Talk:Government procurement

Untitled

Call for Bids, Request for Information and Awarding are different parts/phases of the procurement. So, if the article is just an outline they can be incorporated here. Looking in the near future, where we could have an analysis of each phase, it sould have different articles. Therefore i vote for Different Articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.49.66 (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Public Tendering

"Government procurement, also called public tendering..." This is misleading as it implies that public tendering is confined to government procurement. Often the word "public" is used to refer to aspects of a government i.e. Public Servants, Public Works, Public Infrastructure, etc... The word "public" is also used to refer to opening up a process to the general public at large. This is illustrated when a company "goes public" and offers shares to the public at large. This is referred to as an "Initial Public Offering" or "IPO" it has little if anything to do with government. With an understanding that the word "public" is commonly used in these two seperate contexts it is important to consider what "Public Tender" refers to.

Public Tendering is simply opening up tenders to the public at large. Another word for public tender is open tender and the opposite of public tender is private tender. Both government and private organizations tender work publicly. The "public" in public tendering does not refer to government but rather refers to the tenders being open for bid by anyone. The "private" in private tendering does not refer to private sector but rather refers to the tenders being only open for bid by select bidders.

The article leads the reader to understand that the "public" in public tendering refers to a government procurement process as opposed to a general process that both government and private industry engage in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanjantz (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting an edit

I think it would be relevant to add at the end of the “Public procurement and innovation” section the following findings from a reliable source (scholarly papers). What do you think? I have a COI with de Rassenfosse. (See my userpage for more info).

A 2019 study on the effects of government funding for R&D in the US found that only a small percentage of R&D procurement contracts led to patents, but these patents accounted for a large portion of the total contract value. AM13prime (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 2-AUG-2023

  Clarification requested  

1. Please indicate the reasons for making these changes. In the past, additions made by yourself to various articles have been reverted, while requests to add information have been declined. Many of these requests and additions were not accompanied by clear reasoning for their inclusion. Please state specifically what is it, about these patents accounting for a large portion of the total contract value, which makes this information necessary for the article?
2. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{Edit COI}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Please note that prior text entered in the Edit request proposal should not be retro-actively altered. Instead, a new reply post supplying the needed information should be posted below this review. The original {{Edit COI}} template may then be altered. Regards,  Spintendo  19:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Thank you for your inquiry. This finding underscores the importance of patents resulting from government funding and their impact on the innovation landscape. By adding this information, the article gains a well-supported perspective on the outcomes of government-funded R&D procurement. By revealing the substantial connection between patents and contract value, it gives readers a clearer understanding of the broader implications of government investment in R&D. I hope that the reasoning for this inclusion is now clearer. Best regards AM13prime (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Declined The link to the one de Rassenfosse article was already placed in another Wikipedia page, I'm not prepared to plaster it all over Wikipedia on many different pages. Sorry. Regards,  Spintendo  14:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Thank you for your prompt response. I appreciate your consideration of the matter. While I understand the concern regarding redundancy, I would like to emphasize that the inclusion of relevant findings, even if authored by the same individual, can greatly enhance the comprehensiveness of information available to readers. It's important to note that an author's contributions can span across multiple domains, and their work may hold significance for various topics and not just one Wikipedia page. As we aim to provide a comprehensive and informative resource for Wikipedia readers, I believe that including pertinent findings (if they are indeed pertinent and relevant) should take precedence.

If, after further deliberation, you remain with your current stance and thinking, I understand and value your perspective.

Best regards, AM13prime (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

References