5 ms·

So, I've had a tendency to roll my eyes at the "agile" movement, and how much faith people put in it that it must be the best thing since slice bread. I've freq

by lambda 13y ago

So, I've had a tendency to roll my eyes at the "agile" movement, and how much faith people put in it that it must be the best thing since slice bread. I've frequently said that a lot of it is just common sense, some of it is just needless process that just happens to be different, not worse or better, than traditional processes, and there are a couple of good points that agile methodologies have brought about. But then I look at something like this, and I realize that common sense isn't necessarily so common in a big bureaucracy like this. They have tried three times to automate this, and failed each time? They've spent 7 years on one attempt, with absolutely nothing to show for it? I can't imaging going seven years without some kind of incremental release that you can use to gauge whether it's working or not. I mean, why do they seem to think that it's necessary to solve the whole problem in one big, opaque project? You would think they could do it incrementally, automating the easiest pieces or automating one step of the process while leaving a fallback for manual processing for the more complex cases or the other steps.

ams6110 13y ago
The counterintuitive thing that many people don't understand about government software projects is that failure is the norm. There are relatively few "big" consultancies that win these projects, and their numbers include Oracle, IBM, Accenture, Computer Sciences Corp, SAIC, Booz-Allen Hamilton, and a few others. Their goal in government procurements is not to deliver working software, it's just to win the contract, and then staff it with as many people as they can. We've known since The Mythical Man-Month and other books such as Peopleware that high staffing levels does not help most software projects, in fact it hurts them. But if the project fails, which most do, they all still get paid. And they will still win other contracts. Delivery of working software is just not high on the priority list--winning contracts and staffing them is. There are all the usual problems with big software projects, and add to it that most government procurement is still based on the experience of building physical things (jet fighters, ships, highways, etc.) which really doesn't work for software. But the big reason governments spend millions of dollars and waste years of time on software projects is because the contractors are not incented to deliver working software. In fact their incentives are to deliver failed projects, so that they can bid on them again.
- mattmcknight 13y ago
  Even crazier is that the government Often creates these situations by requiring that bidders bid the same number of positions, and then picks the one with the lowest rates. Lowering cost with fewer, better people just does not compute to them at all, because they have tried that strategy and been stuck with fewer just as bad people in the past. They then just use these people as staffing resources and attempt to manage the delivery themselves. The major companies in the space (including many you listed) are trying to push incremental, iterative delivery, but the customers won't get out of their own way long enough to let it work.
enraged_camel 13y ago
No, look: this is not about lack of common sense. The people in this cave -- the Office of Personnel Management or whatever -- know very well that the system they are a part of is inefficient as hell. But they also know that, if the system was automated with modern day standards, their office of 600+ people would be cut down to less than 50. Can you imagine having to lay off all those people? In other words, resisting and rejecting modernization in this particular case demonstrates the existence of common sense, not lack of it.
Spooky23 13y ago
The issue is the number of people who said no. I work in a state government and personally failed at least twice to consolidate agency email systems -- a slam dunk if ever there was one. We made progress... Eventually getting about 55% of the target. It went nowhere until someone had the balls to consolidate the staff along with the email. The issue here is the same. The people examining these records need to figure out where everyone worked, who was a veteran, who is entitled to X or disqualified for Y. All of this data requires records kept by another agency, and the folks between the retirement people and the records don't really give a shit. The difference between the private sector and government is that the people "in charge" can't change the rules. Think: Does it make sense for people processing retirement paperwork to work in a CAVE a few hundred miles from that Capitol? No. But congress said put it there. Does it make sense to have a system so complex that you need thousands of people to figure out what to pay a retiree? No. But at the end of the day, the political appointees come in and say "Wow, the old crew was a real bunch of muppets!" Then they try to fix a people and organizational problem with computers and consultants. Then it happens again.
smsm42 13y ago
> I can't imaging going seven years without some kind of incremental release that you can use to gauge whether it's working or not. That's because you don't work for the government. For the government spending millions and years on something and have nothing or worse to show for it is completely normal. It can not go bankrupt, it can not (excluding very rare cases) be destroyed by the competition, it can only drag along. Surely, people at the top can change, but the bureaucracy only expands, and changes very little whoever is at the top. It requires very determined idealist, powerful skills and huge amount of luck to change anything there. Failure to change is routine and normal.

by lambda 13y ago

ams6110 13y ago

The counterintuitive thing that many people don't understand about government software projects is that failure is the norm. There are relatively few "big" consultancies that win these projects, and their numbers include Oracle, IBM, Accenture, Computer Sciences Corp, SAIC, Booz-Allen Hamilton, and a few others. Their goal in government procurements is not to deliver working software, it's just to win the contract, and then staff it with as many people as they can. We've known since The Mythical Man-Month and other books such as Peopleware that high staffing levels does not help most software projects, in fact it hurts them. But if the project fails, which most do, they all still get paid. And they will still win other contracts. Delivery of working software is just not high on the priority list--winning contracts and staffing them is. There are all the usual problems with big software projects, and add to it that most government procurement is still based on the experience of building physical things (jet fighters, ships, highways, etc.) which really doesn't work for software. But the big reason governments spend millions of dollars and waste years of time on software projects is because the contractors are not incented to deliver working software. In fact their incentives are to deliver failed projects, so that they can bid on them again.

mattmcknight 13y ago
Even crazier is that the government Often creates these situations by requiring that bidders bid the same number of positions, and then picks the one with the lowest rates. Lowering cost with fewer, better people just does not compute to them at all, because they have tried that strategy and been stuck with fewer just as bad people in the past. They then just use these people as staffing resources and attempt to manage the delivery themselves. The major companies in the space (including many you listed) are trying to push incremental, iterative delivery, but the customers won't get out of their own way long enough to let it work.

enraged_camel 13y ago

No, look: this is not about lack of common sense. The people in this cave -- the Office of Personnel Management or whatever -- know very well that the system they are a part of is inefficient as hell. But they also know that, if the system was automated with modern day standards, their office of 600+ people would be cut down to less than 50. Can you imagine having to lay off all those people? In other words, resisting and rejecting modernization in this particular case demonstrates the existence of common sense, not lack of it.

Spooky23 13y ago

The issue is the number of people who said no. I work in a state government and personally failed at least twice to consolidate agency email systems -- a slam dunk if ever there was one. We made progress... Eventually getting about 55% of the target. It went nowhere until someone had the balls to consolidate the staff along with the email. The issue here is the same. The people examining these records need to figure out where everyone worked, who was a veteran, who is entitled to X or disqualified for Y. All of this data requires records kept by another agency, and the folks between the retirement people and the records don't really give a shit. The difference between the private sector and government is that the people "in charge" can't change the rules. Think: Does it make sense for people processing retirement paperwork to work in a CAVE a few hundred miles from that Capitol? No. But congress said put it there. Does it make sense to have a system so complex that you need thousands of people to figure out what to pay a retiree? No. But at the end of the day, the political appointees come in and say "Wow, the old crew was a real bunch of muppets!" Then they try to fix a people and organizational problem with computers and consultants. Then it happens again.

smsm42 13y ago

> I can't imaging going seven years without some kind of incremental release that you can use to gauge whether it's working or not. That's because you don't work for the government. For the government spending millions and years on something and have nothing or worse to show for it is completely normal. It can not go bankrupt, it can not (excluding very rare cases) be destroyed by the competition, it can only drag along. Surely, people at the top can change, but the bureaucracy only expands, and changes very little whoever is at the top. It requires very determined idealist, powerful skills and huge amount of luck to change anything there. Failure to change is routine and normal.