Talk:List of failed and overbudget custom software projects

Problematic

This article makes me a bit uneasy. Generally it seems to require a fair amount of subjective judgment for inclusion, while guidelines are supposed to make it more clear if articles either fit or not fit on the list. Sort of like if we had a list of popular singers with no musical talent. Would seem to be inherently controversial and not neutral tone. More specifically, it seemed to be limited to projects of the UK government, except for the recent addition of Healthcare.gov. There are probably dozens of other ones that might be candidates, such as Distributed Common Ground System in the US. If limited to government, then that should be made explicit. If not, then I would say about 80% of software projects would fit in this category, even if the marketing people promoting those projects all publish glowing grandiose press releases about how wonderful they are. W Nowicki (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I saw it as a big gaping hole in Wikipedia's coverage of custom software that we didn't have any such list. We didn't list even one failed project. Of course this list is only for notable projects; if 80% of notable custom software projects qualify for inclusion in one of the tables, then so be it.--greenrd (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the article history, the page was originally created to target Healthcare.gov specifically, as it was the only example given. Even with the more recent additions of UK projects, the list smacks of political intent, as all but one of the examples are government projects and the "See Also" links to "Government Waste." This page really needs more rigorous standards for inclusion and a wider and more representative sample of project failures (Commercial? Open source? Gaming?) to avoid looking like purpose-written fodder for those grousing about government inefficiency. 98.71.95.246 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested removal due to illegitimate source

Hello, my name is Lindsey Patzlsberger and I’m a communication specialist at Johnson Controls. I am aware that I have a conflict of interest WP:COI so I will not make any changes directly to the article.

Instead, can someone else review my proposed removal from the article which I have detailed below?

The referenced citation that claims Panoptix (listed under “Projects with ongoing problems”) is a failed product does not lead to an article that states this, rather it improperly links to a page on Johnson Controls website. See below:

3. Rick Moranis (12 April 2014). "New future on the horizon for Panoptix". Johnson Controls. Retrieved 26 April 2014. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/content/us/en/products/building_efficiency/connect-with-us/media-resources/publishing-arm.html

Given the lack of reference, could an editor review and remove the listing if you agree?

To give further credit, here is a broadcast covering the savings Panoptix provided at Western Kentucky University: http://wkunews.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/view-from-the-hill-panoptix/

LindseyPatz (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Lindsey

 Done--greenrd (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Taligent

Should the Taligent OS be added to the list? It has a wikipedia article, too.

Also, according to some sources, software for the F-35 fighter jet is behind schedule, over budget, and buggy. Michael9422 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ontario eHealth

Worth a mention: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ehealth-scandal-a-1b-waste-auditor-1.808640

"EHealth was set up in 2008 to create electronic health records after Smart Systems for Health spent $650 million but failed to produce anything of lasting value."