Technology

58833 readers

4771 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

245

Local governments aren't businesses – so why are they force-fed business software? - Oracle's repeated public sector failures prove a different approach is needed (www.theregister.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Local governments aren't businesses – so why are they force-fed business software? - Oracle's repeated public sector failures prove a different approach is needed::Oracle's repeated public sector failures prove a different approach is needed

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

less well funded

They don't have to be. Legislators can, you know, funding the fucking departments that need it. But that's an entirely different subject...

By contrast, most commercial enterprises can pivot to line their processes up with whatever the industry common practice is.

Not always. Sometimes it's pivoting to whatever is making them the most money. Or eating their own dog food to prove their product, even if that product sucks.

The entire reason that governments go to companies like Oracle and SAP for help is that building, maintaining, and changing bespoke applications, and the full stacks to support bespoke applications, in a way that is compliant with government-grade change management is incredibly expensive. The entire selling point of tailoring a commercial ERP system is that it should nominally do a pretty good job of handling “the things they all have in common” at least as well as anything you build yourself.

Yes, it is incredibly expensive, and sometimes these huge corporations think they can just do it the same way they did it with State X and hope that State Y can just map terms. And then they crash and burn hard because they don't understand that state laws are different, and sometimes you have to put in effort and time and money to actually get a working product. Corpos want to put in the least amount of work and money to get as much profit as possible from governments, and some of them have been burned so badly by that mentality that they look for better solutions. Often, there's not any great solutions and their infrastructure suffers.

the government bean-counters didn’t tell you about a bunch of the nitpicky requirements up front

Have you even seen a government RFP? They tell you. Every. Single. Requirement. In detail, in triplicate, in sometimes unreasonable or unrealistic terms, under 800+ pages that a team of experts need to pour over and that's before there's even any sort of contract negotiation that requires the team of lawyers.

Source: I work for a company that comes in after companies like Oracle have fucked up so royally that governments are begging for a quality product

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Not always. Sometimes it’s pivoting to whatever is making them the most money. Or eating their own dog food to prove their product, even if that product sucks.

Sure. The ability to pivot has a lot to do with whether the process is fundamental to the way they make money. The more fundamental it is (part of their "core competency", as Weird Al would say), the more likely they will have a "secret sauce" that they can't change (or even openly discuss until you are contracted, onboarded, and NDAed).

think they can just do it the same way they did it with State X and hope that State Y can just map terms

With respect, that's the same error that I'm accusing the article of making. You can't just tack on complex bespoke development on an open system and expect to get the results you want for cheap.

Have you even seen a government RFP? They tell you. Every. Single. Requirement.

Ehh... I respectfully disagree.

I work in the US, and I'd say that what you just said is true for a subset of well-specified federal contracts.

But at the state and local government level? It's not true at all. I've done requirements gathering at the state and local government level and it's like herding cats. The contract itself will have high-faluting language about "the contractor shall implement an information processing system to X, Y, and Z", but as for HOW you're going to X, Y, and Z, figuring that out all comes after the ink is dry on the contract. And there's no guarantee that X, Y, and Z actually make any sense in light of the data and capabilities that the state or local government actually has. That language came from legislation, or the mind of a high ranking bureaucrat, not any of the people who do the literal day-to-day work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I work with government agencies from multiple countries (n/a and EU) and their requirements are not as good as you're selling.