>'The project was conceived to replace 54 separate components used in the SSA's disability determination system.' This is the bit that jumps out at me as clear

>'The project was conceived to replace 54 separate components used in the SSA's disability determination system.' This is the bit that jumps out at me as clear indicator of the sort dysfunction that dooms projects like this more so than anything else. It's indicative of a the classic exploding scope and fragmented responsibilities leading to an overall lack of accountability that unfortunately characterizes IT in and around Government. Gershman seems to agree. "If there's not strong leadership, problems arise with coordinating work between contractors, and there's no one person looking at the system as a single entity -- everyone is making sure their piece is done, and fulfilling their responsibility up to a certain point," However, I'm not wholly keen on the the start-ups as a solution direction taken later. It's not that it's wrong, just beside the point unless the start-up savior is specifically targetting culture and process change as opposed to technical implementations. The 54-armed kraken of a defined by committee project will drown and devour a fleet of confused start-ups lost in the mist of *BE requirements and contract mods just as readily as the Lockheed leviathan.