Fundamentally you're talking about the problem I alluded to in the 3rd point: Software projects work best with a single (or small group of closely knit) decision-makers at the top who bear ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the project.
The problem with governmental design-by-committee is that it spreads out the responsibility such that the failure of the project does not fall on any individual or small group.
The lack of concentrated responsibility breeds an environment that incentivizes grift rather than delivering value.
If the iPhone bombed, it was going to be Steve Jobs' fault. He had final say in all design decisions. If Healthcare.gov bombed... whose head rolled? Excerpt from the wiki article of Todd Park, CTO in the Obama administration:
'''
The initial version of HealthCare.gov, which was deployed on July 1, 2010, was built in 90 days by Park and his team at HHS. The first HealthCare.gov was cited by the Kaiser Family Foundation as one of the early highlights in the implementation of the healthcare reform implementation progress. HealthCare.gov was also the first website ever "demoed" by a sitting president
The following two versions, from the relaunch of the front end in May 2013 to the badly flawed marketplace that went live in October 2013, were developed by contractors and overseen by officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, outside of his purview within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. When the extent of the problems with Healthcare.gov became clear, Park was tasked by President Obama to work on a "trauma team" that addressed the "technological disaster". Park, along with Jeffrey Zients, led the "tech surge" that ultimately repaired Healthcare.gov over the winter, eventually fixing the marketplace sufficiently to enable millions of Americans to find plans and purchase health insurance.
'''
How many of those unnamed officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services got fired for a multi-billion dollar boondoggle? The reason bureaucracies (both government and private) love process, documentation, committees, etc., is because the primary goal of any bureaucracy, far and above its nominal mission, is to continue existing, and a primary part of continuing to exist is to avoid blame for anything. Delegating decision making to committees and process is a key way to avoid blame.
"Who is responsible for this mess?"
"Nobody is responsible, we followed the process. But don't worry, we've started the process of forming a committee to update our process manual to prevent this mess in the future."
Is your claim here that corporations are able to correctly assign responsibility for major failures? Why do you think this? There are so many ways to deflect blame for your failures onto others while taking full credit for successes you had nothing to do with in the private sector.
Not exactly -- my claim is the the most successful organizations (both governmental and private) have high alignment between power and responsibility. This produces good incentives.
Bureaucracies (both governmental and private) tend towards poor alignment for the reasons I outlined.
Most mature companies eventually become bureaucracies, a process I like to refer to as "becoming IBM". Big tech companies (e.g. Google, Amazon) are well on their way to becoming IBM, and much of the dysfunction is exactly due to your point about deflecting blame and taking credit for successes.
So the distinction is not between government vs private, but rather bureaucracy vs non-bureaucracy. Many governments, such as the US, do tend to be highly bureaucratic -- much more so than e.g. IBM.
The problem with governmental design-by-committee is that it spreads out the responsibility such that the failure of the project does not fall on any individual or small group.
The lack of concentrated responsibility breeds an environment that incentivizes grift rather than delivering value.
If the iPhone bombed, it was going to be Steve Jobs' fault. He had final say in all design decisions. If Healthcare.gov bombed... whose head rolled? Excerpt from the wiki article of Todd Park, CTO in the Obama administration:
'''
The initial version of HealthCare.gov, which was deployed on July 1, 2010, was built in 90 days by Park and his team at HHS. The first HealthCare.gov was cited by the Kaiser Family Foundation as one of the early highlights in the implementation of the healthcare reform implementation progress. HealthCare.gov was also the first website ever "demoed" by a sitting president
The following two versions, from the relaunch of the front end in May 2013 to the badly flawed marketplace that went live in October 2013, were developed by contractors and overseen by officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, outside of his purview within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. When the extent of the problems with Healthcare.gov became clear, Park was tasked by President Obama to work on a "trauma team" that addressed the "technological disaster". Park, along with Jeffrey Zients, led the "tech surge" that ultimately repaired Healthcare.gov over the winter, eventually fixing the marketplace sufficiently to enable millions of Americans to find plans and purchase health insurance.
'''
How many of those unnamed officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services got fired for a multi-billion dollar boondoggle? The reason bureaucracies (both government and private) love process, documentation, committees, etc., is because the primary goal of any bureaucracy, far and above its nominal mission, is to continue existing, and a primary part of continuing to exist is to avoid blame for anything. Delegating decision making to committees and process is a key way to avoid blame.
"Who is responsible for this mess?"
"Nobody is responsible, we followed the process. But don't worry, we've started the process of forming a committee to update our process manual to prevent this mess in the future."