On paper it democratizes a bureaucracy that affects most of us. But it won't be average people who primarily use this mechanism to influence public education, it will be those with an agenda to convert public schools into their own publicly funded religious institution.
Wait until people challenge religious km material; want to guess how long it takes to change the law? Attorneys must be salivating over the potential for lawsuits.
By the time today's pre-K kids enter the workforce, traditional programming could be a niche activity relegated to kernel and device driver developers. It's not unlikely that the majority of application development will instead be focused on directing various machine learning activities, which could require skills closer to those of a manager of human employees than math and logic.
There is a difference between teaching programming versus concepts. The former teaches you how to use a current tool, that will be outmoded in the future versus how to solve a problem which lets you use whatever is the current tool to do so.
Thankfully, I'll probably be retired by then.
And this generation will have to make enough to support your retirement benefits; a scary thought.
I can understand the shortage. Who wants to go into a field where you are expected to be a social worker, cop, parent, and everything else; and when you actually do your job get parents who complain their snowflake didn't get an A and it's your fault even if all their snowflake did was goof off? No wonder when teachers are surveyed they say they'd retire tomorrow if they could and actively encourage kids not to go into teaching. I was lucky to go to school When teachers could actually do their job and challenge students to live up to their potential instead of being expected to hand out grades for effort.
You lost this data privacy fight when you applied for a driving license.
I think you missed the point I was making. I agree that applying for a license and registering a vehicle you agreed to supply certain information. I even agree you have no expectation of privacy in public; within certain exceptions.
My point, however, is should the government collect and keep such information? I have no issue with only flagging violators and not keeping tag #s for all vehicles, however my experience is once an organization can get the data it wants to keep the data "just in case." In this specific case, a private company gets the data so who knows how it will be used besides for catching violators?
The growth in our ability to collect, aggregate and analyze data requires a discussion of what is privacy in this new era? How do we balance public safety with privacy?
"Because we know the excuse they're using is just bullshit. Once in place, the sky's the limit on what they'll really be used for."
You mean you won't be able to break other laws as well?
No, it's the temptation to collectvand use The data for other things that don't involve illegal acts. Use it to gets and delete data from complaints rivers, fine, but once government has the data then the temptation to keep it is too great. In addition, a private company would no doubt see additional dollars in selling the data for commercial purposes. Data is power, especially now with the growth of big data, so concerns over what is collected, who has access, and how it is used are valid. Of course, a can of spray paint is an effective way to monkey wrench these devices.
I do find it amusing how riled up Americans get whenever someone considers a similar system in the US - I just don't get what it is about punishing illegal drivers that pisses people off!
It's not the punishing illegal acts but the intrusion of government. Americans tend to dislike government monitoring them, something that goes back to a time when some guy named George kept trying to keep tabs on them. That instilled a mistrust of government, amongst other things, that still runs deep in the American mindset.
All I am complaining about is the misuse of the label "open source" to refer to free-of-charge books that are provided under a CC license, since CC licenses do not classify as being "open source".
The phenomena you describe is not new. As technical terms that have specific meanings fall into the common lexicon they often get a broader, or take on a new, meaning that may conflict with the original usage. Mass media talks about computer viruses and make no distinction between trojans, browser hijacks, etc; and hacker has completely morphed from a badge of honor to something sinister. Those who use the phrases in the technical manner can complain all we want but in the end we're just pissing in the wind.
For example, one office might say, "Our staff know X but not Y, the new recommended approach. And we don't have the budget for sufficient training and/or hiring for Y." Republicans like gov't to have slim budgets, so there probably is indeed limited funds for training in general. To know what's going on for a specific site you'd have to pay a visit and interview the employees about their knowledge and training, perhaps taking a specialist along with you.
Trading always get cut, the argument often being the staff already knows how tomdo X and this is just a different way to do it. I once had someone tell me it should only take a couple of hours go train staff because this was just the same system with different screens and workflows. Sure, and a car with the steering wheel on the right is the same just with the driver in a different seat. Years ago I worked for a company that for 500 k or so would do the process work, verify it still meet their business rules and draft a requirements document. Companies balked at doing that, even though we'd credit the payment if they hired us to do the 30 million implementation. No wonder so many implementations failed.
I have no doubt that you could save hundreds of billions, possibly trillions over the years if smart agreeable people get together and figure it out. The problem is at some point you need to include others and then the trouble starts. Any organization over with more than 100 people run into this. The more people and departments the worse it gets. I am older now and I have seen smart ideas pass from their creators to the masses of underlings and watch it get mangled beyond belief. Your trillion dollar savings will be eaten up by those underlings a hundred fold.
You hit one one of the main reasons such projects fail; the tech folks fail to understand the people part. They think the Federal government is one monolithic, top down controlled organization who will do whatever the boss says; when in reality it's like pre-WWI (and earlier) Europe, a loose confederation of largely independent individual fiefdoms who will guard their turf vigorously. They have years of experience at killing things so that you only find out they're dead when the body is discovered years later in some roadside ditch, meanwhile you had been getting cards and letters from the dead person telling you how great things are going. Information is power and the bureaucracy will go to great lengths to protect their information from others; and will make common cause to do so when it is in their own best interests. They are the institution, and know they will be around when the "great idea" person is long gone and will play the long game. They will take your money but it is wise to remember Truman's advice to Eisenhower as the latter assumed the presidency and remember that when people in this town (DC) say "Yes Sir" they often are really saying "Screw You."
Limited land isn't the problem. Zoning rules barring high density housing are. Just gotta build up.
I disagree, I think it is one of the root causes of the problem. Look at NYC, a similar space constrained market that has built "up" but prices are still sky high. They have simply built high end properties because enough people can afford them so there is no reason to build affordable units. High land prices as well as expensive construction costs coupled with high demand means even if you build up you won't make a significant dent in the cost compared to areas where there is still plenty of land to sprawl.
In any case, the better strategy is to try to attack the root problem, the limited supply of housing. Increasing supply may actually bring housing prices down, which benefits everyone (other than those who bought at inflated prices). Of course, 300 units isn't going to do it, but I'm sure this is just a test. If it goes well, I'm sure they'll put in a lot more.
We're in full agreement - the best way to deal with high costs is to increase supply. Unfortunately, areas such as the Bay Area have limited amounts of land so increasing supply is problematic; gentrification of poorer areas is one response to that but creates other problems and often those areas become too pricy as well. That's why areas such as Gilroy and further south develop as "affordable" alternatives, if you can stand the commute; and also results in the loss of farm land for housing, changing the economic structure of those areas.
to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold.
That would make bay area property owners happy, since it would increase the ability of highly-paid Google employees to pay even higher prices, thereby driving property values up more.
Giving the nature of the market such a move might raise prices a bit but given bidding wars already occur I doubt the impact would be vary noticable.
I don't. It would increase the ability of Google employees to bid by some percentage, which would raise prices by almost exactly that percentage. Especially since it's not uncommon that Google employees are bidding against each other.
I guess it would depend on how Google would do that. If therapist at say the estimated value then it might heat up the bidding to that point but not impact a final purchase price that much; if they offered tom uh underwrite more than the price would go up. In one case you simply have more bidders but a price cap, in the other there is no cap. It would be interesting to see the data if they did do something like that.
Roddenberry wasn't really original beyond taking place in space. It is was Wagon Train to the Stars in concept, not exactly a new idea. What he did was do it better once he got past the bug of the month.
This group doesn't intersect with WallMart shoppers, so why then would you want to compete with WallMart on price?
Because if Walmart offers good enough organic produce, price will win out. There seemingly are not enough Whole Foods customers who aren't willing to go elsewhere for their organic kale to keep the company afloat when they can get it from Costco or Kroger or yes even Walmart. Whole Foods had a niche when they were effectively the only ones selling organic foods. Now I can get that from nearly anywhere, often for a lot less money.
WalMart tends to buy at the low end of the quality spectrum, mainly to keep prices down; at least that was the case a few years back when I talked to one of their suppliers who sold to most other grocery chains as well. There is nothing wrong with their food, just a lot of it is a cut below a major grocery chain's quality; that lets them keep prices low. The only exception I've seen is the vegetables which tend to be perfectly fine; the meats and fish OTOH are often barely edible in comparison.
OTOH, I avoid establishments that don't have self checkout. Even if there is no line at the checkout, I will always use the self-check because I can scan and bag my groceries faster than the register jockey. I don't go grocery shopping for the "social experience". My goal when grocery shopping is to exchange symbolic currency units for tangible goods as efficiently as possible, not to make small talk about the sports or the weather or comment on my food choices or donate a dollar to charity.
Sam's Club has taken it a step further; you simply scan items as you put them in the cart and when you are done you pay electronically and avoid the line completely. Upon leaving that scan a barcode on your phone, check the items listed and out you go. In most cases they don't even bother to do a thorough check after the first few items. If I ran security there I'd have them just look for big ticket items to ensure tehy aren't walking so as to make the whole experience as painless as possible.
There's a TV show in Britain called http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/prog... . They take a family and swap some of their expensive brands for generic articles (and disguise the packaging so they can't see). A lot of the time they actually prefer the cheaper stuff, at least when they don't know about it.
Yeh, this is really sad - WholeFoods for all that it is pricy as hell also sells a bunch of really good quality things that you can't easily get elsewhere. Turning it into yet another Safeway is a real shame.
I agree, but Amazon is a logistics company masquerading as a retail operations; similar to Walmart in terms of focus although not quite as cutthroat from what I've seen. If Amazon can maintain quality while reducing supply chain costs and expanding the customer base to get greater economies of scale tehy could turn Whole Foods into a serious competitor.
to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold.
That would make bay area property owners happy, since it would increase the ability of highly-paid Google employees to pay even higher prices, thereby driving property values up more.
Giving the nature of the market such a move might raise prices a bit but given bidding wars already occur I doubt the impact would be vary noticable.
At the rate JC Penney is going down the tubes and closing stores you won't have to worry about the lack of capacity as you will have done your share to slow its growth.
There'll be plenty of capacity if you want to pay for it; but you don't. Last mile delivery to homes is expensive, much more so than to businesses so unless companies can make a profit on it they will forgo expanding it. The USPS is the only one that actually passes every home every day (more or less) so ultimately tehy may become more of the solution to the last mile, if other shippers are willing to pay for them to be the last one to touch a package.
to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold. They could even reduce the % overtime as an incentive for good employees to stay with them. If an employee leaves, they could freeze the % if the borrower is up to date; or even offer to give up the equity in the event of a layoff as part of a package. In the later case, it could possibly be a tax free way to add to the severance; depending on the tax law and how the deal is structured. Such an approach would let employees get into the market and take advantage of its crazyness while tying employees to Google as well.
The Moffat Field homes could serve as transitional places as employees look for a home; or as housing for employees that would prefer to rent. If my company at the time had such a deal I'd still be there and living on the coast side; enjoying the benefits of living in a small town by the ocean with a short commute into the Bay Area and the city. The coat side isn't for everyone but for those of us that liked the environment and loved fog it was great place to live. All the advantages of the city and the valley with none of the BS.
My employer occasionally hired these management consultants thirty years ago. At that time, they were very adept at interviewing the management, and then telling them a summarized version that confirmed their preconceptions..
That's how a lot of process or business improvement consulting works. In some ways its is crazy how a manager will listen to a consultant telling him/her what changes are needed when employees have been asking for the same things are sometimes ignored. But it often does take an impartial outside view to get to the truth, and often along with the employees knowing what was needed there also comes a ton of employee ideas that are not viable and management sometimes needs help weeding out the noise. A good consultant can sift through the BS and politics that hamper some managers, and describe the scenario in way that aligns with the goals of management.
I had a boss once tell me "The reason we hired the consultant was not to come up with new ideas but take ours ND tell upper management what we already knew but so they would actually listen to the ideas."
From the linked news release it appears to center on how indirect costs were charged to contracts. Gov't contracts often allow overhead and iota indirect costs to be allocated to a contract and charged; you have to be careful how you allocate and the source of the cost. For example, a research institute I worked for had a government contract, and we reserved a conference room for exclusive use as well as had a separate supplies closet of office supplies to be used when working on the contract. No one was allowed to use the conference room unless it was for that specific contact; which lead to a lot of upset people when we told them even if it was empty they can't use; that ensured we were properly charging the cost of that space to the government and not have to jump through hoops to distinguish gov't contract and other work and adjust charges properly. As for the supplies, we kept that under lock and key. We did this things not to be jerks but to avoid having someone with handcuffs and a warrant show up at our door telling us we were now getting free room and board from the government.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it that so many people are living in denial about reality?
Judging from the last the last election a lot more than you think.
On paper it democratizes a bureaucracy that affects most of us. But it won't be average people who primarily use this mechanism to influence public education, it will be those with an agenda to convert public schools into their own publicly funded religious institution.
Wait until people challenge religious km material; want to guess how long it takes to change the law? Attorneys must be salivating over the potential for lawsuits.
By the time today's pre-K kids enter the workforce, traditional programming could be a niche activity relegated to kernel and device driver developers. It's not unlikely that the majority of application development will instead be focused on directing various machine learning activities, which could require skills closer to those of a manager of human employees than math and logic.
There is a difference between teaching programming versus concepts. The former teaches you how to use a current tool, that will be outmoded in the future versus how to solve a problem which lets you use whatever is the current tool to do so.
Thankfully, I'll probably be retired by then.
And this generation will have to make enough to support your retirement benefits; a scary thought.
I can understand the shortage. Who wants to go into a field where you are expected to be a social worker, cop, parent, and everything else; and when you actually do your job get parents who complain their snowflake didn't get an A and it's your fault even if all their snowflake did was goof off? No wonder when teachers are surveyed they say they'd retire tomorrow if they could and actively encourage kids not to go into teaching. I was lucky to go to school When teachers could actually do their job and challenge students to live up to their potential instead of being expected to hand out grades for effort.
If we play this right, and play each regime against the other, we can probably get all data banned, everywhere, which would be good for a laugh.
Look at the good side: we'd have some privacy again.
You lost this data privacy fight when you applied for a driving license.
I think you missed the point I was making. I agree that applying for a license and registering a vehicle you agreed to supply certain information. I even agree you have no expectation of privacy in public; within certain exceptions.
My point, however, is should the government collect and keep such information? I have no issue with only flagging violators and not keeping tag #s for all vehicles, however my experience is once an organization can get the data it wants to keep the data "just in case." In this specific case, a private company gets the data so who knows how it will be used besides for catching violators?
The growth in our ability to collect, aggregate and analyze data requires a discussion of what is privacy in this new era? How do we balance public safety with privacy?
"Because we know the excuse they're using is just bullshit. Once in place, the sky's the limit on what they'll really be used for."
You mean you won't be able to break other laws as well?
No, it's the temptation to collectvand use The data for other things that don't involve illegal acts. Use it to gets and delete data from complaints rivers, fine, but once government has the data then the temptation to keep it is too great. In addition, a private company would no doubt see additional dollars in selling the data for commercial purposes. Data is power, especially now with the growth of big data, so concerns over what is collected, who has access, and how it is used are valid. Of course, a can of spray paint is an effective way to monkey wrench these devices.
I do find it amusing how riled up Americans get whenever someone considers a similar system in the US - I just don't get what it is about punishing illegal drivers that pisses people off!
It's not the punishing illegal acts but the intrusion of government. Americans tend to dislike government monitoring them, something that goes back to a time when some guy named George kept trying to keep tabs on them. That instilled a mistrust of government, amongst other things, that still runs deep in the American mindset.
Clue by Four; I mean a Clue by Three point seven five.
SNIP
All I am complaining about is the misuse of the label "open source" to refer to free-of-charge books that are provided under a CC license, since CC licenses do not classify as being "open source".
The phenomena you describe is not new. As technical terms that have specific meanings fall into the common lexicon they often get a broader, or take on a new, meaning that may conflict with the original usage. Mass media talks about computer viruses and make no distinction between trojans, browser hijacks, etc; and hacker has completely morphed from a badge of honor to something sinister. Those who use the phrases in the technical manner can complain all we want but in the end we're just pissing in the wind.
For example, one office might say, "Our staff know X but not Y, the new recommended approach. And we don't have the budget for sufficient training and/or hiring for Y." Republicans like gov't to have slim budgets, so there probably is indeed limited funds for training in general. To know what's going on for a specific site you'd have to pay a visit and interview the employees about their knowledge and training, perhaps taking a specialist along with you.
Trading always get cut, the argument often being the staff already knows how tomdo X and this is just a different way to do it. I once had someone tell me it should only take a couple of hours go train staff because this was just the same system with different screens and workflows. Sure, and a car with the steering wheel on the right is the same just with the driver in a different seat. Years ago I worked for a company that for 500 k or so would do the process work, verify it still meet their business rules and draft a requirements document. Companies balked at doing that, even though we'd credit the payment if they hired us to do the 30 million implementation. No wonder so many implementations failed.
I have no doubt that you could save hundreds of billions, possibly trillions over the years if smart agreeable people get together and figure it out. The problem is at some point you need to include others and then the trouble starts. Any organization over with more than 100 people run into this. The more people and departments the worse it gets. I am older now and I have seen smart ideas pass from their creators to the masses of underlings and watch it get mangled beyond belief. Your trillion dollar savings will be eaten up by those underlings a hundred fold.
You hit one one of the main reasons such projects fail; the tech folks fail to understand the people part. They think the Federal government is one monolithic, top down controlled organization who will do whatever the boss says; when in reality it's like pre-WWI (and earlier) Europe, a loose confederation of largely independent individual fiefdoms who will guard their turf vigorously. They have years of experience at killing things so that you only find out they're dead when the body is discovered years later in some roadside ditch, meanwhile you had been getting cards and letters from the dead person telling you how great things are going. Information is power and the bureaucracy will go to great lengths to protect their information from others; and will make common cause to do so when it is in their own best interests. They are the institution, and know they will be around when the "great idea" person is long gone and will play the long game. They will take your money but it is wise to remember Truman's advice to Eisenhower as the latter assumed the presidency and remember that when people in this town (DC) say "Yes Sir" they often are really saying "Screw You."
Limited land isn't the problem. Zoning rules barring high density housing are. Just gotta build up.
I disagree, I think it is one of the root causes of the problem. Look at NYC, a similar space constrained market that has built "up" but prices are still sky high. They have simply built high end properties because enough people can afford them so there is no reason to build affordable units. High land prices as well as expensive construction costs coupled with high demand means even if you build up you won't make a significant dent in the cost compared to areas where there is still plenty of land to sprawl.
In any case, the better strategy is to try to attack the root problem, the limited supply of housing. Increasing supply may actually bring housing prices down, which benefits everyone (other than those who bought at inflated prices). Of course, 300 units isn't going to do it, but I'm sure this is just a test. If it goes well, I'm sure they'll put in a lot more.
We're in full agreement - the best way to deal with high costs is to increase supply. Unfortunately, areas such as the Bay Area have limited amounts of land so increasing supply is problematic; gentrification of poorer areas is one response to that but creates other problems and often those areas become too pricy as well. That's why areas such as Gilroy and further south develop as "affordable" alternatives, if you can stand the commute; and also results in the loss of farm land for housing, changing the economic structure of those areas.
to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold.
That would make bay area property owners happy, since it would increase the ability of highly-paid Google employees to pay even higher prices, thereby driving property values up more.
Giving the nature of the market such a move might raise prices a bit but given bidding wars already occur I doubt the impact would be vary noticable.
I don't. It would increase the ability of Google employees to bid by some percentage, which would raise prices by almost exactly that percentage. Especially since it's not uncommon that Google employees are bidding against each other.
I guess it would depend on how Google would do that. If therapist at say the estimated value then it might heat up the bidding to that point but not impact a final purchase price that much; if they offered tom uh underwrite more than the price would go up. In one case you simply have more bidders but a price cap, in the other there is no cap. It would be interesting to see the data if they did do something like that.
Roddenberry wasn't really original beyond taking place in space. It is was Wagon Train to the Stars in concept, not exactly a new idea. What he did was do it better once he got past the bug of the month.
This group doesn't intersect with WallMart shoppers, so why then would you want to compete with WallMart on price?
Because if Walmart offers good enough organic produce, price will win out. There seemingly are not enough Whole Foods customers who aren't willing to go elsewhere for their organic kale to keep the company afloat when they can get it from Costco or Kroger or yes even Walmart. Whole Foods had a niche when they were effectively the only ones selling organic foods. Now I can get that from nearly anywhere, often for a lot less money.
WalMart tends to buy at the low end of the quality spectrum, mainly to keep prices down; at least that was the case a few years back when I talked to one of their suppliers who sold to most other grocery chains as well. There is nothing wrong with their food, just a lot of it is a cut below a major grocery chain's quality; that lets them keep prices low. The only exception I've seen is the vegetables which tend to be perfectly fine; the meats and fish OTOH are often barely edible in comparison.
OTOH, I avoid establishments that don't have self checkout. Even if there is no line at the checkout, I will always use the self-check because I can scan and bag my groceries faster than the register jockey. I don't go grocery shopping for the "social experience". My goal when grocery shopping is to exchange symbolic currency units for tangible goods as efficiently as possible, not to make small talk about the sports or the weather or comment on my food choices or donate a dollar to charity.
Sam's Club has taken it a step further; you simply scan items as you put them in the cart and when you are done you pay electronically and avoid the line completely. Upon leaving that scan a barcode on your phone, check the items listed and out you go. In most cases they don't even bother to do a thorough check after the first few items. If I ran security there I'd have them just look for big ticket items to ensure tehy aren't walking so as to make the whole experience as painless as possible.
There's a TV show in Britain called http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/prog... . They take a family and swap some of their expensive brands for generic articles (and disguise the packaging so they can't see). A lot of the time they actually prefer the cheaper stuff, at least when they don't know about it.
and that is why marketeers invented branding.
Yeh, this is really sad - WholeFoods for all that it is pricy as hell also sells a bunch of really good quality things that you can't easily get elsewhere. Turning it into yet another Safeway is a real shame.
I agree, but Amazon is a logistics company masquerading as a retail operations; similar to Walmart in terms of focus although not quite as cutthroat from what I've seen. If Amazon can maintain quality while reducing supply chain costs and expanding the customer base to get greater economies of scale tehy could turn Whole Foods into a serious competitor.
to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold.
That would make bay area property owners happy, since it would increase the ability of highly-paid Google employees to pay even higher prices, thereby driving property values up more.
Giving the nature of the market such a move might raise prices a bit but given bidding wars already occur I doubt the impact would be vary noticable.
At the rate JC Penney is going down the tubes and closing stores you won't have to worry about the lack of capacity as you will have done your share to slow its growth.
There'll be plenty of capacity if you want to pay for it; but you don't. Last mile delivery to homes is expensive, much more so than to businesses so unless companies can make a profit on it they will forgo expanding it. The USPS is the only one that actually passes every home every day (more or less) so ultimately tehy may become more of the solution to the last mile, if other shippers are willing to pay for them to be the last one to touch a package.
to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold. They could even reduce the % overtime as an incentive for good employees to stay with them. If an employee leaves, they could freeze the % if the borrower is up to date; or even offer to give up the equity in the event of a layoff as part of a package. In the later case, it could possibly be a tax free way to add to the severance; depending on the tax law and how the deal is structured. Such an approach would let employees get into the market and take advantage of its crazyness while tying employees to Google as well. The Moffat Field homes could serve as transitional places as employees look for a home; or as housing for employees that would prefer to rent. If my company at the time had such a deal I'd still be there and living on the coast side; enjoying the benefits of living in a small town by the ocean with a short commute into the Bay Area and the city. The coat side isn't for everyone but for those of us that liked the environment and loved fog it was great place to live. All the advantages of the city and the valley with none of the BS.
My employer occasionally hired these management consultants thirty years ago. At that time, they were very adept at interviewing the management, and then telling them a summarized version that confirmed their preconceptions. .
That's how a lot of process or business improvement consulting works. In some ways its is crazy how a manager will listen to a consultant telling him/her what changes are needed when employees have been asking for the same things are sometimes ignored. But it often does take an impartial outside view to get to the truth, and often along with the employees knowing what was needed there also comes a ton of employee ideas that are not viable and management sometimes needs help weeding out the noise. A good consultant can sift through the BS and politics that hamper some managers, and describe the scenario in way that aligns with the goals of management.
I had a boss once tell me "The reason we hired the consultant was not to come up with new ideas but take ours ND tell upper management what we already knew but so they would actually listen to the ideas."
From the linked news release it appears to center on how indirect costs were charged to contracts. Gov't contracts often allow overhead and iota indirect costs to be allocated to a contract and charged; you have to be careful how you allocate and the source of the cost. For example, a research institute I worked for had a government contract, and we reserved a conference room for exclusive use as well as had a separate supplies closet of office supplies to be used when working on the contract. No one was allowed to use the conference room unless it was for that specific contact; which lead to a lot of upset people when we told them even if it was empty they can't use; that ensured we were properly charging the cost of that space to the government and not have to jump through hoops to distinguish gov't contract and other work and adjust charges properly. As for the supplies, we kept that under lock and key. We did this things not to be jerks but to avoid having someone with handcuffs and a warrant show up at our door telling us we were now getting free room and board from the government.