Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Here's a very straightforward example. Sometimes it is overall less economically efficient to expend resources in a competitive bid process, than it would be to simply award the work to a particular vendor. Tendering it is therefore a "bad thing" under those circumstances. (I said not uniformly good, to qualify the remark, because perhaps some good can still come out of a net loss.)
|
Agreed - this may be more efficient in isolated instances and with all parties acting benevolently. But as a system, it cannot function. Somehow and somewhere, somebody is making the decision. In a non-competitive system, the criteria are hidden thus possibly (and probably) unfair. In my opinion, if the system is not fair and competitive, the system is unworkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Sure; but that's not really a point of contention, is it? One can work to change others' perceptions in any situation.
|
It is not contentious at all. It was a simple statement of fact. What happens to parties that under-bid and/or under-perform? The system consumes them, as it should. They do not get a chance to repeat their mistakes (often) as you implied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
They probably will. But was teaching them the lesson in this fashion productive?
|
It was harsh. I wish it had not happened. But it was definitely productive. The troll-bot devotees were not harmed by FIRST. They took a HUGE risk and lost - simple. There are a number of FIRST teams (along with observers) who will now dispassionately assess risk mathematically. The mentors and students involved will not easily repeat the same process and/or error, perhaps for an entire career.