6 ms·
The solution proposed to fix this mess is insane. A '96 hour training course' at the end of which you are able to handle 100+ million projects? That's 2 weeks
by Fede_V 11y ago
The solution proposed to fix this mess is insane. A '96 hour training course' at the end of which you are able to handle 100+ million projects? That's 2 weeks of work + change. Does anyone think that they could end up qualified to handle contracts of that size after a generic 2 weeks course?
Of the people that enroll in this program, what % fail? If it's serious, the % of people qualified should be at most 50% - yet it's obviously going to be just a rubberstamp where you put in the hours, then get the certification.
As someone who firmly believes in the power of the state to do good, these things make me go insane. The solution to failures of this magnitude are not to pile on more useless regulations and certifications, or to put even more emphasis on useless credentialism. Healthcare.gov got fixed when they gave carte blanche to highly qualified engineers and managers that gave up very lucrative jobs to help fix things.
I am convinced that lots more people would be willing to give up their cushy tech jobs for a job where they genuinely made a huge difference in the lives of people, provided you got rid of all this completely meaningless hoop jumping. Give clear lines of responsibility, take a serious look at your hiring process, and jesus, if your solution to a 600+ million dollar failure is to mandate a 2 week course... you really need to think things over.
- droopyEyelids 11y agoGlad I wasn't the only one who balked at the idea it would have gone well if everyone had more training. I think we really need intelligent, experienced people who have a proven record in large product management. However, they're rare and more expensive than the government will pay for. Compounding the failure is the fact that you can't get fired from government jobs for incompetence. These projects aren't going to get any better.
- Fede_V 11y agoI mostly agree, but I don't think that it's just a matter of money. Money is a way to motivate people - but for lots of people, the ability to work on a system that will cause a huge improvement in the lives of hundreds of millions of people is reward enough. However, nothing saps motivation more than pointless credentialism and bureaucracy.
- nickff 11y agoWhile I agree that the process for hiring should be better than "pointless credentialism", it must also be highly selective, or else the increased salaries will go to the same people, resulting increased costs and unchanged results.
- dasil003 11y agoAnd therein lies the rub, because the people qualified to hire such teams also do not work for the government.
- shardinator 11y agoPerhaps there could be a "expert panel" of external people who can be called up to at least give input into hiring gov employees. Perhaps you can have two hiring panels - internal and external. When they agree, hire the person. Of course this raises the question of who hires the "expert panel".
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago>you can't get fired from government jobs for incompetence. // This seems highly unlikely, can you expand further, some proof? [I assume you're talking about US state and federal government?]
- hobs 11y agoAn easy one, how about the ongoing fiasco that is the veterans administration?
- protonfish 11y agoIt seems to be a property not just of government, but any large organization that becomes driven by politics over results. I just quit a job in a large corporation where I had the displeasure of observing this up close. I have noticed several key dysfunctions in a political hierarchy. 1. You cannot be smarter than your superiors. After several layers of this, this cumulative effect is that the people on the bottom (those that do the actual work) are not allowed to be smarter than a sea sponge. 2. Reporting bad news to superiors is punished. Problems are covered up instead of solved. Reports up the chain must hide problems without being provable lies so they are incomprehensible - they must appear legitimate but be devoid of all fact. Using as much jargon and acronyms as possible is effective. 3. Blame for failure will be placed upon the least popular person. Typically this will be whoever is drawing attention to problems. The reason for project failure will be because of "bad attitude" and not being a "team player" leaving the next project with a greater proportion of ineffectual suck ups.
- gaius 11y ago1. You cannot be smarter than your superiors. At one company I worked for, you couldn't be taller than your superiors either.
- protonfish 11y agoI've seen that effect, but I don't think I've ever seen it as rigidly enforced as this. It does illustrate how most hierarchical organizations are nothing more than adult versions of king-of-the-sandbox.
- ams6110 11y agoMaybe we need the government doing fewer huge, complicated projects?