The only reason they're defending their shit is prestige at this point.

The system was originally procured by city administrators who had way too little understanding and experience dealing with IT projects.

The contract was awarded to one of the big consultant behemoths who specialize in winning government contracts and executing them shoddily.

Parents hate it, because it is shit.

Anyone in the industry with a brain hates it, and laughs at it, because it is shit.

Elected city politicians hate it, because it is shit, and their voters are constantly telling them it is shit.

But the vendor is of course defending their contract and the sweet, sweet tax money they're getting.

And the people with power to actually do something about it, unelected city administrators, are defending it, because they feel they have to double down on their earlier shit decisions.

Can the crown, or some superior authority, pension off ‘city administrators’ in Sweden as they please?

No, that's not how it works.

Sweden has separations of power like every other liberal democracy, but the cake isn't cut the same way as it is in the US. Government offices are much more independent and protected from political interference than in the US, for example.

Basically, elected city officials set the budget and general guidance, and can appoint some administrators, but most people on the administrative side rise up through the ranks based on their merits (or not) like in any other organization.

The current head who is ultimately responsible for how the thing is handled right now started her career as a teacher, became a principal, and then moved into the city's school administration. I'm sure she's great at those parts of her job, but she's obviously not competent enough when it comes to overseeing or procuring IT projects of this magnitude.

So it's not the case that someone incompetent was rewarded with a comfy position, it's that the city's organization as a whole isn't competent to handle projects of this type and size.

Thanks for the explanation but I believe there’s been a misunderstanding.

By pension off I meant is there a possibility for someone mediocre, or promoted beyond their level of competence, to be immediately dismissed with a generous pension. And to replace them with someone else selected for fixing the problem?

Oh, you meant the other way around.

Well, same answer, actually. The elected politicians can't really interfere with personnel matters for either getting rid of people or hiring people, so no.

The idea is that people working for the city should be immune to changes among the elected officials, for better or worse. And this time it's for worse.

You mean what happenen in the US when a cop shot an undercover cop and promptly retired to prevent himself from getting into more trouble? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fQcjmt2Q_o

This policy won't help.

How do you know it wasn’t a forced retirement, i.e. an unofficial punishment?

> The US does this but the military contracts aren't executed shoddily

Did we finally decide to stop shoveling money into the F-35 or is that still ongoing?

Is it bad? I don't know whats the problems with it.

Public procurement requiring tax-funded projects to go to the lowest bidder is how this system is defended.

There's a whole industry of companies who cater to these kinds of projects, and they don't give a shit about their reputation, because they're busy making sweet, sweet, money.

And if you think US military contractors aren't wasteful and shoddy, I have a bridge to sell you!

I don't think all of them are done shoddily, but the US has the most powerful military, so they must be at least less bad, after all a lot of powerful military vehicles were contracted like the SR-71.

> so they must be at least less bad

Not necessarily, because they're throwing the most amount of money at the problem.

I'm reminded of the lukewarm response Microsoft had to refterm.