On Monday 04 September 2006 19:17, Hugh Leslie wrote: > Horst, I'm not sure what non-proprietary stuff could have replaced what > iSoft are offering. > > I think its very sad that in Australia we can't support local software > companies, most of whom make most of their money overseas.
I agree. What I think should be done for projects of such scale is 1.) determine the framework and publish it openly 2.) subdivide the project into small modules, interoperability defined in the framework 3.) determine a module interdependency plan and schedule module priorities accordingly 4.) write detailed specs for each module 5.) put the implementation of these modules to tender in order of their priority within the inter-dependency framework 6.) all contractors implementing modules must put the source code into a common source code repository - within the contracted time frame only the contractor gets write privileges to the code Benefits: - no dependency on a single company (ever!) - anybody can compete / win a contract, no matter whether the company is small or large, national or international: the specs are defined, the time frames are set, and because of the modularity each module will have a rather short timeframe for completion so that incompetent contractors can be weeded out (by checking their source against the specs) quickly without causing any show stoppers - since anybody can look at the code, I would expect that competitors will quickly point out incompetent peers, again assisting in preventing show stoppers and increasing competition Requirements: - an independent competent body overseeing, coordinating, and setting the specs (something akin NEHTA, only with need for technical and domain expertise) Drawbacks: - to the government / taxpayer: none - to the contractors: no possibility for procrastinating, deceiving, incompetence, marketing bullsh*t, overcharging Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
