Hi Mark, Mark Rickerby wrote: > I don't think the idea of a cultural portal is a bad one, but I have > never felt NZLive was a good realization of this idea. However I > remain unconvinced with the arguments about wasting taxpayers money > because the vast majority of 'waste' goes directly into Wellington's > local economy anyway See the Broken Window fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Money spent on web development in Wellington is money _not_ spent on nationwide broadband, nurses, etc. > (it's easy to understand why others feel > differently), but I do agree in the case that the money has clearly > been squandered. I'm not sure how clear it is in this case, the only > empirical evidence seems to be the graph of traffic stats. > > What nobody has raised is that this outcome is might be due in no > small part to the private sector contractors who made the site lacking > the complete vision (or perhaps the $$ they were demanding) to produce > something that lived up to the concept and promise of a cultural > portal, and instead has become a basic events guide site. > > Most of the issues being expressed about what NZLive should or should > not be doing are not just a case of government management > (mismanagement if you insist), but are emergent from the relationship > between the government and private sector. To a large extent, > government departments rely on the good judgment of their business and > design partners to guide them. > I couldn't possibly comment ;-) > When agencies enter into these relationships, there is not necessarily > a clear pathway from the high level rhetoric of ministers, to the > actual administration of funding and management of projects. That's > just a simple fact of any hierarchical organization. > > A lot of people arguing about this kind of spending don't realize how > much of our educational and cultural fabric is derived from this > funding, It all depends on the opportunity cost, doesn't it. > and how impoverished we would be without the various things > that are being funded. Spending money is not synonymous with wastage, > each case has to be assessed in context. > > I would be hesitant to publicly lambast government and MCH, without > first knowing the details of these relationships and the lines of > responsibility. Promoting arts and culture is a part of MCH's mandate, > and whether or not NZLive achieves this, it is designed to achieve > this, which is enough to justify its existence from a funding > perspective. Looking at the documents it's clear that this project was > initiated long before EventFinder launched, so at the point of its > initiation, there would have been no such service. > > The problem I have trying to process some of the arguments here, is > that apart from the graph of traffic, I don't see what the evidence is > that the website has failed to meet its objectives. Overpriced, yes. > Failure, unclear. > > For what it's worth, I would rather see the NZLive money spent on arts > funding directly. > Good point. All the best, Grant > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
