So this article doesn't really provide anything other than repeating what we all already know about this issue and rampant speculation without bothering to interview or ask any of the involved parties.
As someone who is involved in working with government regarding tech for the last couple years, the reasons are a lot more than just what this article shallowly speculates:
It's not just because they don't consult with these tech people, they do.
It's definitely not just because they might consult with these people and not follow their decisions. They do, but there are many advisers.
So if anything, speculation doesn't help. It's just randomly throwing shade. It's a bit more complicated:
Usually the president or middle management of the GO & NGO answers to a higher power or objective, such as a board or whatever that demands X project be done by T time. That T time could be Summer, 10/10 or the Lunar New Year or when they speculate that a political adversary is about to launch their own competing thing. None of them are in their positions through their understanding of technology. All they know is that some contractor or adviser has stated that this project should only take T time and will just peg that on their timeline. Most of them will be in the wrong generation to fully understand that launching a tech product is complicated, that even tech forward administrations like the Obama administration took months or years to launch lots of web projects, and that many didn't go smoothly. Instead they'll just see the end result and just demand that we start bids and demand that it launch on an unrealistic date.
They will hire advisers and consultants who are of their own generation (many will be in their 50's or 60's or older) who will have weird or a misunderstood grasp of current tech to act as 'translation'. These consultants will be there to promote their own associates or will burden the project by giving an unrealistic expectation of how the the tech project works because, after all, it's not their responsibility either way. In many cases, these advisers will actually cause the project to fail. They will often point to some successful third party case while almost never pointing out to the numerous failures for every success.
This results in GO's and NGO's seeing technology as an end product to a means, not as a tool that has to be applied carefully in a surgical manner. As they do not understand what is being built, they'll see no difference between a tech project that is a store front and one that is 8 times bigger in scale. "It's all just a simple news site, right?" even though, for example, late-added specs require that it be embedded into the media intranet and input systems of antiquated proprietary tech using FTP. At this point lots of strange requests will come in, such as demanding that a special fuzzy intelligence be built to ensure cropped thumbnail images never cut off the heads of people in the photos instead of focusing on getting the project up. After all, some advisers said they saw something like that in an article, so surely they can get that. Lets prioritize that too while moving up the launch date! Stuff like this is probably how you get Pay.taipei which clearly launched well before it was ready.
The bidding process has no understanding of tech debt or the problems with changing scope. So a bidding process will involve only hiring contractors that are less realistic and over promising. Stating that changing scope will result in delays or unnecessarily burden the project is a surefire way of reducing the chances of winning the bid even though it's realistic and honest. Instead you'll get a lot of contractors overpromising and under-delivering. Sometimes they're picked because advisers are pushing their associates, but most often it's the lowest bidder with the shortest timeline. Tech debt is added when they hire a second contractor to fill the gaps of the first contractor, which is what the Taiwan government does all the time which only ensures a project never gets completed properly.
Many of these NGOs and GO's have lots of departments which means a healthy dallop of office politics. Departments fight over resources and do not want their performance to drop. There's zero understanding from up top that when there's some new website or tech involved, that there will be a transition period where productivity may drop. The result is that there are many demands that everything be kept as simple as possible and be parallel to the process they're already doing or use the same out-dated technology they're already using. This just adds to project scope, and clarification of these details usually drops well after the project has already begun. So the contractor starts cutting out things left and right as they prioritize the wrong thing.
The Taiwan government operates quite similarly to many others around the world. It's inefficient and run like a blind guy driving a car down the highway with input from all the passengers, none of which are interested in survival. The combination of these factors is how you get a project like Pay.Taipei.