It’s a lot more complicated of course, and one of the reasons is the massive bureaucracy. It’s both good and bad, on one hand it protects us from a public sector that buys software from sketchy people who go “I can do that 100 million project for 10”, exactly like I just did, and then completely fail to deliver. That’s not something you can do in enterprise, that whole move fast and break things simply doesn’t work when your results need to hold up in elections every four years.
Of course this exclusion of small agile companies who can’t afford to play into the public procurement system, means the companies who win the contracts are capable of milking us. Because the truth is, that we don’t get they alternative you think about. No one actually submits a 10 million bid for that 100 million system. Instead we’ll get a 93 million and a 86 million bid, and then we pick the 86 million one.
Typically less than 20% or the money goes to actual development though. The vast majority goes into whatever project management, governance, process modelling, lean, implementation strategies, training and all that other bullshit software companies sell you. And then 5 years later they fail to deliver and it ends up costing 10 million extra.
We really need a new model for this, and that’s where you and I probably agree, but it’s just not going to happen when not a single elected official in a country knows how to code.
If anything, the bureaucracy is creating corruption. The money is going straight into the pockets of billionaires and thereby exacerbating the centralization of wealth, creating monopolies, reducing consumer options, and replacing good useful jobs with useless office jobs.
In spite of this, I still I think that the author's point holds - $86 million is a ridiculous sum for such a system.
Government contracts are corruption through ignorance (or is it pretend-ignorance?). Software does not cost that much to produce these days even at scale.