4 ms·
While I understand your point, the point the GP and I were making is that by bringing in (eg) IBM to the project, you're increasing the chance of failure. I su
by doctor_eval 3y ago
While I understand your point, the point the GP and I were making is that by bringing in (eg) IBM to the project, you're increasing the chance of failure.
I suppose the irony is that you bring in this huge bureaucracy to reduce the risk of blowback, but not the risk of failure.
- acdha 3y agoThat’s definitely a consideration: it increases the risk of failure but also increases the odds that you won’t be held accountable personally. One of the interesting dynamics here is that if they fail you, they have an extensive PR machine which will shop around excuses for the problems and help minimize them. If you do your own thing, the same people will tell their other marks that it was because you didn’t use them. In the public sector, there’s often a political aspect as well - the senior management of the big consulting companies are far more likely to meet with the politicians than you, and even if you are certain that your decision is correct you have to ask what the odds are that their narrative will set the tone at a level you’re rarely asked to appear at.
- doctor_eval 3y agoYes. There’s also the revolving door problem. The bureaucrat making the decision is often angling for a cushy role at the contractor. And the contractor is making the offer under the table to get the gig. From the decision makers perspective, it doesn’t matter if the project succeeds, they’ll be long gone. I’ve seen this with my own eyes.