4 ms·

Lesson for government: Software is not a typical infrastructure project (e.g. bridge). It is almost impossible to specify all requirement upfront. That's why wa

Lesson for government: Software is not a typical infrastructure project (e.g. bridge). It is almost impossible to specify all requirement upfront. That's why waterfall methodology is prone to spectacular failures. Training government officials how to manage those project can help, but I doubt it will make a difference. It can rather give false sense of "fixing it" without actually fixing it. I would rather focus on hiring competent ppl and give them freedom to do that right. Such as: https://www.whitehouse.gov/digital/united-states-digital-service https://www.whitehouse.gov/digital/united-states-digital-ser...

x5n1 11y ago
Competent people with a long history of developing whatever you are actually looking for. Software is the wild wild west. And there are many caveats because lots of people claiming to know what they are doing who know nothing. And even corporations who don't know what they are doing, but at good at marketing to get the contract.
geomark 11y ago
US gov has been doing software projects for as long as there has been software. So it's not like there _should_ be new lessons. They could just look at the vast number of previous catastrophes, and the few that went reasonbly well. I've been involved in a few myself as an employee of a government contractor. The gov people overseeing the projects were always in over their heads. I think that's a common issue.
threeseed 11y ago
I wouldn't lay blame at the government over this. I have seen countless large implementations fail within enterprise companies i.e. massive overrun in budgets, not meeting requirements. And unfortunately waterfall is really the only approach for projects like this i.e. you are having to select different third party vendor products up front and integrate them with custom applications. You can't iterate in sprints when you don't control the software. And if only hiring competent people was so easy. Really talented IT professionals are very hard to find and keep. The Digital Service you mentioned really is a great step towards retaining talent and long overdue.

x5n1 11y ago

Competent people with a long history of developing whatever you are actually looking for. Software is the wild wild west. And there are many caveats because lots of people claiming to know what they are doing who know nothing. And even corporations who don't know what they are doing, but at good at marketing to get the contract.

geomark 11y ago

US gov has been doing software projects for as long as there has been software. So it's not like there _should_ be new lessons. They could just look at the vast number of previous catastrophes, and the few that went reasonbly well. I've been involved in a few myself as an employee of a government contractor. The gov people overseeing the projects were always in over their heads. I think that's a common issue.

threeseed 11y ago

I wouldn't lay blame at the government over this. I have seen countless large implementations fail within enterprise companies i.e. massive overrun in budgets, not meeting requirements. And unfortunately waterfall is really the only approach for projects like this i.e. you are having to select different third party vendor products up front and integrate them with custom applications. You can't iterate in sprints when you don't control the software. And if only hiring competent people was so easy. Really talented IT professionals are very hard to find and keep. The Digital Service you mentioned really is a great step towards retaining talent and long overdue.