Slashdot Mirror
Funding Tech For Government, Instead of Tech For Industry
An anonymous reader writes: If you're a creative engineer looking to build a product, you're probably going to end up starting your own business or joining an established one. That's where ideas get funding, and that's where products make a difference (not to mention money). Unfortunately, it also siphons a lot of the tech-related talent away from government (and by extension, everybody else), who could really benefit from this creative brilliance. That's why investor Ron Bouganim just started a $23 million fund for investment in tech companies that develop ideas for the U.S. government. Not only is he hoping to transfer some of the $74 billion spent annually by the government on technology to more efficient targets, but also to change the perception that the best tech comes from giant, entrenched government contractors.
I assume the ''one'' got dropped. :^0
Having skimmed through the article, it seems to me the elephant in the room is being ignored. A much more compelling case can be made for the fact that too *much* information technology already at the disposal of the government is making it way too easy to abuse the American public. It isn't a question of funding, it is a question of priorities.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
The government-it industrial complex is controlled by the same sort of corrupt relationships that the military-industrial complex. Come in to that situation with new ideas and you will get slapped down by entrenched interests intent on making use of networks of people moving back and forth between government and industry in order to create personal wealth. New ideas and new technologies only rock the boat.
The classic example is the PPACA web site. Hundreds of millions spent on something that would be a 5-10 million dollar project in a sane world.
Lets say you have the best "mobile app" to do whatever, XYZ.
Oh great, govt customer wants it. They see it today. Well, thanks to procurement, it will be 18 months before they actually buy it. But, by that point, the product will have changed a good bit - well because that is what software does now a day. But, that isn't what Gov manager wanted - they want what they saw 18 months ago.
The sales cycle will chew startups up and spit them out. Not many can accommodate 18 month+ sales cycles.
And that even excludes the issues of continuing resolutions means they don't have cash to buy buy many shiny new objects.
"...change the perception that the best tech comes from giant, entrenched government contractors."
I wasn't aware there was such a perception.
The government requires mediocrity to provide stability (anyone too smart or too stupid will cause instability, rocking the boat). No one exceptional will endure a government position, unless they have serious masochistic tendencies. Why would an investor choose to waste money developing ignored products for government? It must somehow improve political influence, as long as the failures don't become noticable. However, given the typical success of government contracts with normal incompetence, it would be hard to do less than an acceptable job.
I disagree. I think it's a problem of culture. Government jobs with union-y environments are not fun, for anyone. Good engineers quit because of dysfunction and poisonous workplace culture. The ones who stick around are either incompetent or just don't care about doing cool stuff and doing it well.
No amount of money in the universe is going to change the culture of working closely with the government.
Um, yes... fully agree here. It always seems to me like the _worst_ technology comes from " giant, entrenched government contractors", which is what you would expect from companies operating with a state-granted monopoly.
The U.S. government's track record for choosing technologies to invest in is horrible. Probably because, unlike capitalist investors, the government can't resist sullying markets with subsides and manipulative politics. Just look at the US solar efforts. Or the German government's solar disaster if you want to see an extreme fail.
as long as it's destructive. They'll do the extortion for you, you'll toast
with the 'cream of the crop', you'll be IT!
Why the government? I think what he really meant to say is we could use that $23 million to fund public works projects. I could imagine what $23 million could do for some struggling Free software projects that might really help people, such as some of the bio-punks bio-hacker scene, help them turn into non-profit proffesional units doing good in medicine, and bio-engineering, taking tech from the hands of corporate and putting it back in the hands of the people, saving lives by making lifesaving devices and medicine affordable.
Since when did corporations developing technologies mean the rest of us cannot benefit?
And for that matter, since when were we an extension of the government?
I don't think you've seen daylight in a long, long time.....
So 'unfortunately' if you are going to build a product that people may need and enjoy you are going to start a business, that may create new products and create investment opportunities and jobs in the process, you are going to 'siphon'? 'Siphon' talent away from government ('and everybody else')?????
This 'story' is one gigantic flamebait.
There is nothing unfortunate about building your own company to pursue your own goals and you are not siphoning anything from anybody by building your own business. Under all circumstances, it is better if government doesn't get any talent whatsoever, why should talent be wasted in government rather than be applied where it is actually needed: in the private sector, doing something useful?
This entire premise is insane and asinine.
You can't handle the truth.
#1. they know how to play the game, because they lobbied to set the rules to favor themselves.
#2. as with #1, they have the ear of the decision makers. look at the obamacare website, did the contractor that delivered a website with "lorem ipsum" pages and obvious security holes get in trouble? or were they punished with an even larger contract to fix the problems?
what happens when you give a government agency all sorts of money and tells them to be creative.
No thanks, I'll stay in the private sector.
You tinfoil hat types keep saying that. However, it's clear that the real problem is that the federal acquisition regulations are just too damn complex due to kneejerk reactions of politicians carelessly adding regulations. And trust me, the mega-defense contractors are too inept to screw the government on purpose. Gutless bureaucrats do that from the inside to "reduce risk" ... risk to their careers.
hahahahahahahahahahahahhahah
Yea, lets work for the government that dose nothing right, where it will take 10 times as much funding to produce the same result in the private sector. I would say "if the government can make money and pay down the debt" but that is as likely as buying a house on the moon. The government was not created to make tech. and it should not try.
I called your bluff and read it but somehow it doesn't say what you pretend it does. What's with this pathetic political bullshit on a tech site? Back off and look at the big picture instead of just attacking what the Party line says a good "comrade" should attack.