Share.

27 Comments

  1. I’d be interested to see how much of the shitshow associated with the new BOM site is directly because of them and not a result of internal factions, committees and miscommunication at BOM. There’s a reason heaps of people can’t watch Utopia. It’s because it’s too close to the truth.

  2. For the millionth time it wasn’t just a website. It was a full upgrade of pretty much every system feeding into the website. Saying it was botched is just click bait.

  3. AntiqueFigure6 on

    If you were inclined to giving the benefit of the doubt, you might wonder whether what happened was the external contractors delivered exactly what their customer wanted, it was just that the customer was out of touch with the end users.

    But then you read that the contractors were Accenture, and desire to give the benefit of the doubt sort of evaporates.

  4. SpamOJavelin on

    >It comes amid revelations that the new website cost more than $96 million to design — a far cry from the $4 million figure it originally claimed had been spent.

    This is simply wrong, and has been covered many times. The front-end re-design cost $4.1 million, as stated. There was also a huge infrastructure upgrade that cost an additional $92 million. The whole lot was [part of the ROBUST program which cost almost a billion dollars](https://www.itnews.com.au/news/boms-seven-year-technology-transformation-cost-866m-611371#:~:text=The%20Bureau%20of%20Meteorology's%20(BoM)%20seven%2Dyear%20technology,major%20outages%20in%202015%20and%20early%202016).

    This isn’t a case where a $4M project blew out to $96M. There was a $4M redesign included along with $92M of other work, including a $78M content management system. As far as we know, everything planned went more or less to budget.

    In regards to the website redesign, is there any indication that the company awarded the project – Accenture Australia – were responsible for any of the original issues? Because I’ve done contract work for State and Federal governments before, and it’s very likely that Accenture Australia made the new BoM app exactly as requested. The BoM didn’t hand the reins to a company and say ‘make something’, the BoM will be controlling the design and requirements. If the last project did keep its scope, budget and timeline – and I’ve seen nothing so far to indicate otherwise – then they seem like a pretty solid choice.

  5. The BoM, an organisation full of scientists (AKA people who are trained to think and examine issues thoroughly, methodically, and critically), and their own IT department…..

    “BOM’s chief information and technology officer, Nichole Brinsmead, defended the extensions, saying the full complexity of the program was not understood in the early days.”

    Ms Brinsmead should consider her position. Ditto the senior IT management. And definitely anyone and everyone who signed off the stages of that contract.

  6. $19m contract, nice work guys. I wish i could get a $24m contract for proven incompetence, that way when they pay me for our $29m contract, it would be taxpayer money well spent, coming in just under our $35m budget.

  7. Carmageddon-2049 on

    Accenture? Definitely made in India.

    Come to think of it… that’s quite the hefty sum for an offshore development

  8. visualdescript on

    Fucking gov handing out cash to firms like Accenture and Deloitte to deliver software projects, it is mad.

  9. VigorWarships on

    I don’t know anything about website development but for 16 mill I could probably get it done better.

  10. Accenture. Guaranteed to be another cluster fuck.

    Government tender efficiency in action!

  11. C_Ironfoundersson on

    Accenture: we convince your moron upper management that AI will solve all of their problems when we don’t even understand their problem set.

  12. Accenture built exactly what they were contracted to build, and the total contract wasn’t just for a website, but don’t let facts get in the way of a good story