-boggling. I know of a small company who invested about 1 million € to build their software; they then took 18 months and another million € to make it stamped with some standard, to be able to sell their software to some government administration. The second million was spent entirely on legal fees, documentations, etc. They didn't change a line in their software. Nobody checked that the software actually does what it's supposed to do; only that it facially complies with a bunch of bureaucratically defined requirements, that may or may not be of any use or significance for the people using the software in the end.

kranke155 3y ago
Lord almighty
pas 3y ago
can you please name the standard in question? also, it's completely okay if no code had to be changed also there are quality assurance and process related standards, that are about documentation... and let's not forget that a government can usually require that the vendor sign paperwork, which makes sure the officers of the vendor are criminally liable ... I'm not in favor of them, nor in favor of spending millions on legal and documentation fees, but without knowing more it's yet another "public procurement bad" story (which is completely believable! I mean 1M EUR compliance cost nowadays is not that unusual)
- wazoox 3y ago
  It was in 2016 so I mercifully forgot the details, it's a set of standards for data archival and document classification. There are some compliances rules for security in the mix (people should require proper authorisations to access documents, etc). At some point some lawmakers (under the influence of some company such as Cap Gemini or Atos) passed a law to force notaries to use only software with that particular stamp. The problem is that it's typically the sort of standard that should be applied to a particular organisation and workflow, through an auditing process, instead of a global, upfront stamp that is really a way to do gatekeeping, not actually enforcing data safety and security.

by wazoox 3y ago

kranke155 3y ago

Lord almighty

pas 3y ago

can you please name the standard in question? also, it's completely okay if no code had to be changed also there are quality assurance and process related standards, that are about documentation... and let's not forget that a government can usually require that the vendor sign paperwork, which makes sure the officers of the vendor are criminally liable ... I'm not in favor of them, nor in favor of spending millions on legal and documentation fees, but without knowing more it's yet another "public procurement bad" story (which is completely believable! I mean 1M EUR compliance cost nowadays is not that unusual)

wazoox 3y ago
It was in 2016 so I mercifully forgot the details, it's a set of standards for data archival and document classification. There are some compliances rules for security in the mix (people should require proper authorisations to access documents, etc). At some point some lawmakers (under the influence of some company such as Cap Gemini or Atos) passed a law to force notaries to use only software with that particular stamp. The problem is that it's typically the sort of standard that should be applied to a particular organisation and workflow, through an auditing process, instead of a global, upfront stamp that is really a way to do gatekeeping, not actually enforcing data safety and security.