It seems strange that critics of the likley procurement outcome refuse to recognise that if weather forecasting is a science, then suitably qualified forecasters, regardless of their origin, should be able to predict objectively.
I can only assume that the BBC have been following a robust, transparent and objective process. Have the Met Office been complacent in their bidding or are there genuinely better qualified competitors? If they want to throw stones at the BBC's procurement process would the critics not have been better to have criticised the selection process prior to its commencement. Perhaps the BBC should have carried out some stakeholder engagement in the process earlier and brought the advocates to the status quo with them.
Having said that, it seems logical that the Met Office would want the freedom to compete to deliver weather forecasts to other boardcasters too, without being subjected to nationalistic loyalty. Why can't the defenders of the status quo recognise that for the Met Office to do that there has to be open competition.
However, my question is not about whether or not the weather forecast should be provided by the Met Office or not. Nor is my question about the selection and award criteria. or indeed its robustness.
To me there is a much more basic question, specifically the need for the BBC to spend money on providing a weather forecast at all. A lot has changed in 93 years. There are now so many sources of weather forecast open to the public, for example, apps on a smart phone tailored to specific locations. Just because there has been a 93 year history of the BBC providing weather forecasts doesn't justify a further 93 years of need to for the BBC to provide weather forecasts! But isn't that a common problem is procurement; a contract is due to expire so we need to relet. Wouldn't procurement improve its contribution and value by asking the much more relevant question: "Do we need to buy this at all?"
No comments:
Post a Comment