3 ms·

I find it telling of the integrity of the BBC that they'd post that on their own website. I like it.

by fmdud 13y ago

NKCSS 13y ago
You have a valid point there, but still; how could you let it go that far? They say basically that the money is gone and they have nothing to show for afterwards... Does this mean they spent the bulk of that 98m on consultancy fees???
- jrwoodruff 13y ago
  It's funny how the more money that gets spent, the less willing anyone is to pull the plug. I would venture to guess they probably had to dig out of a hole created by the contractors originally hired for the job, then got stuck trying to catch up with the state of the art. Kudos to the guy willing to step up and say enough already, but yea... I would love to know more details.
  - tragomaskhalos 13y ago
    Indeed. See the behaviour notes in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
- blibble 13y ago
  as with any software project, it has no value at all until it is mostly complete quote from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/The-BBC-announces-the-closure-of-the-Digital-Media-Initiative-DMI http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/The-BBC-announc... : > The cost is so great because much of the software and hardware which has been developed would only have a value if the project was completed and we cannot continue to sanction any additional spending on this initiative.
  - NKCSS 13y ago
    Well; given the scale; I'd estimate they'd have a couple of million in servers that they could offload...
- DanBC 13y ago
  > how could you let it go that far? Isn't this just simple game theory. When you're on hold on the phone you get no value unless they answer the call, but until then you're spending your time and money waiting. What's the point when you hang up and choose to call again?
vidarh 13y ago
Integrity and/or fear that failure to be extremely tough on themselves would be used as a weapon to try to get their funding cut.
mseebach 13y ago
It's neutral at best. Failing to report on it would be very bad, but reporting on it isn't a particular mark of integrity. It seems the integrity is less impressive when the controversy is closer to home (the people running the failed DMI project and the journalistic ends of the BBC are likely to be very far removed from each other) - see the Pollard Report. http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/david-elstein/jimmy-savile-and-bbc-pollard-report http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/david-elstein/jimmy-sav...
calpaterson 13y ago
It doesn't say anything. Every other news source will report it. Unlike this article, they won't restrict themselves to quotations from people employed by the BBC or in the cabinet.

I find it telling of the integrity of the BBC that they'd post that on their own website. I like it.

by fmdud 13y ago

I find it telling of the integrity of the BBC that they'd post that on their own website. I like it.

NKCSS 13y ago

You have a valid point there, but still; how could you let it go that far? They say basically that the money is gone and they have nothing to show for afterwards... Does this mean they spent the bulk of that 98m on consultancy fees???

jrwoodruff 13y ago
It's funny how the more money that gets spent, the less willing anyone is to pull the plug. I would venture to guess they probably had to dig out of a hole created by the contractors originally hired for the job, then got stuck trying to catch up with the state of the art. Kudos to the guy willing to step up and say enough already, but yea... I would love to know more details.
- tragomaskhalos 13y ago
  Indeed. See the behaviour notes in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
blibble 13y ago
as with any software project, it has no value at all until it is mostly complete quote from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/The-BBC-announces-the-closure-of-the-Digital-Media-Initiative-DMI http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/The-BBC-announc... : > The cost is so great because much of the software and hardware which has been developed would only have a value if the project was completed and we cannot continue to sanction any additional spending on this initiative.
- NKCSS 13y ago
  Well; given the scale; I'd estimate they'd have a couple of million in servers that they could offload...
DanBC 13y ago
> how could you let it go that far? Isn't this just simple game theory. When you're on hold on the phone you get no value unless they answer the call, but until then you're spending your time and money waiting. What's the point when you hang up and choose to call again?

vidarh 13y ago

Integrity and/or fear that failure to be extremely tough on themselves would be used as a weapon to try to get their funding cut.

mseebach 13y ago

It's neutral at best. Failing to report on it would be very bad, but reporting on it isn't a particular mark of integrity. It seems the integrity is less impressive when the controversy is closer to home (the people running the failed DMI project and the journalistic ends of the BBC are likely to be very far removed from each other) - see the Pollard Report. http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/david-elstein/jimmy-savile-and-bbc-pollard-report http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/david-elstein/jimmy-sav...

calpaterson 13y ago

It doesn't say anything. Every other news source will report it. Unlike this article, they won't restrict themselves to quotations from people employed by the BBC or in the cabinet.