5 ms·

I was surprised how much blame this article lays at the feet of Cisco. What did they do except sell the customer what they wanted? Sure, they might have been mo

I was surprised how much blame this article lays at the feet of Cisco. What did they do except sell the customer what they wanted? Sure, they might have been more noble if they put on the breaks in the name of the taxpayers, but that could hardly be expected. It takes a lot of nerve for someone who just wasted my money (federal dollars) to try to blame it on the other party for fulfilling the order.

megablast 14y ago
It is not one or the other, it is both of them. If Cisco wants to be treated like untrustworthy rip off artists, then they acted the right way. People will take note.
- ripter 14y ago
  If I go to an Apple store and buy a $3,000 computer is it apple's fault that I only needed an iPad? Hell no. I'm the one that ordered a $3,000 computer, signed off on the agreement, and forked over the cash. Cisco acted like a business, you can't blame them for that.
  - SEMW 14y ago
    > Cisco acted like a business, you can't blame them for that Any time someone on hn complains about some business ripping them off, some variant of this comment usually gets posted. And it completely misses the point. The point isn't moral blameworthiness. It's sharing of information. Some people may prefer to buy from a company they believe they can trust to give good advice about which of their products will meet their needs best. Others may not care about that and will buy just on the basis of the product. A company happy to sell products they know are overkill is making a business decision, to increase profit in the short term at the risk of losing the former kind of customer in the long term. So reacting to criticism of a company overselling by defending their right act that way in a market is confused. The goal isn't armchair moralising, it's sharing information about them so that people can make more informed choices about who to do business with.
dalke 14y ago
Did we read different articles? The one I read says "The report finds plenty of blame to go around. The ultimate cause of the fiasco, it says, was the fact the grant implementers did not conduct a capacity or use study before spending $24 million." This does not place the ultimate blame on Cisco. You say "what [West Virginia] wanted", but the article shows how Cisco was unable to show that they knew what WV wanted. For example, Cisco claims that WV specified internal dual power supplies but there is no record that WV ever had that requirement. Instead, "what WV wanted" is defined only as being whatever WV signed off on at the end. As to if Cisco's behavior is expected or not, the Ars article says: "[Cisco] had a moral responsibility to propose a plan which reasonably complied with Cisco's own engineering standards" but that instead "Cisco representatives showed a wanton indifference to the interests of the public in recommending using $24 million of public funds to purchase 1,164 Cisco model 3945 branch routers." Ars even links to section 5A-3-33d of the West Virginia Code. The likely relevant clause is "(B) Performance in violation of standards established by law or generally accepted standards of the trade or profession amounting to intentionally deficient or grossly negligent performance on one or more public contracts;", and the auditor's report shows examples of how Cisco's actions were likely in violation of their own published standards. This is not a crime. As the article says, the strongest remedy regarding Cisco is that Cisco might be "barred from bidding on future projects."
- jeffdavis 14y ago
  "Cisco was unable to show that they knew what WV wanted" Yes, they have a contract. That is the best indication possible that the customer wants what you are selling. If I trust someone else with my money, and they transfer that trust over to a salesperson, then they have violated my trust. I don't want to hear about "blame to go around" and "the salesman should have sold us less stuff". Maybe apply some shame or sanctions to the salesperson, I suppose, but I really don't care unless there was some kind of kickback involved. Allowing the stewards of your money to redirect blame onto Cisco for selling too much stuff seems so overwhelmingly naive that I don't know where to begin.
  - dalke 14y ago
    This is a modified version of the Prisoner's Dilemma. If there is trust then overall costs go down and the number of sales goes up. This is a net win for both sides. If one side does not follow standard business practices, which the auditor argues happened here, then that one side may get better benefits. But this is actually an iterated prisoner's dilemma, and the standard tit-for-tat strategy of the Prisoner's Dilemma makes good sense. That is, shut out Cisco from future contracts for a period of time. This encourages future vendors, who want repeat business, to stay in a regime of trust and relieves WV of having to pay for staff with full domain expertise on all contract-related matters. A role of the auditors is to identify these problems after the fact and use debarment as a way to disincentivize this vendors from this behavior. This isn't naive. It's basic game theory.

megablast 14y ago

It is not one or the other, it is both of them. If Cisco wants to be treated like untrustworthy rip off artists, then they acted the right way. People will take note.

ripter 14y ago
If I go to an Apple store and buy a $3,000 computer is it apple's fault that I only needed an iPad? Hell no. I'm the one that ordered a $3,000 computer, signed off on the agreement, and forked over the cash. Cisco acted like a business, you can't blame them for that.
- SEMW 14y ago
  > Cisco acted like a business, you can't blame them for that Any time someone on hn complains about some business ripping them off, some variant of this comment usually gets posted. And it completely misses the point. The point isn't moral blameworthiness. It's sharing of information. Some people may prefer to buy from a company they believe they can trust to give good advice about which of their products will meet their needs best. Others may not care about that and will buy just on the basis of the product. A company happy to sell products they know are overkill is making a business decision, to increase profit in the short term at the risk of losing the former kind of customer in the long term. So reacting to criticism of a company overselling by defending their right act that way in a market is confused. The goal isn't armchair moralising, it's sharing information about them so that people can make more informed choices about who to do business with.

dalke 14y ago

Did we read different articles? The one I read says "The report finds plenty of blame to go around. The ultimate cause of the fiasco, it says, was the fact the grant implementers did not conduct a capacity or use study before spending $24 million." This does not place the ultimate blame on Cisco. You say "what [West Virginia] wanted", but the article shows how Cisco was unable to show that they knew what WV wanted. For example, Cisco claims that WV specified internal dual power supplies but there is no record that WV ever had that requirement. Instead, "what WV wanted" is defined only as being whatever WV signed off on at the end. As to if Cisco's behavior is expected or not, the Ars article says: "[Cisco] had a moral responsibility to propose a plan which reasonably complied with Cisco's own engineering standards" but that instead "Cisco representatives showed a wanton indifference to the interests of the public in recommending using $24 million of public funds to purchase 1,164 Cisco model 3945 branch routers." Ars even links to section 5A-3-33d of the West Virginia Code. The likely relevant clause is "(B) Performance in violation of standards established by law or generally accepted standards of the trade or profession amounting to intentionally deficient or grossly negligent performance on one or more public contracts;", and the auditor's report shows examples of how Cisco's actions were likely in violation of their own published standards. This is not a crime. As the article says, the strongest remedy regarding Cisco is that Cisco might be "barred from bidding on future projects."

jeffdavis 14y ago
"Cisco was unable to show that they knew what WV wanted" Yes, they have a contract. That is the best indication possible that the customer wants what you are selling. If I trust someone else with my money, and they transfer that trust over to a salesperson, then they have violated my trust. I don't want to hear about "blame to go around" and "the salesman should have sold us less stuff". Maybe apply some shame or sanctions to the salesperson, I suppose, but I really don't care unless there was some kind of kickback involved. Allowing the stewards of your money to redirect blame onto Cisco for selling too much stuff seems so overwhelmingly naive that I don't know where to begin.
- dalke 14y ago
  This is a modified version of the Prisoner's Dilemma. If there is trust then overall costs go down and the number of sales goes up. This is a net win for both sides. If one side does not follow standard business practices, which the auditor argues happened here, then that one side may get better benefits. But this is actually an iterated prisoner's dilemma, and the standard tit-for-tat strategy of the Prisoner's Dilemma makes good sense. That is, shut out Cisco from future contracts for a period of time. This encourages future vendors, who want repeat business, to stay in a regime of trust and relieves WV of having to pay for staff with full domain expertise on all contract-related matters. A role of the auditors is to identify these problems after the fact and use debarment as a way to disincentivize this vendors from this behavior. This isn't naive. It's basic game theory.