| I don't think it's typically that partisan. I have an insider's perspective on one of the systems mentioned in the article, and from what I could see, politics played no part until everything went off the rails and they started flinging shit in the media. Things start out with a few in-house sysadmins hacking together some scripts to start batch loading records into a database or whatever. At some point they get far enough along to decide to bring in an external consulting firm to build out a more fully-featured solution. At that point, it becomes a very ironic situation. The meat of the requirements are laid out by career bureaucrats who work in state government agencies (unemployment, in this case). They are extremely risk-averse because their jobs are typically very secure and, barring any criminal activity, the only thing that can sink a career is some sort of publicized failure involving taxpayer dollars. So they negotiate contracts for this sort of work with really large, established consulting firms like the Big 4 and include all sorts of requirements and checkpoints and little details that they think are protecting themselves and would drive the average dev shop batty. Furthermore, they want to go from 0-100 right away and convert an old manual paper process to a fully-featured SaaS-style product in one go with a bunch of different feature requests coming from different people. Thus they ironically end up with a massive risk of failure precisely because of the steps they took to mitigate risk in their minds. They have no prior experience developing software and are usually lacking in overall technical expertise. Really they have no business designing any sort of software solution or negotiating a contract to build one. It's doomed to fail simply based on the premise. The best outcome would be for a dedicated SaaS company to build something that could be purchased by multiple states. I actually briefly explored starting something like this but couldn't make the numbers work. These departments have very little discretionary budget. Selling to each state would require a literal act of congress, and your TAM is only 53 distinct customers. And because of the inability to quickly make a purchase, they all seem to start out with that in-house hacked approach which naturally leads to paying for consultants to "improve" it, not starting over with a product purchase. |
To be fair to the bureaucrats involved in a specific project, this approach, including specific staging of particular waterfall-style deliverables (with more complex checkpointing and midproject external reporting and oversight required the larger the project and sometimes on other bases, such as particular outside-of-the-agency, e.g. federal, funding streams) is often mandated by statewide contracting rules (a mixture of general and IT-specific mandates), not something that the bureaucrats directly involved in a particular project impose.
And while in many cases ill-advised and counterproductive, each of those rules is typically reactively developed in response to and as a means of mitigating repetition of specific instances of negligent, incompetent, or outright corrupt contract administration that occurred in the past.