From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40,LOTS_OF_MONEY, TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 10 Sep 93 21:57:53 GMT From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: influencing vendors (was: Computational scientists...) Message-ID: List-Id: In article <1993Sep10.115116.7150@sei.cmu.edu> ae@sei.cmu.edu (Arthur Evans) wr ites: > I've talked to folks at one Ada vendor, encouraging them to > respond more often to what goes on here. I pointed out, as Mike > has frequently, that this forum is a free chance to tell their > side of the story. > The response: We don't perceive that the folks we want to influence read > comp.lang.ada. > Who, I asked, are the folks you want to influence. > The folks who make or influence decisions to buy our products... Government purchasing regulations have lots of bizarre effects. This misperception may testify to one of the worst of such effects. Obviously not everyone involved in every source selection reads this newsgroup. But whenever the government feels that there is a need for advice about Ada as part of a source selection, they arrange for an "Ada expert" to be part of the techincal evaluation team for that source selection. That expert advice often comes from one of the FFRDCs, and usually from readers of this newsgroup. I obviously don't know all of the people involved in source selections involving Ada issues, not even all of the MITRE people who do that. But my educated guess is that for over 80% of the dollars spent on Ada products purchased directly or indirectly for the government, or for code development on government contracts, the technical advice to the government came from readers of this newsgroup. (On the other hand, I can say that the MITRE Bedford Software Center has probably spent several hundred thousand dollars on Ada compilers--mostly for evaluation purposes. By most counts that certainly isn't chicken feed, and I am sure that other FFRDCs have done the same. However, note that we spend that money to be able to give good advice to the government...) I don't know much about the commercial market anymore. (Although some Ada compiler vendors know I helped spend some significant money when I was in the private sector.) However, I do know about many foreign government procurements where the process, and the advisors, are similar (or identical :-) to those for the US government. I find it incredible to believe that there are Ada compiler vendors out there who don't understand this reality. The guy who negotiates the final contract doesn't read this newsgroup. The guy who decides which vendors will be considered (and often selected) almost certainly does. (Extra disclaimers: I read this over twice to make sure that there are no names of either compiler (or other) vendors or members of any source selection teams. Also nothing said above should be taken as in any way as implying the the final decision in any source selection was made by anyone other than the responsible government official. The FFRDCs provide advice, and only when asked. The responsible procurement officials must weigh all factors in making a decision, etc. Finally any illusion that I said one word about any particular source selection is just that, an illusion. All source selection sensitive and company proprietary information is treated by MITRE in a manner similar to classified information. However the source selection process--in general--is public knowledge. Any inferences about the way other FFRDCs operate are just that, inferences. And although everything said above is public knowledge, any discrepancies between what is said and official government or MITRE policy is accidental, unintentional, and not reflective of any change in policy. Whew!) -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...