Live data from Hacker News

The BBC's hi-tech failure: Don't Mention It

economist.com

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: The BBC's hi-tech failure: Don't Mention It

#61
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually large private enterprises don't usually make this kind of mistake. I would say "Actually large private enterprises don't usually [admit to making] this kind of mistake." I swear the ERP and document management are the two areas where every enterprise tries to "standardize across organizational units" and fails badly[1]. I have come to believe that this type of software is hard because it imposes rules fore…

ERPs are a great example. but I don't necessarily agree with your view that a large enterprise's existing workflow is superior. My take: Most large enterprises have workflows which could be vastly improved by automation of ANY kind, even one that is imposed by a minimally customized ERP. ERP implementations are most successful, on both an ROI front as well as success in implementation, when they are brought in and th…

Good points, and my thoughts exactly when I left university with a business degree.

My take now:

The workflows of large enterprises are not really well understood at all. With lean management and how management careers work, even the lowest management levels has only a vague idea what is actually happening in their departments.

Designing even a tiny system for a small number of users requires a lot of time and a lot of love. People do many more things that they could ever put into words. The new system breaks many things in ways that are difficult to describe. The users are defenseless because they are up against huge projects with a lot of momentum and are not prepared to communicate those kinds of problems.

Uhm, so let's hope that your ERPs are actually succeeding.

Re: The BBC's hi-tech failure: Don't Mention It

#62
Was wondering if anybody here would notice that the "CMS" being described here was a project to handle every single second of radio and TV footage from ingestion through recoding through editing to broadcast, and then beyond that to transcoding everything for whatever devices want to watch or hear it once it's finished.

People here hear "CMS" and think we're talking about text.

Incidentally the parts of this boondoggle which actually exist are being used as components in the BBC. The headline last week was about the decision to terminate that particular project because it had got far, far out of its depth. Also to put the highly-charming person responsible for it on gardening leave indefinitely pending the investigation.

It's a massive cockup, but it has had some useable outcomes, and it is a product class that doesn't exist outside the world of the Beeb, or other national/international broadcasters. There's nothing off the shelf to buy here. In the 90s this sort of thing wouldn't have got cancelled, so I'm seeing this as a sort of progress.

Re: The BBC's hi-tech failure: Don't Mention It

#63
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing special about private enterprises that makes them immune to risk. As others have said, many IT projects fail [1]. In the private sector this is just seen as a business risk, but when a public sector project fails then its "wasting taxpayers money". For some reason the Economist article doesn't mention that the project was originally awarded to Siemens and Deloitte [2], but technical failures and cost…

There's something special about private enterprises making them reconsider their approaches, though - the fact that they lose their own money (which is often combined with having a smaller pool of money to begin with). Few enterprises can spend $150M and fewer will keep spending upon signs of things not working out. As to private contractors doing a poor job when paid with taxpayer money - makes some sense, as long a…

Can you justify this? More software projects fail than succeed, private or not, VC's base their decisions on it, everyone knows it.

Re: The BBC's hi-tech failure: Don't Mention It

#64
post #4

Real headline: Publicly funded broadcaster makes same mistake most large private enterprises make in more or less the same way. It seems to me that months or years of auditing and hearings and cries for heads to roll are probably wasted. Just like a private company a few mangers should probably get tossed or reassigned and the second version of the same project should get started to address the businesses needs the f…

>Publicly funded broadcaster makes same mistake most large private enterprises make in more or less the same way. Actually large private enterprises don't usually make this kind of mistake. This is a typical big government project. Software development is hard. Building large, complex, poorly defined software systems is hard. //EDIT I should clarify that. I don't think a private enterprise would engage in a project t…

Actually, there are lots of stories of millions and billions being blown!

http://www.insearchofstupidity.com/

I have this book, and I'm sure there are plenty more like it.

Re: The BBC's hi-tech failure: Don't Mention It

#65
post #57

I'm surprised more public projects don't run as bounty-style "build x and get $1 million" type systems. Rather than picking who's going to do what (or worse, building all in-house), having many different small times competing for one pot seems like it might be a better way to get a good starting foundation. Or perhaps that's a crazy idea for something as big as this.

That's spec work.

Yes, that seems quite obvious, which is why it puzzles me that you took the time to post it.

Re: The BBC's hi-tech failure: Don't Mention It

#66
post #4

Real headline: Publicly funded broadcaster makes same mistake most large private enterprises make in more or less the same way. It seems to me that months or years of auditing and hearings and cries for heads to roll are probably wasted. Just like a private company a few mangers should probably get tossed or reassigned and the second version of the same project should get started to address the businesses needs the f…

>Publicly funded broadcaster makes same mistake most large private enterprises make in more or less the same way. Actually large private enterprises don't usually make this kind of mistake. This is a typical big government project. Software development is hard. Building large, complex, poorly defined software systems is hard. //EDIT I should clarify that. I don't think a private enterprise would engage in a project t…

>Actually large private enterprises don't usually make this kind of mistake.

Are you new or something? Do you know how many projects I've been brought in to rescue? Do you know how many times my advice to "Stop throwing good money after bad" has been ignored for one reason or another?

Big enterprises fail in exactly this kind of way. All. The. Time.

Post reply on HN