11-27-2017, 04:26 PM
(11-27-2017, 01:59 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(11-27-2017, 01:13 PM)Markster Wrote: Yeah, the blame lies solely on the chain of responsibility that somehow allowed eSolutions group to get the contract.
It really depends on how they set the requirements. It may be that eSG's technology allowed them to do a fantastic job on the things that the city prioritized the highest, whereas broken links (and ability to link to pages within the site) were probably not high on the requirements list.
This kind of stuff happens all the time, and not only at governments. Set your requirements wrong, and you just might regret asking for them.
We are pretty far off the topic of LRT, though, so this is my last post on this topic -- at least in this thread. If a mod (Mark?) would like to create a new thread for this and move the posts, that might work the best.
Providing shareable links is basic to the profession. Excusing on the basis of “it wasn’t in the contract” is a bit like excusing a collapsed bridge on the grounds that the contract didn’t explicitly say that the bridge shouldn’t fall down. This is about competence and knowledge of the domain of supposed expertise.
To segue back to LRT and a much larger contract specification process, will we ever have a society in which it goes without saying that a road design has to include appropriate bicycle facilities?