Software // Information Management
08:06 PM
Kurt Marko
Kurt Marko
Connect Directly
Mobile Threats & How to Keep Them at Bay
Jun 01, 2016
With savvy cybercriminals using vulnerabilities in apps, networks, and operating systems to gain c ...Read More>>

Google v. US: More Than Competitive Sniping

The conventional wisdom is that Google's lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Interior is just an indirect shot at Microsoft. But there are larger issues at play.

The conventional wisdom is that Google's lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Interior is just an indirect shot at Microsoft. But there are larger issues at play.In a lawsuit filed last Friday, Google claimed that an RFQ by the Interior Department was unfairly stacked in Microsoft's favor. In essence, the DOI wants to replace its hodgepodge of e-mail and collaboration systems for 88,000 employees with a single hosted solution. The problem, according to Google, is that the RFQ already presumed a solution, namely Microsoft's Business Productivity Online Suite (BPOS).

The LA Times has a decent overview, and you can find the entire complaint here [PDF], but to save you some time, the money paragraph is #6. The remainder of the complaint is a litany of meetings and correspondence between Google and the DOI's procurement department and concludes with an interesting Q&A where Google addresses specific requirements, for example, does Google Apps work with Outlook (yes, using Apps Sync), does it sync with AD (yes, again via its SAML 2.0 support for SSO), does it meet Federal security regulations, etc.

It's obvious that the DOI's IT department wasn't looking to source a messaging and collaboration solution, but an outsourced service for the presumed best or only choice, namely something using Exchange and Sharepoint as a back end. This seems to me like the Federal motor pool bidding on a fleet of new SUVs by asking for quotes on Jeep Cherokees -- Ford and GM need not apply. It's emblematic of an IT myopia that is hindering cloud/SaaS adoption; an inability to break free from established product categories or traditional ways of doing things and consider high-level requirements.

I'm not an expert on the Federal RFQ process, so there may well be a loophole (described in the complaint as a "Limited Source Justification") allowing this sort of thing, but one would hope that the next time the Feds use our tax dollars for a major (this would have to be in the millions to serve 88,000 employees) IT service purchase, they'll get their heads out of the sand and think about requirements, not products.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
The Agile Archive
The Agile Archive
When it comes to managing data, donít look at backup and archiving systems as burdens and cost centers. A well-designed archive can enhance data protection and restores, ease search and e-discovery efforts, and save money by intelligently moving data from expensive primary storage systems.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
2016 InformationWeek Elite 100
Our 28th annual ranking of the leading US users of business technology.
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.