The problem is that these companies aren't hooked on extensible open source software as they should be, on something that gets reused across towns. The problem space then ought to be limited to developing or configuring town-specific extensions to the open source software, plus the associated devops. As with anything else, the goal ought to be to morph the development problem into a configuration problem.
Switzerland recently made open source mandatory for the public sector. Whether it is mandatory or not in any geography, its use ought to be something to strive for, not only to maximize reuse, but also to achieve a higher quality result in the process.
The problem almost always comes down to how governments do procurement. In the name of fairness and preventing a variety of immoral acts it is extremely difficult for a government to point at an existing product and say "we'll take that". Instead they must create a list of requirements, debate said list of requirements, pass the list around various departments completely separated from the original procurement, and finally of you're lucky it'll be sent out for suppliers to bid on. Obviously any attempt, perceived or real, to write the requirements against an existing product will result in lawsuits.[1]
The result is that the product almost always ends up being some bespoke pile of scraps built to a years old list of requirements that only vaguely aligns to the original problem.
It's a market that requires extreme patience and a building full of lawyers, it's not something that many companies are interested in participating in directly and pretty much impossible for a open-source organization, not that they'd even want to.
[1] I've watched a company dream-up a non-existent solution just so they could sue the government for an "unfair" competition and be compensated. I almost wish the courts had forced the government go with the imaginary product just to watch the company collapse trying to deliver something they had no intention of and would not be able to actually provide.
Open source also removes dependence on these software monopolies (with high barriers to entry for competition, due to the complexity and diversity of local regulations). Tyler Inc has no incentive to create non-garbage software.
My city uses an insane portal that most junior devs could probably replace with a week of hard work. It has massive security holes, uses unstyled HTML and doesn’t have a single convenience built in
I think these platforms just have a ton of features slapped together that barely function and have no thought given to UX, but they check whatever boxes their sales team need.
Sounds about right. Maybe even typical. Every township has that one guy paying super close attention while contributing nothing other than pissing and moaning. If we really want to change local government software, we need to actually incentivise people to join up with anti merger clause on whatever grants we offer them.
Easy. Local governments have no resources. Companies like Tyler let them just add modules to whatever they are doing today.
My city uses a similar platform. The explosion of pickleball required a scheduling system. They were able to implement that system in a few days, although it sucks, it works.
OutOfHere|1 year ago
Switzerland recently made open source mandatory for the public sector. Whether it is mandatory or not in any geography, its use ought to be something to strive for, not only to maximize reuse, but also to achieve a higher quality result in the process.
MadnessASAP|1 year ago
The result is that the product almost always ends up being some bespoke pile of scraps built to a years old list of requirements that only vaguely aligns to the original problem.
It's a market that requires extreme patience and a building full of lawyers, it's not something that many companies are interested in participating in directly and pretty much impossible for a open-source organization, not that they'd even want to.
[1] I've watched a company dream-up a non-existent solution just so they could sue the government for an "unfair" competition and be compensated. I almost wish the courts had forced the government go with the imaginary product just to watch the company collapse trying to deliver something they had no intention of and would not be able to actually provide.
concinds|1 year ago
ericmcer|1 year ago
I think these platforms just have a ton of features slapped together that barely function and have no thought given to UX, but they check whatever boxes their sales team need.
toomuchtodo|1 year ago
https://codeforamerica.org/success-stories/
https://codeforamerica.org/contact-us/
BenFeldman1930|1 year ago
Something1234|1 year ago
Spooky23|1 year ago
My city uses a similar platform. The explosion of pickleball required a scheduling system. They were able to implement that system in a few days, although it sucks, it works.
EvanAnderson|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
4b11b4|1 year ago
4b11b4|1 year ago
Zecc|1 year ago
renewedrebecca|1 year ago
JSDevOps|1 year ago
notjulianjaynes|1 year ago
slater|1 year ago
foobarchu|1 year ago
aaron695|1 year ago
> But adapting the software to the state’s unique regulatory needs proved challenging
A good example that's not taught in CompSci, generic software is an unsolved problem.
In a school environment we contracted someone to write room booking software (A while ago, don't need a list of current solutions)
That's crazy, in an environment that's extremely similar across the worlds schools and also overlaps with non-school environments.
The "unsolved problem" has a lot of elements, bureaucratic, entropy, the value of differences.
But one thing we always see in these $100 million case studies is the government workers won't have specced it properly, so blame will fall back.
The cost is surprising but accurate much as every noob could "write it in a weekend", the fact it doesn't work is tricky.