3 ms·

Right? Don't they know software is free and insurance is a simple industry?

by unethical_ban 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago
It's not free, but the initial contractor CGI definitely hosed taxpayers.
renewiltord 3y ago
The rescue proved something everyone knows: some software engineers suck; others rule.
fallingknife 3y ago
And that is an excuse for spending damn near a billion for this? > Testing was largely a manual process. Releases and deployment required lengthy overnight downtimes and often failed, required equally-lengthy rollbacks. The core data layer lacked a schema. Provisioning hosting resources was slow and not automated. Critically, there was a pervasive lack of monitoring of the site. No APM, no bog-standard metrics about CPU, memory, disk, network, etc., that could be viewed by anyone on the team.
lazide 3y ago
The “beauty” of contracting for the gov’t - if you know how to play the game - is that their internal management and incentive structure is usually so screwed up (and will never get better) that manipulating the customer is easy and lucrative. If you know how to do it without being indicted anyway. Constant back and forth change orders, pointless delays to serve constantly changing stakeholders, constant demos with no real product, no one in the customer with any power who has experience to call BS on timelines or delivery, etc. And if done correctly, everyone in the ‘customer’ is simultaneously happy and angry and so it’s easy to deflect blame and point fingers back into their own org. Or so I’ve heard from folks who are involved. I try to avoid it like a plague, the BS I deal with hurts my soul enough already.
- baggachipz 3y ago
  Having worked for a Beltway Bandit "consulting" company in the past, you are exactly right. It's not about getting work done, it's about spending hours so you can receive more.
- hondo77 3y ago
  That was one of the takeaways from this whole episode. In its wake, the Technology Transformation Services and 18F resulted. Part of what they do is show government agencies a better way of procurement (a "modular" or "agile" approach). Performance-based contracting, and where the source code is, say, in a GitHub repo rather than on the contractor's servers. Contractor not performing? Get rid of them and get someone who will. Need to change the deliverables? No problem because you're not contracting for a deliverable anymore. The federal government is a big beast, though, so it takes a while for the idea to spread.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    What good does it do to show them a better way? They are a monopoly that takes their revenue by force. What is their incentive to improve efficiency?
    - lazide 3y ago
      That depends on how obvious it is. They can’t be clearly doing it on purpose, or they could be indicted too. If they look like they’re doing their best and following the law, but it doesn’t work? That’s perfectly fine.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
_ea1k 3y ago
Of course not, but the people getting paid the bills also understand how to say "it is a complicated and difficult regulatory environment" frequently. If leadership isn't careful (and it seldom pays to be careful), it becomes an excuse for every real wrong.

Right? Don't they know software is free and insurance is a simple industry?

ceejayoz 3y ago

It's not free, but the initial contractor CGI definitely hosed taxpayers.

renewiltord 3y ago

The rescue proved something everyone knows: some software engineers suck; others rule.

fallingknife 3y ago

And that is an excuse for spending damn near a billion for this? > Testing was largely a manual process. Releases and deployment required lengthy overnight downtimes and often failed, required equally-lengthy rollbacks. The core data layer lacked a schema. Provisioning hosting resources was slow and not automated. Critically, there was a pervasive lack of monitoring of the site. No APM, no bog-standard metrics about CPU, memory, disk, network, etc., that could be viewed by anyone on the team.

lazide 3y ago

The “beauty” of contracting for the gov’t - if you know how to play the game - is that their internal management and incentive structure is usually so screwed up (and will never get better) that manipulating the customer is easy and lucrative. If you know how to do it without being indicted anyway. Constant back and forth change orders, pointless delays to serve constantly changing stakeholders, constant demos with no real product, no one in the customer with any power who has experience to call BS on timelines or delivery, etc. And if done correctly, everyone in the ‘customer’ is simultaneously happy and angry and so it’s easy to deflect blame and point fingers back into their own org. Or so I’ve heard from folks who are involved. I try to avoid it like a plague, the BS I deal with hurts my soul enough already.

baggachipz 3y ago
Having worked for a Beltway Bandit "consulting" company in the past, you are exactly right. It's not about getting work done, it's about spending hours so you can receive more.
hondo77 3y ago
That was one of the takeaways from this whole episode. In its wake, the Technology Transformation Services and 18F resulted. Part of what they do is show government agencies a better way of procurement (a "modular" or "agile" approach). Performance-based contracting, and where the source code is, say, in a GitHub repo rather than on the contractor's servers. Contractor not performing? Get rid of them and get someone who will. Need to change the deliverables? No problem because you're not contracting for a deliverable anymore. The federal government is a big beast, though, so it takes a while for the idea to spread.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  What good does it do to show them a better way? They are a monopoly that takes their revenue by force. What is their incentive to improve efficiency?
  - lazide 3y ago
    That depends on how obvious it is. They can’t be clearly doing it on purpose, or they could be indicted too. If they look like they’re doing their best and following the law, but it doesn’t work? That’s perfectly fine.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

_ea1k 3y ago

Of course not, but the people getting paid the bills also understand how to say "it is a complicated and difficult regulatory environment" frequently. If leadership isn't careful (and it seldom pays to be careful), it becomes an excuse for every real wrong.