[mk89]

I prefer Atos + a solid open source solution to "an own IT department that will ditch the battle tested open source solution because XYZ" and then 6 months later bugs rain from the sky with users' data searchable in google.

Opening up a whole department requires skills. If you don't have such skills, please hire the "parasite". I prefer that. At least they provide a service, overpaid, ok, but they have at least some knowledge in the business.

[jack_tripper]

>overpaid, ok, but they have at least some knowledge in the business.

With all due respect, setting up a Nextcloud instance for a government entity is not really rocket science requiring a 150 IQ, Stanford grad, PhD, galaxy-brain labor force, but it's a skill that's easily abundant in Austrian and can be easily transferred to more of the tech labor pool to achieve the same results of what Atos did.

We're talking about a Nextcloud instance here, not building an entire hyperscaler from scratch, like AWS or Equinix, which is indeed a skill next to inexistent in most of Europe, which does indeed require contracting FAANG corps to build because we lack that capability in Europe.

[mk89]

I am not talking about the Austrian people's skills ;) I bet the employees from Atos were locals, so...

I am talking about politicians that are supposed to create the conditions to set this up in a proper, honest and "good" way. As soon as this becomes a "department", nextcloud is not an option because it lacks xyz.

So let's reimplement it worse. All this to justify the need for having an IT department at all.

This is why sometimes I prefer that they just hire some company and that's it. One and done. (More or less).

Also, on a more disturbing note: how do you reduce the costs, when you have public employees....? You can't fire them, or it's nearly impossible to do so. Atos, on the other hand, you can switch.

[franga2000]

But this is the exact issue you have with IT outsourcing - instead of taking the obvious and sustainable solution, there's a clause somewhere in the 500 page requirements doc that doesn't even make any sense, but means you have to use something nonstandard and even add some of your own hacks on top. Because it's a tender, you can't really change the spec and you don't care to either, because a terrible bodge means they have to go back to you whenever it needs changes/fixes.

An in-house development department on the other hand doesn't have to stick to the strictly disconnected way of tenders and the development team can actually work with the stakeholders to develop and evolve the spec throughout the project. They also don't need to guarantee future business for themselves through vendor lock-in or boost their corporate partners through technology choices.

This is an unprecedented case where a private company decided to go the open source route for a government project, usually it's only the in-house teams that pick open source.