About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 2:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not much in the article, actually.  One of the comments was spot on: Steve Jobs would have publicly humilated those responsible and fired them.

Jobs gets a lot of credit and deservedly so for being the inspiration  (if that is the right word) at Apple, the driving force.  His actual technical game is less substantial.  Back in the 1990s at least Bill Gates was supposedly still winning blind contests in programming at Microsoft. Jobs was never a technical person, but always a conceptual innovator and motivator.

Bugs are a known problem, and always have been.  Don't buy Version 1.0: it's beta.  You wait...  We did run into a techie with a beta Google Glass the other day.  Over the years, we have been beta users (testers) for products.  But government is not like that. They do not run market tests. And they never drop a failed product line.
   


Post 1

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 6:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

You've been involved with software development. So has Steve, and Dean, and lots of folks here. Ive been knee deep in it for 30 yrs...large companies, small companies, governments/ militaries.

They've announced something called a "tech surge" to try and get this website snafu fixed in situ. We've discussed Mythical Man Month before. When I heard "tech surge" my first thought was "great..theyve got the spin down if nothing else."

in all those years of experience...have any of you ever seen a panic situation like this turned around by non technical management getting involved and micromanaging the recovery after having screwed up the management if the rollout to begin with?

this truly has the making of an unmitigated cluster fuck.

Finally...how many hundred million to push out this this website???

Is this 1991???

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've done projects that handled greater volumes if data than they had so far... by a long shot. And I've done projects that were more complex (and in the medical field). And the largest I did billed out at just over 3 million - 1/2 of 1 percent of what they have billed for non-working enrollment web site. I can't imagine any architect worth his salt not staging the process so that it just created an account and verified by SSN (and sent those who didn't have a SSN to the appropriate SSN web site), then they could have their second process be gathering just enough data to provide a price (currently they won't give you a REAL estimate - they give you an approximation and it doesn't appear to include the deductible or all of the terms). Third would be the clicking of the "Create an Account" button to gather the remaining data needed and set up log-in info. Then clicking the "Enroll Me" button, and they could set up the financial transaction. These are separate processes in the background - even if it looked like a single linear process to the user. I went out to the Health.gov site and the pages look good, the instructions aren't too bad, the load speed was good, but I didn't try to create an account, and that's where the problems are reported to begin, and then in enrollment.

Bringing in a "technical surge" team who will be reacting to the politically-frenzied micromanaging has the potential of making things much worse. But I think the real problems will be in the administration of this nightmare. What will be the process by which you get approval for something complex that involves multiple doctors/consultants/specialists over a period of time, different clinics and hospitals, prescriptions being billed from different providers, some of the care from out-of-network, and matching billing amounts to allowed limits? And how will the billing be done with multiple insurance policies, issued with different coverage terms and periods? If it's true that they can't handle the very simple front end of creating an account, selecting a plan, doing security and verification, and completing an financial transaction to get started... well, things are going to be real bad when they get to the hard stuff.

Post 3

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 8:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

This really is like watching a train wreck.

Suddenly they aren't waving their hands and talking in soaring flights of fantasy. The rubber is actualy hitting the road. Just...not well. Alot of tears being shed in Georgetown bistros tonite...

This thing is being put together by business hostile folks. Arrogant without any actual real world experience to back it up. And incredibly uninterested and unfocused for what was supposed to be landmark legislation.

American Socialism has had its stillbirth. Obama will have accomplished more to put the final nail in this coffin than any of his opponents. The left is never in more danger to itself than when it is in power.

They wont be able to hide or spin this failure. And nobody is confused over whose smoking turd this is. Not a single GOP vote...


obama is stuck. His absolute fealty to the optics wont allow him to 'delay' the rollout...and he will look silly if he tries to call it something else. Im surprised he hasnt blamed this on the shutdown...yet. 1994 is going to seem like the 1917 Revolution by comparison
at this rate.

Post 4

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 6:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

So, Ross Perot is 83. He's sort of dissappeared, though he came out with some statement recently as part of something called Comeback America Initiative (CAI).

Ross Perot cut his teeth on automating state Medicare/Medicaid handling systems at EDS and after selling that to GM, Perot Systems. (Which always made me a little uncomfortable about his '92 bid to split the conservative vote, defeating Bush 41 and giving the Clintons thier shot at Nationalized Health Care; who would have benefitted more than Perot if that had happened in 92?)

So, he is an example of visible, capable, experienced talent in this field of government run health insurance automation. My point is, it's not like this is something new. There is a ton of talent in he world with experience related to what they are trying to do.

Has this government ecosystem of managing MEDICARE/MEDICAID...for almost 50years...not acquired any area under the curve hard fought experience?

Is it really what it now looks like -- that a coddled fast-tracked Golden Passer closet-radical Ivy Leager, yet ashamed of his transcripts, catapulted to the top executive spot in the nation because he looks good giving a speech and assuages liberal white guilt, but is in so far over his head if he has to do other than look good giving a campaign speech filled with 'Hope' and 'Change' -- that he has arrogantly botched something that he wasn't within a million miles of being able to accomplish in front of the entire nation? Something that was his keystone legislative achievement?

He wants to push an agenda where the government-- the Reichs, the Sunsteins, the Pelosis, the Reids, the Clintons, the Jarrets, the Obamas -- the liberal freak show -- 'runs the economy.' His beachhead along this radical unAmerican path is running 20% of it first. And my 25 year old son has more actual business/job experience than he and Karl Marx combined...

Why would any reasonable person ever allow this, or beleive it could end up anwhere else but national ruin?

Unless national ruin is the radical goal.

Its getting hard to come to any other conclusion. Incompetence this broad and deep can only be deliberate. It is hard, in this nation, to be this accidentally stupid, given all our talent and resources.

regards,
Fred






Post 5

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The fact is that this disaster is a perfect example of the law of cause and effect in human action. Ayn Rand's Objectivist theory of "psycho-epistemology" predicts that force and fraud are less effective than pursuation and truth. Objectivists mean the term "muscle mystics"  to identify people who worship material assets which they expect to give them power. In this case the mere possession of computers (and programmers, et al.) was supposed to bring success.

Some comparisons and contrast to Amazon, eBay, and other largescale data enterprises have been offered, but they all grew successfully and somewhat painfully. This project could not begin until it was funded and then instant success was supposed to come, like the beanstalk that grew to the clouds overnight.
Last year, the Canadian province of Ontario fired CGI and canceled a $46 million contract, accusing the company of failing to build an online medical registry on time. CGI says that it is in talks to resolve that issue.
CGI has declined comment to NBC News for weeks on the troubled rollout. A General Accounting Office report lists it as the largest contractor supporting exchanges for Obamacare, with $88 million paid through March 31.
[Note in the article that the revenues doubled in one quarter, but another article below reports that the price of its common stock remains flat. -- MEM]
NBC News online here.
The original program cost was supposed to be $92 million. It is now over $290 million.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI), wrote an editorial in USA Today alerting America that all those glitches may simply be a precursor to larger security problems.

The Federal Data Services Hub (Hub) is a central component to the Obamacare exchanges. Hub connects seven different government agencies and establishes new access points to American’s most sensitive and personal information. Rep. Rogers explains, “Social Security numbers, employment information, birth dates, health records and tax returns are among the personal data that will be transmitted to this hub, consolidating an unprecedented amount of information. Every shred of data one would need to steal your identity or access your confidential credit information would be available at the fingertips of a skilled hacker, producing a staggering security threat.”
Washington Times here

Even the phone number comes with challenges. Two of the security questions required during the initial phone call are:
1.  The name of maternal grandfather. Some callers need a few minutes to recall that name. 
2.  Name of favorite video game. Another question that could give some callers pause.
Washington Times here

[And just to note: I went to the healthcare.gov website and to register, you need an email address.  You do not need a phone number or a street address. If you do not have an email address, the site provides links to Google, Yahoo, Outlook, and AOL. - MEM]

Massachusetts launched its health insurance program "at the beginning of 2007," Gruber said, "but enrollment didn't fully flesh out for a year." In fact, it was less than 6% of the year's total by the end of the second month. "But the mandate didn't come into place until the end of the year, and you could sign up any time."

That differs from the federal and state exchanges; people must sign up by Dec. 15 to receive insurance by Jan. 1, and by March 31 to avoid a fine for violating the individual mandate portion of the law. The March 31 date is a concession to insurers, who feared that allowing open enrollment would mean people would sign up for insurance as they were diagnosed with an illness. USA Today here.
 


Post 6

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It sounds to me like the details didn't really matter to the people at the top, since they are only focused on politics (blame the GOP, attack Conservatives, focus on 2014 elections, call our opponents racists, Keep telling everyone that everything's going to be fine (unless the Tea Party touches it), establish new beachheads of control with large Trojan horse legislative packages, etc.).

And then the heads of various departments were encouraged to envision a wishlist of what ObamaCare could do for them (like the giant data hub that will have every iota of info about every person alive. Even if I had a really good memory, and I don't, it will end up knowing more about me than I can remember. p.s., I don't have a favorite video game... don't have any video game. Guess I'm just fucked - no enrollment account for this guy.

It sounds like the software project was a top-down, run-away requirements balloon that didn't evolve with strong programmer and project leader feedback. I can just hear the programmers, "They want WHAT!" "When did they ask for that? Do you know how much we'll have to rewrite? So, is this another one of those requests that come from so far up the chain that we just have to do it, and pretend that it won't effect the schedule? Doesn't anybody know what a fricking mess this is turning into?!?!"

Post 7

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 7:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is an old story...  Also, thanks to Fred for mentioning The Mythical Man Month by Fred Brooks of the IBM 360 project. If DMG or any of the younger programmers have not read it, it is a classic. 





Post 8

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

There was a popular/media reference -- kind of --to this on CNN I think a couple of nights ago. DOn't remember who said it, but it came out as:

"If it takes a woman nine months to give birth to a baby, it doesn't take nine women one month to give birth to a baby."


Many software projects are still hopefully managed as if the effort was anything like painting a fence. As in, if one person can paint 100 feet of fence per hour, then ten people can paint 100 feet of fence in six minutes.

The communicative overhead of collaborative software development is always either underestimated or totally ignored by management, as is the geometric nature of complexity, dueling use cases, and even, the evil twin of Wolfram's NKS-- 'unintended consequences.'

I did lots -- like well over 10,000 hrs worth going back years, into the 90s -- of consulting for a company whose top management insisted on the 'fence painting' paradigm when managing their internal folks. I've forever tried to divest them of that paradigm. They insisted. What they created was a vast deep hole of endemic internal crises -- hence, the opportunity for the 10,000hrs plus. They were a technology based company managed by decidedly non-technical management, who didn't trust their technical resources because they couldn't understand them. I've seen this 'two tribe' problem almost anywhere I've worked for folks, with rare exceptions-- companies managed by technical management, or founders.

HP under Hewlett-Packard was not anything like HP under the Carly/Whitmans...'Excel' pushed aside the 'excellence.' It was time for the carcass carvers to show up and cash in. HP lost half its stock value under Carly...the 'growth for growth's sake' folks demonstrated the difference between growth for growth's sake and growth as a consequence of excellence-- which was HPs formula under the founders.

The carcass-carvers got all kinds of excuses for that-- it was the dot com collapse, the dog ate my homework, blah blah blah. But the fundamental problem was exactly the two tribe problem... as in most of America these days.

regards,
Fred


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, October 25, 2013 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I remember being asked to put up a quick proof of concept for a project where Los Angeles County Children's Services could check on a foster child's progress in school through an online connection to the Los Angeles County School District's database - kind of like a parent being able to see what their child's grades were. They wanted a working example in two weeks. I told them that might be too short a time and that I had a series of meetings on another project that I needed to be free of. The response was that those meetings were important and had to be continued, and that because this connection to the school was such a critical project, and because I was concerned that I might not be able to hit their deadline, they wanted me to give them a progress meeting at the end of each day! In their minds, adding meeting time to the mix, where lots of other people showed up to express their opinions was like adding useful man hours of project development.

That was the clearest example in my past of the "two tribe" issue where the non-technical tribe, who didn't trust technology at all, thought that the application of meetings and politically correct moves (the union had to send delegates to each meeting, along with representatives of all department heads that were even remotely related to the project) was actually efficacious. These were the kind of meetings where so many of the people were there because they were the one person in a department that was least likely to be doing anything worthwhile - the department loser, or the departments political agitator, or the person whose only function was to curry favor with the department head. I remember meetings that had the flavor of political reeducation camps where the underlying belief was that if they talked about how important things were long enough it would actually get them done.

I have no great problem with people being idiots, only with the idea that the idiots should be the ones in charge. I wouldn't waste my time trying to gain some kind of position of power so that I could tell them what to do, and I resent those systems that support them being able to tell competent people what to do.

National Socialism is one great large idiots-in-charge-of-everything system.

Post 10

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 7:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

That so hits the nail on the head; because of their distance and mistrust of what they regard as inscrutable others, they think the way to speed them up and get what they want from them sooner is to slow them down by sitting on them.

Eerily familiar...

A kind of reactionary attempt to short circuit that: daily stand up meetings limited to three questions:

1] What did you get done yesterday?
2] What are you working on today?
3] What roadblocks, if any, are currently impeding progress?

In my experience, OK if limited to developers, quickly degrades to free-for all angst if management in the room at too deep a level.

Said another way: should not look -too- closely at the sausage being made, or the sausage will never get made.

Turning that into fence painting is kind of a fool's errand. Manangement wants to specify a hundred thousand feet of fence to be painted, then plot up neat charts of how much fence was painted every day along the way. Then, when trajectory looks to be in peril, throw more fence painters at the task by applying implied rate to task remaining, without accounting for the geometric increase in collaborative communications overhead. And if they hear any nonsense about collaborative communications being a problem, well then, dammit, the way to speed that up is to insert a tin can and string into a room full of fiber optics...

regards,
Fred



Post 11

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

The other weird thing you get is them attempting to guilt or shame you. As if they could somehow pinpoint your guilt or shame button, push it a few times, and that would then make you do the 'reasonable' thing and finish a 1,000 hour project in 500 hours.
---------------------
Management: "But how do I know that it will really take that long to add these new changes? Last time you said that adding changes during the last week would break the schedule, but you got it done on time."

Developer: "Yeah, but I had to work through the entire weekend and really bust my butt to get it in on schedule, and we didn't test some of it that well and we are getting some bugs reported now...."

Management: "Are you trying to tell me that you can't get this done on time? It isn't as if we didn't talk about how important these features are - we went over them before the project even started. It's the CEO that wants that reporting feature added."

Developer: "Yeah, but when I told you how much time they would add to the project, you took them out."

Management: "If we need to bring in someone else, just say so."
---------------

I took all the chairs out of the meeting room before a scheduled meeting on my project, back when I was very junior. When people came in I explained that a stand-up meeting would be more efficient. I didn't know my supervisor was bringing the company's VP to the meeting. It must have embarrassed the supervisor... he looked irritated, and told a couple of the other junior programmers to got get the chairs :-)

It wasn't till I was much older that I got better at finessing some of the management-consultant/techie impasses.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.