I think the problem stems from that reducing redundancy and squeezing your labor is the easiest way to reduce costs. Then, when things 'blow up' you get to jack up prices and pocket the money for fixing the problem you created.
With the amount of consolidation we currently have, you can't switch to a vendor that does not do this as the easiest way to rise to senior management is to do this.
Probably the most comprehensive way to fix this is to tie a significant portion of managements compensation to how well the company does over 20 years. You would also have to make it so if you have a significant stake in a company, you can only exit that stake over a 20 year period to keep shareholders/VCs from forcing the company to have a few amazing paper quarters so they can exit big before the company implodes.
I don't see this happening though, and it would be hard to keep existing players from adding loopholes (eg: 'loaning' their holdings out) that remove their accountability.
With the amount of consolidation we currently have, you can't switch to a vendor that does not do this as the easiest way to rise to senior management is to do this.
Probably the most comprehensive way to fix this is to tie a significant portion of managements compensation to how well the company does over 20 years. You would also have to make it so if you have a significant stake in a company, you can only exit that stake over a 20 year period to keep shareholders/VCs from forcing the company to have a few amazing paper quarters so they can exit big before the company implodes.
I don't see this happening though, and it would be hard to keep existing players from adding loopholes (eg: 'loaning' their holdings out) that remove their accountability.