>because the Primes will come muscle them out.
Over and over people mention this phenomena. I am not sure why its okay, or that people even suggest giving these organizations more money.
Over and over people mention this phenomena. I am not sure why its okay, or that people even suggest giving these organizations more money.
In the end, they pivoted to market their software to commercial enterprise clients (think data analytics) and they've been going ever since. It's a shame, really.
The flip side, of course, is that a lot of the same regulations I bemoan as red tape exist because someone, somewhere, bought something that either completely failed, or the supplier wasn't big enough to support the military's scale. I've seen businesses make similar reactions- every time there's a mistake, layer on another new process or documentation requirement.
There's got to be a middle ground somewhere between the needs of auditing, accountability and avoiding regulatory capture, but I don't really have a good answer for what it is.
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM
If you pick a small company and something goes wrong, they might go out of business and leave you with nothing. If they stay in business, you might try to sue them but the company isn't worth enough to make a lawsuit worthwhile. IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc, they're big enough to sue. Which is kind of an insurance policy against something going wrong in the contract.