Why do words like 'highly convenient' or alternatively 'careless' come to mind after reading your most carefully expressed prose, I wonder. Perhaps there should be more careful expression of queries by the likes of Jon Trickett, Labour MP?
I am no fan of Palantir but was it not likely that this would have happened with any software company developing a bespoke system? Once such a system is developed any new company taking over would have to invest a lot of time and effort in understanding what was in place before they could do any further development, so by definition they would have higher costs than the original company. That's not to say Palantir were not exploiting this advantage to the max when giving a price for the second contract.
I am sure you are aware that this same company also executed a ‘land and expand’ tactic when they provided a data sharing system for the NHS. The same company has a track record of integrating data systems in other countries to enable governments to execute their policies efficiently at scale. Presumably the U.K. government has taken action to mitigate any risk that anything similar could happen in the U.K. in the hypothetical scenario that bad actors were to somehow gain access to the systems.
Thank you for this illuminating post. What is also an absolute delight is your exquisite and precise use of language.
And (sigh) given how often this mistake has been made in the past, you would think...
Why do words like 'highly convenient' or alternatively 'careless' come to mind after reading your most carefully expressed prose, I wonder. Perhaps there should be more careful expression of queries by the likes of Jon Trickett, Labour MP?
Manu thanks for this insightful post.
I am no fan of Palantir but was it not likely that this would have happened with any software company developing a bespoke system? Once such a system is developed any new company taking over would have to invest a lot of time and effort in understanding what was in place before they could do any further development, so by definition they would have higher costs than the original company. That's not to say Palantir were not exploiting this advantage to the max when giving a price for the second contract.
Thank you for this comment - for this to be a response to what I wrote means that I did write it in a libel-safe way.
Could the process by which the contract was allocated be open to judicial review by another software company?
Not easily because, by definition, without a competition there are no disappointed tenderers. Clever, eh?
I am sure you are aware that this same company also executed a ‘land and expand’ tactic when they provided a data sharing system for the NHS. The same company has a track record of integrating data systems in other countries to enable governments to execute their policies efficiently at scale. Presumably the U.K. government has taken action to mitigate any risk that anything similar could happen in the U.K. in the hypothetical scenario that bad actors were to somehow gain access to the systems.
At this stage I have so far deliberately avoided reading about Palantir's other contracts so to avoid influencing my reading of the MoD documents.