5 ms·

Recreation.gov truly was a massive step in the right direction at the time of its release, but the total lack of oversight of Booz Allen Hamilton's revenue plan

Recreation.gov truly was a massive step in the right direction at the time of its release, but the total lack of oversight of Booz Allen Hamilton's revenue plan just cast such a pallor over the whole thing. I'm supportive of an experienced team of developers working on this problem, and I don't even care if it's BAH who's paying them. Especially since Reserve America (the predecessor) was so hilaribad. It's just truly deplorable that someone in the contracting process for the Feds heard "no cost to the government to build this" and didn't think "ok, cost to whom?" More context in this 2018 article: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/tools/camping-reservations-app-access-land/ https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/tools/camping-res...

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
That's almost exactly the same business model that red light camera companies use, as well as a lot of NPO fundraising agencies.
- gowld 4y ago
Godel_unicode 4y ago
Huh? It’s cheap and it works super well, what more do you want…?
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  It sounds like an additional tax. Who wants that?
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    A nominal fee to use a working version of a nonworking service? Sign me up!
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      It is sad if our baseline standard of Government is so low that this is what we want. Like saying your prefer private security, that you pay for via city entry tolls to police because they are friendlier and the company that hires them is more efficient than the worlds worst police departments.
      - Godel_unicode 4y ago
        Again I say, huh? Did you miss that this is a government contractor operating a service on behalf of, and with oversight by, that same government? The government identified that an existing system wasn’t working and replaced it with one that works great. Would you prefer that they didn’t…?
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        Of course it's sad. That doesn't make it wrong. The government is not good at building websites, outsourcing is the best way for them to do it until proven otherwise.
js2 4y ago
Also found this 2017 interview with the project manager. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/innovating-the-customer-experience-in-national-parks https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector...

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

That's almost exactly the same business model that red light camera companies use, as well as a lot of NPO fundraising agencies.

gowld 4y ago

Godel_unicode 4y ago

Huh? It’s cheap and it works super well, what more do you want…?

quickthrower2 4y ago
It sounds like an additional tax. Who wants that?
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  A nominal fee to use a working version of a nonworking service? Sign me up!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    It is sad if our baseline standard of Government is so low that this is what we want. Like saying your prefer private security, that you pay for via city entry tolls to police because they are friendlier and the company that hires them is more efficient than the worlds worst police departments.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      Again I say, huh? Did you miss that this is a government contractor operating a service on behalf of, and with oversight by, that same government? The government identified that an existing system wasn’t working and replaced it with one that works great. Would you prefer that they didn’t…?
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Of course it's sad. That doesn't make it wrong. The government is not good at building websites, outsourcing is the best way for them to do it until proven otherwise.

js2 4y ago

Also found this 2017 interview with the project manager. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/innovating-the-customer-experience-in-national-parks https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector...