3 ms·

As someone involved in Information and Archives where this project was based, it serves as both a cautionary tale on outsourcing and a good example of when to r

As someone involved in Information and Archives where this project was based, it serves as both a cautionary tale on outsourcing and a good example of when to recognise a sunk cost. This has been rumbling on for years ever since Siemens received the contract without competition due to an outstanding deal. The technology surrounding what they were trying to achieve has changed massively in that time frame but doesn't excuse them from delivering nothing of value. These projects have since come back in-house where the BBC has a history of delivering excellent technical products. The new Director General, Tony Hall, has had to recognise this project as a failure and put it on the books. No doubt the conservative press are going to tear him apart for it but he's made a tough decision that had to be made. Continuing to pour money into the project would have left an even greater mess for somebody to take a bullet for later on. There's a thorough analysis here: 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...

cjg 13y ago
In the article it says that the £98m was the amount spent during the period 2010 to 2012. It also says that the project was taken over by an in-house BBC team in 2010 (having started in 2008). Sounds like that cost can't be blamed on Siemens - it was the in-house team's shift.
- jumblesale 13y ago
  I had understood that to be the total cost but you're right, the article does seem to imply that was only after it had come back in-house. The blog says 'total cost'. If the article is correct then it seems it's ignoring whatever Siemens were paid.
- simonh 13y ago
  It depends on why it was taken in house. If it's because Siemens were making a mess of it, then it sounds like the BBC should have canned the whole thing in 2010. The BBC have been held hostage by Siemens for a long time due to a very restrictive support contract that basically froze their technical infrastructure in aspic for years[1]. [1]http://old.iamseb.com/seb/2007/12/perl-on-rails-why-the-bbc-fails-at-the-internet/ http://old.iamseb.com/seb/2007/12/perl-on-rails-why-the-bbc-...

cjg 13y ago

In the article it says that the £98m was the amount spent during the period 2010 to 2012. It also says that the project was taken over by an in-house BBC team in 2010 (having started in 2008). Sounds like that cost can't be blamed on Siemens - it was the in-house team's shift.

jumblesale 13y ago
I had understood that to be the total cost but you're right, the article does seem to imply that was only after it had come back in-house. The blog says 'total cost'. If the article is correct then it seems it's ignoring whatever Siemens were paid.
simonh 13y ago
It depends on why it was taken in house. If it's because Siemens were making a mess of it, then it sounds like the BBC should have canned the whole thing in 2010. The BBC have been held hostage by Siemens for a long time due to a very restrictive support contract that basically froze their technical infrastructure in aspic for years[1]. [1]http://old.iamseb.com/seb/2007/12/perl-on-rails-why-the-bbc-fails-at-the-internet/ http://old.iamseb.com/seb/2007/12/perl-on-rails-why-the-bbc-...