To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That's just par for the course. Bids are lowered to look good, and companies are hired based on how much money will be saved. Imagine the shock of the government (or corporate) users when they discover that things aren't to spec and will now cost significantly more to support or change than expected. But hey, it looked cheaper.
(I had the pleasure of watching this on some outsourcing projects where vendors promised all sorts of wonderful savings - and the end users ended up shocked when making changes actually turned out to cost more and take longer than when they were in-house - and now they had a new stand-alone external system that didn't even integrate as well with the other apps anymore. On the other hand, I had the foresight to get out while it was happening and didn't have to be the IT chump picking up the pieces of a bad contract and broken system.
)




Member since:
2009-07-18
Unfortunately this is required by law (at least in Belgium, but probably in most countries). Government projects must always choose the cheapest solution that fulfils the requirements. Which makes sense in a way: why waste taxpayer's money on more expensive contracts?
However, in practice, companies abuse this the same way Ryanair cheats on you: hiding costs everywhere or just plain lying about it. It requires a lot of expertise to write a perfect contract and make the right decision in so far the law allows you. Most government workers do not have this expertise, especially not local ones). This results in very poor solutions, often never finished.
There have been a few big cases like this here. The government has now sued several of those companies but meanwhile they don't have the money for an alternative solution (with the same risks) and lawyers aren't exactly cheap either.
Edited 2011-09-06 12:22 UTC