3 ms·

Uncle Bob on Heathcare.gov

19 points by swanson 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago
I find it hard to empathize with this article, for a lot of reasons, but mostly because I'm not sure if the premise is true. It is indeed very easy to write software that will later fail, and not know that it will fail while you're writing it. It's even very possible to have software that is failing, very publicly, and not know why. Aside from levying blame here (which I think falls to management for having changed scope within weeks before launch), the thing that most people seem unwilling or unable to accept is that the website itself is a black box to a legacy government system. As with all black boxes, there's absolutely no way to know how it's expected to behave under load, especially when it seems that nobody ever got around to load testing it. I would be very surprised to hear if there were those 'in the know' who could have scuttled the launch here because there wasn't any testing. Now, for sure, there very well ought to have been people saying "We can't launch without testing!", but even if there were people in that capacity, that would have surely seemed like fear-mongering, and could likely have gotten them cast as evil Tea Party members, given the public pressure (and political pressure) to launch. Let's not forget that the alternative would have been to delay the effects of the law, which is a debate that shut down our government for a time. The outcome here, in my opinion, doesn't levy blame on the software industry, but at worst, on software industry within the government. That system is indeed very broken, and I think blame appropriated upon it is warranted -- even though systems do succeed in spite of it.
kenkam 13y ago
Call me a cynic -- here is a well known, renowned software development methodology expert who makes money on giving talks, books, etc. He argues that regulation of the software industry is a solution. Specifically: "I'd be thinking about what languages and processes we should force them to use". He just argued his business case. This makes me take whatever he says with a large pinch of salt. Also, he makes dramatic points which have little to do with the problem. He describes the challenger problem, where a teacher's life could have been saved -- there were children waiting for that lesson! How is that relevant to what we're dealing with? I think it's a poor analogy only used for dramatic effect. All this makes me feel the article as insincere and merely cashing in on the bad launch of healthcare.gov.
- secstate 13y ago
  Okay, cynic. Just kidding, I totally agree with your appraisal here. I think the real revelation, if you can call it that, is that there are certain sorts of projects that governments are inherently bad at. All you have to do is look at an indy project like: http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/ http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/ to realize that $600 million is not needed ot build a highly functional site. On the flip side of that, I don't think HealthSherpa, or any small indy sites adhere to all the draconian government-mandated access requirements that an official blessed project does.
- swanson 13y ago
  I read the whole "Repercussions" section as from the point-of-view of a government official. The repercussions are that they start mandating and regulating - developers/companies probably don't want this, but that could be a likely fallout from more large-scale, failed, tax payer funded projects.
  - kenkam 13y ago
    Agreed. I will be interested to know what the lessons learned were and perhaps regulation will be the answer specifically for government projects, ie. civil projects similar to aircraft/military software development. Edit: grammar
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxk42 13y ago
    Regulating the software industry will set us all back 100 years. Innovation blossoms where people are free to innovate.
maxk42 13y ago
Fuck Uncle Bob.
MrZongle2 13y ago
"The Software Industry failed to deliver healthcare.gov. As a result, millions of people are being hurt. We did that, folks. It was our industry, our failure." Wrong. That "industry" had about as much to do with how real software is developed as an actor in a medical drama has to do with saving lives. That industry was typical of the revolving door between corporations and government. Don't try to pin that train wreck on software developers like me: this is the work of politicians, clueless middle managers, and profiteers. I don't know how you apparently got into my family, "Uncle Bob", but I want a divorce. Moron.

19 points by swanson 13y ago

I find it hard to empathize with this article, for a lot of reasons, but mostly because I'm not sure if the premise is true. It is indeed very easy to write software that will later fail, and not know that it will fail while you're writing it. It's even very possible to have software that is failing, very publicly, and not know why. Aside from levying blame here (which I think falls to management for having changed scope within weeks before launch), the thing that most people seem unwilling or unable to accept is that the website itself is a black box to a legacy government system. As with all black boxes, there's absolutely no way to know how it's expected to behave under load, especially when it seems that nobody ever got around to load testing it. I would be very surprised to hear if there were those 'in the know' who could have scuttled the launch here because there wasn't any testing. Now, for sure, there very well ought to have been people saying "We can't launch without testing!", but even if there were people in that capacity, that would have surely seemed like fear-mongering, and could likely have gotten them cast as evil Tea Party members, given the public pressure (and political pressure) to launch. Let's not forget that the alternative would have been to delay the effects of the law, which is a debate that shut down our government for a time. The outcome here, in my opinion, doesn't levy blame on the software industry, but at worst, on software industry within the government. That system is indeed very broken, and I think blame appropriated upon it is warranted -- even though systems do succeed in spite of it.

kenkam 13y ago

Call me a cynic -- here is a well known, renowned software development methodology expert who makes money on giving talks, books, etc. He argues that regulation of the software industry is a solution. Specifically: "I'd be thinking about what languages and processes we should force them to use". He just argued his business case. This makes me take whatever he says with a large pinch of salt. Also, he makes dramatic points which have little to do with the problem. He describes the challenger problem, where a teacher's life could have been saved -- there were children waiting for that lesson! How is that relevant to what we're dealing with? I think it's a poor analogy only used for dramatic effect. All this makes me feel the article as insincere and merely cashing in on the bad launch of healthcare.gov.

secstate 13y ago
Okay, cynic. Just kidding, I totally agree with your appraisal here. I think the real revelation, if you can call it that, is that there are certain sorts of projects that governments are inherently bad at. All you have to do is look at an indy project like: http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/ http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/ to realize that $600 million is not needed ot build a highly functional site. On the flip side of that, I don't think HealthSherpa, or any small indy sites adhere to all the draconian government-mandated access requirements that an official blessed project does.
swanson 13y ago
I read the whole "Repercussions" section as from the point-of-view of a government official. The repercussions are that they start mandating and regulating - developers/companies probably don't want this, but that could be a likely fallout from more large-scale, failed, tax payer funded projects.
- kenkam 13y ago
  Agreed. I will be interested to know what the lessons learned were and perhaps regulation will be the answer specifically for government projects, ie. civil projects similar to aircraft/military software development. Edit: grammar
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- maxk42 13y ago
  Regulating the software industry will set us all back 100 years. Innovation blossoms where people are free to innovate.

maxk42 13y ago

Fuck Uncle Bob.

MrZongle2 13y ago

"The Software Industry failed to deliver healthcare.gov. As a result, millions of people are being hurt. We did that, folks. It was our industry, our failure." Wrong. That "industry" had about as much to do with how real software is developed as an actor in a medical drama has to do with saving lives. That industry was typical of the revolving door between corporations and government. Don't try to pin that train wreck on software developers like me: this is the work of politicians, clueless middle managers, and profiteers. I don't know how you apparently got into my family, "Uncle Bob", but I want a divorce. Moron.