3 ms·

Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying I can kind of see where they are coming from.

• prawn 14y ago
  Who, Cisco? I wouldn't be excusing their actions in a hurry. Everyone in this deal should be advising as though they are spending their own money. You can spend a lot of money, but would you if it were you own and you had other things to consider in a budget?
  • rdl 14y ago
    Cisco was acting in their own commercial interest, which would be fine if their counterparty weren't either corrupt or incompetent. It's reasonable for an enterprise deployment to try to standardize on some components, which costs something in size-inefficiency. It's ok to spec a 2-5x bigger product for some sites if most other sites are bigger, and if the big/small products are wildly different, etc. But that's clearly not the case here. Arguably the state should have had in-house competence to spend money on the taxpayer's behalf, or should have engaged a contractor with fiduciary responsibility to design/spec the work (and excluded from bidding).
  • theorique 14y ago
    Do they get a bonus or other benefit if they act as if they are spending their own money, or alternatively, punished if they do not act as such? In other words: if there's no incentive, what difference does it make?
    • prawn 14y ago
      I'm saying they should. Not that they will.