4 ms·
I guess the alternative is to subject the implementers to a truckload of meetings. Implementers don't like that. I can see a pretty clear cause-effect chain h
by tunesmith 13y ago
I guess the alternative is to subject the implementers to a truckload of meetings. Implementers don't like that. I can see a pretty clear cause-effect chain here. You let the implementers focus on implementing. There becomes an agreed-upon definition of what sort of matters are in the implementer's sphere of focus - that anything outside that "sphere" is a distraction to the work they need to focus on. Usually those items outside the sphere are a step up in abstraction - product requirements, etc. The implementers then start to get blocked by matters outside their sphere, and they rely on people outside their "sphere" to get them unblocked. People are assigned to roles to handle the issues that are outside the implementer sphere... and they are usually not implementer (because someone with implementing skills is needed on the implementing team) and presto, bureaucracy.
- hga 13y agoYou have some interesting musings, but let's reify this to one particular "political" (especially in the pejorative sense we use that) decision: In CMS's integration testing in the week before launch, they tried 200 simultaneous simulated logins, and the system seized up. It was decided to launch anyway, knowing the system was non-functional. By contrast Oregon and Hawaii declined to launch their state exchanges on Oct 1st. I submit that those three decisions are intrinsically political and you can't change that.
- spikels 13y agoI think the administration was worried if they didn't launch on schedule at the start of the shutdown/ceiling fight they might have to accept house republicans demands of a delay in the ACA. Apparently they were gambling the problems wouldn't be discovered until after the shutdown/ceiling fight was over. They won the gamble and the ACA survived but the problems remain and fixing them looks challenging.
- hga 13y agoThat's for completely supporting my point that this was a political decision. But I'd say the jury is out on the wisdom of this decision. A Healthcare.gov launch delay would have joined a bunch of other delays and waivers, and ... well, you and I don't seem to live in the same universe, I don't see any scenario where Obama and the Senate Dems would have been forced to accept anything they didn't want. There's in fact more than a little worry from the liberal side of things that this most recent crushing of the eGOP was a step too far, e.g. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/10/16/the-third-party/ http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/10/16/the-third-par... which I'm just starting to try to grok.