11 ms·

A decade into a project to digitize U.S. immigration forms, just one is online

185 points by yanilkr 11y ago

cubano 11y ago
It seems to me the the same effort that was applied to the HealthCare.gov should be applied here.[1] It is beyond...well I don't know...beyond something that our federal government proves itself time and time again so incompetent at this sort of thing. Yes, I understand in Washington that the political process drives everything and that contractors have turned milking-the-cow into an art form, but certain important issues, such as immigration reform, should (pardon me) trump this stasis. [1] http://qz.com/182303/these-three-management-rules-helped-fix-healthcare-gov/ http://qz.com/182303/these-three-management-rules-helped-fix...
ilamont 11y ago
The amount of repetitive paperwork and needless bureaucratic steps for immigration-related matters is utterly ridiculous. The closest approximation I can make to dealing with immigration-related paperwork is filing taxes without the aid of software and being forced to complete and mail in one section (and have it approved) before moving onto the next.
- kawera 11y ago
  "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." -- Oscar Wilde
  - eonwe 11y ago
    "The most familiar quotations are the most likely to be misquoted...Some have settled down to false versions that have obscured the true ones. They have passed over from literature into speech." -- Carl Van Doren (maybe)
    - emiliobumachar 11y ago
      Any specifics on why the gp's quote was misguided?
- Someone1234 11y ago
  As someone who has gone through the IR1/CR1 process, yeah the entire thing is fucked. - The forms themselves are poorly designed (needlessly complex, come with misleading/incomplete instructions, tons of "gotchas," etc). Between me and my wife we have three degrees and a masters, are native English speakers, yet we still had to Google to figure things out. - Instead of having one form, they have three, and you cannot submit the latter two until the proceeding one is accepted (even if they're completely independant). They don't actually check the proceeding forms until the visa is complete (we know that because they flagged something months later). - Paying fees is a nightmare. - Even their embassies know how terrible it all is. They often hold workshops for people going through the process and are pretty frank about the bureaucracy. They describe the NVC as a "blackhole" (where things often get lost/delayed/mistakenly rejected). Digitalisation is useful but the US's house is in such disarray that it seems like the tip of the iceberg. I legitimately believe that the US uses bureaucracy and delays as a way to discourage people from applying for visas and or push visas into the next calendar year. It is the only explanation that makes sense. To be honest the entire US visa process could be done, end to end, in one day if they wished (ex. background check). And in fact US embassies in exceptional circumstances actually do accomplish the entire visa in 24-48 hours (yes, even for immigration visa).
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  The immigration system is what the tax system would look like if tax payers couldn't vote.
orf 11y ago
I would love it if there was even a single link to the actual report in the article.
ralfruns 11y ago
I went through the green card process last year. From my experience, it is nearly impossible without a lawyer. I wonder how much of the delay can be attributed to lobbying from the immigration lawyers that profit from the complicated, paper based process.
- tvanantwerp 11y ago
  I remember taking my wife for her medical exam as part of her green card process. What a joke! The doctor--who he has to select as someone on a small approved list--was basically retired and using his position on that list as a way to make extra money. I don't think he did a thing to examine her. He just chatted and told us stories about when he was fighting in Korea and accidentally stepped in a kimchi pot. Very nice fellow, but clearly just milking the process.
  - dudul 11y ago
    Had the same experience during my visit. Some older Russian doctor who chatted with me for 15 minutes, telling me that America was ok, that green card medical visit were pretty much all she was doing now, 3 half-day a week and that was plenty for her to make good money. She pocketed the $600 and gave me the sealed envelop. I have no problem with not passing any cost to the American taxpayers (and even that could be debatable, yes I'm an immigrant but I've never been unemployed and I believe I create wealth so it's a full net win for the country), but the system is really hostile and dysfunctional.
    - JBlue42 11y ago
      Honestly, I don't care if you create wealth for this country. Having a diverse population to interact with and bring their point of view to things is a net benefit to the whole society instead of cultural homogeneity.
  - maxxxxx 11y ago
    My "doctor" from the list also was an old guy. He examined me in his living room with 4 cats wandering around and jumping on tables. Very bizarre situation.
tvanantwerp 11y ago
I spoke with some USDS/18F folks a few months back, and I know they're working with USCIS to try and remedy the failures of contracting this all out to IBM. I'm hopeful things will get better in the next few years.
- andrefrancisco 11y ago
  Indeed we are. Here are the latest updates on our work. https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/09/08/reimagining-the-immigration-process/ https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/09/08/reimagining-the-immigration-p... https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/09/21/new-citizenship-resources/ https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/09/21/new-citizenship-resources/ And we've got a lot more features to come. *I work at 18F.
  - maxcan 11y ago
    Creating USDS/18F may be one of the most under appreciated, impactful changes of the Obama administration in the years and decades to come. Keep up the good work!
kchoudhu 11y ago
The Waterfall method has not been successful for 40 years Right, ok.
lpsz 11y ago
I've always found the biggest joke in these forms, among other federal forms, to be the OMB "paperwork reduction" statements. [1] Even airport landing customs cards have these. Why these make no sense: - They take up a good chunk of a page and consume both paper and the reader's time. - These forms aren't exactly optional, so I am going to spend time filling them out anyway. They would be easier to fill out if they were electronic, and if I wasn't repeating the same entries for the Nth time. The long disclosure adds nothing to usability and is only taunting. "Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is <number> Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately <n> minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandated by <statute>. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the <agency> at: <addr>." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paperwork_Reduction_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paperwork_Reduction_Act
- dudul 11y ago
  I think they've started getting rid of custom cards. My folks visited from Europe a few weeks ago and told me they didn't have to fill in anything this time, everything was electronic. But yeah, otherwise I agree with your statement. When I filled for my green card extension I had to put my application in a box, not an envelop, a box.
- dpierce9 11y ago
  I printed a student loan form and the last page that printed contained only the Paperwork Reduction Act notice. I have to say, it was beautifully Orwellian.
- theplaz 11y ago
  The worse problem is it also makes it difficult to change forms - or at least it creates the perception forms can't be reduced/simplified without 9+ months of process. *I work at USDS/SSA
chromaton 11y ago
Is there a way technology could help here? Perhaps not by involving the US Government directly, but would it be possible to set up a service that allows you to enter your information online, makes sure you have everything correct and consistent, then prints and ships the paper forms to you to sign?
- ilaksh 11y ago
  Good idea. Its not really any easy problem. Its about 6 million applications per year. What we should really do is make an open source app or website (perhaps p2p, perhaps run on donated servers) and completely eliminate any part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services related to processing applications, as well as all of the relevant laws. The laws are too complicated, and the bureaucracy of USCIS uses a very large budget of more than 3 billion dollars. A short (probably 100-1000x shorter) set of streamlined replacement laws can be designed by experienced lawyers within a few months. We can make a contest that provides 5 million dollars for the best 3 designs for protocols and schemas for a common data exchange system, then another 5 million for the best 3 apps that allow people to process data. This will spend 30 million. We can use 100 million to buy off the politicians or companies that try to stop us. That should leave hundreds of millions left to donate to poor immigrant families and/or unemployed federal workers. The app or site can be staffed by about 200-1000 online volunteers. This will be plenty assuming most routine applications can be processed within a few minutes.
ilaksh 11y ago
I have heard that consulting companies tend to milk government contracts. I also believe that some people really don't like immigrants and very much want to limit the amount that can come in any way possible. Also, what tends to happen with a business process is that it involves many people doing their specific part and handing it off to the next people. Properly automating a process can involve eliminating many jobs. And since people like to keep their jobs, the more streamlined redesigns for systems and processes are often not really considered as they would result in too many people being out of work. That can be especially difficult when decisions are being made by the business organization that wants to protect its power. Another issue is that business processes just naturally tend to become more and more complex over time. And its hard for people to accept that they need to be streamlined. Because business people generally don't understand user interface design principles and have lots of rules and laws sent down to them from above. So all of those constraints and great ideas from the higher-ups tend to eventually get passed on as over-complex forms and processes. It seems likely that some of those issues may have factored into this.
cs702 11y ago
The root problem is not government. The same thing happens in the private sector. Large corporations routinely spend gazillions on software projects that end up working poorly or not at all. Everyone who has worked in Corporate America knows this all too well. The root problem is not bureaucracy either. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have fairly large bureaucracies yet they routinely successfully complete massive software projects. The root problem is not "vested interests with complex requirements" either. When coders with large-scale-project experience were put in charge of revamping Obamacare's healthcare.gov, they figured out how to cope with a wide range of demands from a wide range of constituencies in an efficient manner, and got the job done: http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/how-silicon-valley-saved-obamacare-and-obama-and-democratic-party/358593/ http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/how-silicon-valley-s... The root problem, I think, is that the people who are put in charge of these massive software projects -- typically, MBAs or lawyers by training -- often don't know anything about how to develop software at scale. It's like asking people who don't understand rockets to lead development of a new kind of rocket that has never been built before. Edit: added more detail and context to the third paragraph.
- matwood 11y ago
  Having worked in large companies, small startups, and government, government is orders of magnitude the worst offender when it comes to simply wasting money and getting nothing done. The main difference between small and large companies was it simply took longer for people who got nothing done to be let go. In the worst cases for companies, money stops coming in the door and cuts are forced. Contrast the above with the government where it sometimes literally takes an act of congress to fire someone. If the populace is unhappy with how the government is spending its tax dollars they cannot simply stop paying taxes and go somewhere else.
  - bjitty 11y ago
    > The main difference between small and large companies was it simply took longer for people who got nothing done to be let go. That is certainly true and one major facet to the problem.
  - deleted 11y ago
rayiner 11y ago
Older article has some more context: http://m.nextgov.com/technology-news/2011/02/mismanagement-cost-and-schedule-problems-plague-immigration-system-upgrade/48450/ http://m.nextgov.com/technology-news/2011/02/mismanagement-c...
yanilkr 11y ago
This looks like an opportunity. There should be an app like facebook where you enter all your data and an app store for forms. Want insurance or DMV or immigration? download the relevant form and it tells you what's missing so you can fill it and the app also give an updated status on your application.
- viraptor 11y ago
  Who would you trust with that kind of information though? I don't even trust the people I'm sending it to, much less the middleman.
cowardlydragon 11y ago
I'm guessing the fundamental problem is a lack of appreciation of talent, and an unwillingness to pay for it. Also... waterfall.
solutionyogi 11y ago
I have spent 10 years in American Immigration system (became permanent resident 2 years ago) and it goes without saying that the immigration process has been the most frustrating part of my stay here. Here's something funny. In last few years, all the reputed lawyers (Murthy, Ron Gotcher and others) have setup an online portal where you, as a client, fill in everything online. This includes scanning various documents and uploading them. The online portal provides a great workflow which minimizes data entry and avoids data errors. The same portal allows you to chat with your lawyer/paralegal if you have any questions. At the end of this process, the lawyer firm will generate correctly filled in immigration documents which they will print and send it to you. You sign them and send it back so that they can forward it to USCIS! I know it's not practical or possible, but when I was working through this portal, I wished USCIS would just buy this system so that I don't have to pay thousands of dollars to laywers.
cowardlydragon 11y ago
I find a major problem in very large organizations is the centralization of processes when there is ample budget to establish competing organizations. For example, clouds and datacenters in large orgs should have three different groups offering competing solutions. If one (inevitably) underperforms, then it gets axed and a new datacenter option is bootstrapped.
- a_c_s 11y ago
  There are three main categories for the underperforming group's failure: 1. Structural organization issues: for example, the clients of the underperforming datacenter group play political games that undermine the datacenter group and prevent it from performing well 2. Poor management within the datacenter group itself: for example, employees forced to attend lengthy, unproductive meetings 3. Performance issues with the actual rank-and-file employees So when you decide to 'axe' the underperforming org, what does that entail? You could redistribute everyone, but if the error is category #2 or #3, then you saddle the higher performance groups with the causes of the problem. But if you fire everyone and the problem category #1, now you have to hire a bunch of new people and they are still doomed to failure. How do you solve the problem where the organization needs to be self-aware enough to figure out if it has a category 1, 2 or 3 dysfunction?
- sirkneeland 11y ago
  That is an interesting idea but it would need to be refined to avoid some pitfalls. Nokia had competing internal smartphone groups, which led to much internecine corporate warfare but precious little in timely smartphone development
codecamper 11y ago
Is this the same agency that not so long ago had their computer systems simply "down"... for a week or so. It was some form of immigration or Visa granting agency.
simonw 11y ago
"But only a fraction of applicants ever used that form before the agency took it offline, after officials decided to abandon the initial technology and development method and move toward a cloud-based system" When government agencies like this talk about a "cloud-based system", what do they actually mean?
- nickodell 11y ago
  I assume it means that they rent hardware rather than buying a mainframe from IBM. Remember, the project has been going on for ten years, so the hardware is probably quite out of date.
jimrandomh 11y ago
The most important point: > the initial $500 million contract had been awarded to IBM So IBM accepted a pile of money for the project and didn't get it done. The blame lies solely on them. Sure, there were bureaucratic obstacles, and government officials who didn't do things necessary for the project, but that's no excuse; IBM was responsible for making it happen. I keep hearing people talk about government inefficiency as though it were actual government employees who were failing. But it's usually like this: a failure of the bidding process and of accountability, where a large corporation (it's always one of the same few) collects money for a job and doesn't do it.
- _delirium 11y ago
  Contracting seems to be a big part of it. The justification for contracting these kinds of jobs out rather than just doing them in-house is that private-sector competition through a bidding process will lower costs, ultimately making the government more efficient. But in many cases I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper to just hire some in-house developers, rather than bleeding all this money to the likes of IBM, Oracle, etc.
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    The point is totally to make it more expensive for the taxpayer, so long as the right outsourcing companies get the contracts. An in-house development team would know the domain, the managers would be much closer to the business and have more authority to make day-to-day decisions. Plus, if the developers are permanent staff, they're aware that they will be responsible for the system once it's live. That's much better for everyone, except the politician, whose wife has shares in IBM.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I keep hearing people talk about government inefficiency as though it were actual government employees who were failing. But it's usually like this: a failure of the bidding process and of accountability, where a large corporation (it's always one of the same few) collects money for a job and doesn't do it. "The bidding process and accountability" is a function performed by actual government employees, so its failure is a failure of actual government employees, even if that failure is visible through the failure of a government contractor. A big problem is that government often does not have staff that understand enough about IT projects to effectively execute them, so it hires other people to do them: but the same skills that they lack that motivate outsourcing means they also don't understand IT projects well enough to do any of (1) effectively specify what it is that the contractor is supposed to do to allow contractors to bid properly, (2) effectively evaluate potential contractors, or (3) effectively oversee the contractor once one is selected.
awqrre 11y ago
The immigration process is a nightmare, but I thought that it was done on purpose. It took me many years and probably hundreds of pages of documents and forms to get my US Citizenship but I didn't use an attorney.
bdg 11y ago
When I see stuff like this, I can't help but wonder if this is the result of some in-fighting sabotage to delay policy change in much the same way stuxnet slowed Iran's nuclear program. I don't know how else to explain such colossal incompetence.
math0ne 11y ago
Oddly enough my work authorization form was online last year, but its back to paper this year!?!?
rconti 11y ago
It boggles my mind that any organization still pays for "professional services" provided by these massive consulting firms. Every single project I've seen like this involves countless layers of middleware implemented by consultants barely intelligent enough to follow a generic runbook, countless calls "home" to deal with your "unusual environment", delays, and a creaking disaster of a finished product.

185 points by yanilkr 11y ago

It seems to me the the same effort that was applied to the HealthCare.gov should be applied here.[1] It is beyond...well I don't know...beyond something that our federal government proves itself time and time again so incompetent at this sort of thing. Yes, I understand in Washington that the political process drives everything and that contractors have turned milking-the-cow into an art form, but certain important issues, such as immigration reform, should (pardon me) trump this stasis. [1] http://qz.com/182303/these-three-management-rules-helped-fix-healthcare-gov/ http://qz.com/182303/these-three-management-rules-helped-fix...

ilamont 11y ago

The amount of repetitive paperwork and needless bureaucratic steps for immigration-related matters is utterly ridiculous. The closest approximation I can make to dealing with immigration-related paperwork is filing taxes without the aid of software and being forced to complete and mail in one section (and have it approved) before moving onto the next.

kawera 11y ago
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." -- Oscar Wilde
- eonwe 11y ago
  "The most familiar quotations are the most likely to be misquoted...Some have settled down to false versions that have obscured the true ones. They have passed over from literature into speech." -- Carl Van Doren (maybe)
  - emiliobumachar 11y ago
    Any specifics on why the gp's quote was misguided?
Someone1234 11y ago
As someone who has gone through the IR1/CR1 process, yeah the entire thing is fucked. - The forms themselves are poorly designed (needlessly complex, come with misleading/incomplete instructions, tons of "gotchas," etc). Between me and my wife we have three degrees and a masters, are native English speakers, yet we still had to Google to figure things out. - Instead of having one form, they have three, and you cannot submit the latter two until the proceeding one is accepted (even if they're completely independant). They don't actually check the proceeding forms until the visa is complete (we know that because they flagged something months later). - Paying fees is a nightmare. - Even their embassies know how terrible it all is. They often hold workshops for people going through the process and are pretty frank about the bureaucracy. They describe the NVC as a "blackhole" (where things often get lost/delayed/mistakenly rejected). Digitalisation is useful but the US's house is in such disarray that it seems like the tip of the iceberg. I legitimately believe that the US uses bureaucracy and delays as a way to discourage people from applying for visas and or push visas into the next calendar year. It is the only explanation that makes sense. To be honest the entire US visa process could be done, end to end, in one day if they wished (ex. background check). And in fact US embassies in exceptional circumstances actually do accomplish the entire visa in 24-48 hours (yes, even for immigration visa).
BurningFrog 11y ago
The immigration system is what the tax system would look like if tax payers couldn't vote.

orf 11y ago

I would love it if there was even a single link to the actual report in the article.

ralfruns 11y ago

I went through the green card process last year. From my experience, it is nearly impossible without a lawyer. I wonder how much of the delay can be attributed to lobbying from the immigration lawyers that profit from the complicated, paper based process.

tvanantwerp 11y ago
I remember taking my wife for her medical exam as part of her green card process. What a joke! The doctor--who he has to select as someone on a small approved list--was basically retired and using his position on that list as a way to make extra money. I don't think he did a thing to examine her. He just chatted and told us stories about when he was fighting in Korea and accidentally stepped in a kimchi pot. Very nice fellow, but clearly just milking the process.
- dudul 11y ago
  Had the same experience during my visit. Some older Russian doctor who chatted with me for 15 minutes, telling me that America was ok, that green card medical visit were pretty much all she was doing now, 3 half-day a week and that was plenty for her to make good money. She pocketed the $600 and gave me the sealed envelop. I have no problem with not passing any cost to the American taxpayers (and even that could be debatable, yes I'm an immigrant but I've never been unemployed and I believe I create wealth so it's a full net win for the country), but the system is really hostile and dysfunctional.
  - JBlue42 11y ago
    Honestly, I don't care if you create wealth for this country. Having a diverse population to interact with and bring their point of view to things is a net benefit to the whole society instead of cultural homogeneity.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  My "doctor" from the list also was an old guy. He examined me in his living room with 4 cats wandering around and jumping on tables. Very bizarre situation.

tvanantwerp 11y ago

I spoke with some USDS/18F folks a few months back, and I know they're working with USCIS to try and remedy the failures of contracting this all out to IBM. I'm hopeful things will get better in the next few years.

andrefrancisco 11y ago
Indeed we are. Here are the latest updates on our work. https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/09/08/reimagining-the-immigration-process/ https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/09/08/reimagining-the-immigration-p... https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/09/21/new-citizenship-resources/ https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/09/21/new-citizenship-resources/ And we've got a lot more features to come. *I work at 18F.
- maxcan 11y ago
  Creating USDS/18F may be one of the most under appreciated, impactful changes of the Obama administration in the years and decades to come. Keep up the good work!

kchoudhu 11y ago

The Waterfall method has not been successful for 40 years Right, ok.

lpsz 11y ago

I've always found the biggest joke in these forms, among other federal forms, to be the OMB "paperwork reduction" statements. [1] Even airport landing customs cards have these. Why these make no sense: - They take up a good chunk of a page and consume both paper and the reader's time. - These forms aren't exactly optional, so I am going to spend time filling them out anyway. They would be easier to fill out if they were electronic, and if I wasn't repeating the same entries for the Nth time. The long disclosure adds nothing to usability and is only taunting. "Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is <number> Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately <n> minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandated by <statute>. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the <agency> at: <addr>." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paperwork_Reduction_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paperwork_Reduction_Act

dudul 11y ago
I think they've started getting rid of custom cards. My folks visited from Europe a few weeks ago and told me they didn't have to fill in anything this time, everything was electronic. But yeah, otherwise I agree with your statement. When I filled for my green card extension I had to put my application in a box, not an envelop, a box.
dpierce9 11y ago
I printed a student loan form and the last page that printed contained only the Paperwork Reduction Act notice. I have to say, it was beautifully Orwellian.
theplaz 11y ago
The worse problem is it also makes it difficult to change forms - or at least it creates the perception forms can't be reduced/simplified without 9+ months of process. *I work at USDS/SSA

chromaton 11y ago

Is there a way technology could help here? Perhaps not by involving the US Government directly, but would it be possible to set up a service that allows you to enter your information online, makes sure you have everything correct and consistent, then prints and ships the paper forms to you to sign?

ilaksh 11y ago
Good idea. Its not really any easy problem. Its about 6 million applications per year. What we should really do is make an open source app or website (perhaps p2p, perhaps run on donated servers) and completely eliminate any part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services related to processing applications, as well as all of the relevant laws. The laws are too complicated, and the bureaucracy of USCIS uses a very large budget of more than 3 billion dollars. A short (probably 100-1000x shorter) set of streamlined replacement laws can be designed by experienced lawyers within a few months. We can make a contest that provides 5 million dollars for the best 3 designs for protocols and schemas for a common data exchange system, then another 5 million for the best 3 apps that allow people to process data. This will spend 30 million. We can use 100 million to buy off the politicians or companies that try to stop us. That should leave hundreds of millions left to donate to poor immigrant families and/or unemployed federal workers. The app or site can be staffed by about 200-1000 online volunteers. This will be plenty assuming most routine applications can be processed within a few minutes.

ilaksh 11y ago

I have heard that consulting companies tend to milk government contracts. I also believe that some people really don't like immigrants and very much want to limit the amount that can come in any way possible. Also, what tends to happen with a business process is that it involves many people doing their specific part and handing it off to the next people. Properly automating a process can involve eliminating many jobs. And since people like to keep their jobs, the more streamlined redesigns for systems and processes are often not really considered as they would result in too many people being out of work. That can be especially difficult when decisions are being made by the business organization that wants to protect its power. Another issue is that business processes just naturally tend to become more and more complex over time. And its hard for people to accept that they need to be streamlined. Because business people generally don't understand user interface design principles and have lots of rules and laws sent down to them from above. So all of those constraints and great ideas from the higher-ups tend to eventually get passed on as over-complex forms and processes. It seems likely that some of those issues may have factored into this.

cs702 11y ago

The root problem is not government. The same thing happens in the private sector. Large corporations routinely spend gazillions on software projects that end up working poorly or not at all. Everyone who has worked in Corporate America knows this all too well. The root problem is not bureaucracy either. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have fairly large bureaucracies yet they routinely successfully complete massive software projects. The root problem is not "vested interests with complex requirements" either. When coders with large-scale-project experience were put in charge of revamping Obamacare's healthcare.gov, they figured out how to cope with a wide range of demands from a wide range of constituencies in an efficient manner, and got the job done: http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/how-silicon-valley-saved-obamacare-and-obama-and-democratic-party/358593/ http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/how-silicon-valley-s... The root problem, I think, is that the people who are put in charge of these massive software projects -- typically, MBAs or lawyers by training -- often don't know anything about how to develop software at scale. It's like asking people who don't understand rockets to lead development of a new kind of rocket that has never been built before. Edit: added more detail and context to the third paragraph.

matwood 11y ago
Having worked in large companies, small startups, and government, government is orders of magnitude the worst offender when it comes to simply wasting money and getting nothing done. The main difference between small and large companies was it simply took longer for people who got nothing done to be let go. In the worst cases for companies, money stops coming in the door and cuts are forced. Contrast the above with the government where it sometimes literally takes an act of congress to fire someone. If the populace is unhappy with how the government is spending its tax dollars they cannot simply stop paying taxes and go somewhere else.
- bjitty 11y ago
  > The main difference between small and large companies was it simply took longer for people who got nothing done to be let go. That is certainly true and one major facet to the problem.
- deleted 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

Older article has some more context: http://m.nextgov.com/technology-news/2011/02/mismanagement-cost-and-schedule-problems-plague-immigration-system-upgrade/48450/ http://m.nextgov.com/technology-news/2011/02/mismanagement-c...

yanilkr 11y ago

This looks like an opportunity. There should be an app like facebook where you enter all your data and an app store for forms. Want insurance or DMV or immigration? download the relevant form and it tells you what's missing so you can fill it and the app also give an updated status on your application.

viraptor 11y ago
Who would you trust with that kind of information though? I don't even trust the people I'm sending it to, much less the middleman.

cowardlydragon 11y ago

I'm guessing the fundamental problem is a lack of appreciation of talent, and an unwillingness to pay for it. Also... waterfall.

solutionyogi 11y ago

I have spent 10 years in American Immigration system (became permanent resident 2 years ago) and it goes without saying that the immigration process has been the most frustrating part of my stay here. Here's something funny. In last few years, all the reputed lawyers (Murthy, Ron Gotcher and others) have setup an online portal where you, as a client, fill in everything online. This includes scanning various documents and uploading them. The online portal provides a great workflow which minimizes data entry and avoids data errors. The same portal allows you to chat with your lawyer/paralegal if you have any questions. At the end of this process, the lawyer firm will generate correctly filled in immigration documents which they will print and send it to you. You sign them and send it back so that they can forward it to USCIS! I know it's not practical or possible, but when I was working through this portal, I wished USCIS would just buy this system so that I don't have to pay thousands of dollars to laywers.

cowardlydragon 11y ago

I find a major problem in very large organizations is the centralization of processes when there is ample budget to establish competing organizations. For example, clouds and datacenters in large orgs should have three different groups offering competing solutions. If one (inevitably) underperforms, then it gets axed and a new datacenter option is bootstrapped.

a_c_s 11y ago
There are three main categories for the underperforming group's failure: 1. Structural organization issues: for example, the clients of the underperforming datacenter group play political games that undermine the datacenter group and prevent it from performing well 2. Poor management within the datacenter group itself: for example, employees forced to attend lengthy, unproductive meetings 3. Performance issues with the actual rank-and-file employees So when you decide to 'axe' the underperforming org, what does that entail? You could redistribute everyone, but if the error is category #2 or #3, then you saddle the higher performance groups with the causes of the problem. But if you fire everyone and the problem category #1, now you have to hire a bunch of new people and they are still doomed to failure. How do you solve the problem where the organization needs to be self-aware enough to figure out if it has a category 1, 2 or 3 dysfunction?
sirkneeland 11y ago
That is an interesting idea but it would need to be refined to avoid some pitfalls. Nokia had competing internal smartphone groups, which led to much internecine corporate warfare but precious little in timely smartphone development

codecamper 11y ago

Is this the same agency that not so long ago had their computer systems simply "down"... for a week or so. It was some form of immigration or Visa granting agency.

simonw 11y ago

"But only a fraction of applicants ever used that form before the agency took it offline, after officials decided to abandon the initial technology and development method and move toward a cloud-based system" When government agencies like this talk about a "cloud-based system", what do they actually mean?

nickodell 11y ago
I assume it means that they rent hardware rather than buying a mainframe from IBM. Remember, the project has been going on for ten years, so the hardware is probably quite out of date.

jimrandomh 11y ago

The most important point: > the initial $500 million contract had been awarded to IBM So IBM accepted a pile of money for the project and didn't get it done. The blame lies solely on them. Sure, there were bureaucratic obstacles, and government officials who didn't do things necessary for the project, but that's no excuse; IBM was responsible for making it happen. I keep hearing people talk about government inefficiency as though it were actual government employees who were failing. But it's usually like this: a failure of the bidding process and of accountability, where a large corporation (it's always one of the same few) collects money for a job and doesn't do it.

_delirium 11y ago
Contracting seems to be a big part of it. The justification for contracting these kinds of jobs out rather than just doing them in-house is that private-sector competition through a bidding process will lower costs, ultimately making the government more efficient. But in many cases I wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper to just hire some in-house developers, rather than bleeding all this money to the likes of IBM, Oracle, etc.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  The point is totally to make it more expensive for the taxpayer, so long as the right outsourcing companies get the contracts. An in-house development team would know the domain, the managers would be much closer to the business and have more authority to make day-to-day decisions. Plus, if the developers are permanent staff, they're aware that they will be responsible for the system once it's live. That's much better for everyone, except the politician, whose wife has shares in IBM.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I keep hearing people talk about government inefficiency as though it were actual government employees who were failing. But it's usually like this: a failure of the bidding process and of accountability, where a large corporation (it's always one of the same few) collects money for a job and doesn't do it. "The bidding process and accountability" is a function performed by actual government employees, so its failure is a failure of actual government employees, even if that failure is visible through the failure of a government contractor. A big problem is that government often does not have staff that understand enough about IT projects to effectively execute them, so it hires other people to do them: but the same skills that they lack that motivate outsourcing means they also don't understand IT projects well enough to do any of (1) effectively specify what it is that the contractor is supposed to do to allow contractors to bid properly, (2) effectively evaluate potential contractors, or (3) effectively oversee the contractor once one is selected.

awqrre 11y ago

The immigration process is a nightmare, but I thought that it was done on purpose. It took me many years and probably hundreds of pages of documents and forms to get my US Citizenship but I didn't use an attorney.

bdg 11y ago

When I see stuff like this, I can't help but wonder if this is the result of some in-fighting sabotage to delay policy change in much the same way stuxnet slowed Iran's nuclear program. I don't know how else to explain such colossal incompetence.

math0ne 11y ago

Oddly enough my work authorization form was online last year, but its back to paper this year!?!?

rconti 11y ago

It boggles my mind that any organization still pays for "professional services" provided by these massive consulting firms. Every single project I've seen like this involves countless layers of middleware implemented by consultants barely intelligent enough to follow a generic runbook, countless calls "home" to deal with your "unusual environment", delays, and a creaking disaster of a finished product.