JohnMc:
It's a lot more fun than seeing it done by the private sector, that's for damn sure! This looks like a bad user interface, hastily assembled, to solve a complex problem. What we had before was a Mafia bust-out.
Bad user interfaces can be fixed. Following Harold's suggestion, without too much work.
Embedded mafias, such as the Bush administration and the whole financial sector, are a much more difficult matter. Which is why having Tim Geitner in charge of the Treasury is so very un-reassuring to me.
JohnMc:
Actually, I enjoy troubleshootng the process all the way through. The fact is that government, like industry or any other big generic generalization, can be made to work.
Nor do I think what I'm suggesting requires a contract. I understand the government employs people with the necessary skills, or could hire them reasonably quickly. What is important is for those implementing this to occassionally take a step back and ask “do I really need to accept things as they are, or can I rethink this and do it better.”
I get flashbacks.
My wife just went through the process, but it was 10 times worse. Because she had an old, partially completed record...
And, for most of her government contract work, she uses her old married name. Because you can't easily change names... The dude's been gone 5 years.
You should give a call some time, and talk to her. But not today. She's in DC today, at a conference, designed to “make the application process easier”. :-)
Mark S:
Please have her contact me, I would be very interested in talking to her.
Um, I thought the new leftist agenda wanted to avoid no-bid contracts? And that things executed by civil service tend to be kinda expensive, since you have to pay for all those non-fireable non-working workers? And then pay for civilian consultants who actually write the program and maintain it.
Software is not just a matter of finding the programmer to write it, it's a matter of user interface design, which takes more face time with the people who already have the process to be automated. Designing a new process is just as time-consuming, if not more so. Then you have to document the system, and test it out before deployment, and maintain it over time, etc.
There's a reason software companies are so large. We have, I think, 10 people at IBI per programmer, to test, document, maintain, help users, be our own MIS department, accounting, finance, customer education, customer consulting (to help set up systems), sales, etc. Some of that would not be necessary in a government operation, such as sales and accounting, but support and maintenance do need to exist for any system.
So we have a procurement process, and it takes years to assemble bids, and get them approved, and then to start writing to a spec written at the beginning of the process, even though technology may have moved on in the interim. On the other hand, keep it all in-house, and you have to hire a lot of people to do anything, and there will probably be more opportunities for shenanigans. Governments put these bidding processes in place for a reason. Think Tweed Courthouse, or Blackwater.
Or, why are [NY] City Hall's computer systems always about five years behind the times?
Alternatively, your post reads like you said “Programmers are bright people, they should be able to toss something together in no time, and have it work right out of the box.”
I could just as easily say “Policy wonks are bright people, they should be able to toss a national telecom policy together and have it work right out of the box.”
Just as what you do is hard, what we do is hard.
Jon:
You misunderstand my point. I am simply saying that my proposal requires no new technology or development of something radical. I confess, I sometimes think people reading these posts look for ways to be offended. Or perhaps you simply have no concept of how many people would read what I describe as something impossible and overly complex rather than something readily designed and implemented — albeit with the same level of hard work and skill required for any other significant project.
There is no need to do this with a contract. The federal government should actually hire qualified people so it is capable of carrying out its functions, rather than looking to outsource everything — especially in the IT area which government should increasingly utilize. The effort to construct what I am talking about, preferably using available tools and off the shelf technology as much as possible, is non-trivial but manageable.
Which, I suppose, IS how I feel about media and telecom policy. Many of the mistakes I point out above (doing incremental tweaks, accepting the world as is) are common in the field and I spend a good deal of my time trying to get smart people with solid skills to step back and consider how to do the job effectively rather than just go haring off after some convenient detail.
Fine, don't do it with a contract. But something like this needs to be robust, which means a lot of testing time and server time, it needs coordination between the different agencies that dispense and collect the information, which gets into penetrating interpersonal and inter-agency rivalries, it needs security, it needs to be designed and put together consciously. Those agencies may themselves be using incompatible systems, for which interfaces need to be written. Someone would need to be responsible for handing out ARRA numbers.
Why not just use Tax IDs? Every person or corporation with a bank account has to have one. Oh, right, that way lies more possibility of financial shenanigans. You see? Every simplifying assumption needs to be examined.
Without a procurement process it wouldn't take five years, but it would still be non-trivial to replace from scratch. You're talking about replacing what we have NOW with something BETTER RIGHT AWAY, and I'm telling you you won't get it, even under good circumstances, for months if not years.
Criticizing X for being bad is easy, constructing X' that is actually good, takes talent and a lot of work.
That the technology for writing nice forms and managing databases exists, makes it the work of months rather than years, but rolling it out Right Now is well-nigh impossible.
So don't do it? That is as much the logical extension of your statement as you seem to be reading mine.
To make clear, again, of course putting together a big project in a robust fashion takes serious resources, planning and time. Although having dug around a bit before posting this my impression is there is more out there to cobble this together than you think. And, as I said above, it may need to be phased in, with some elements constructed over time. Certainly I wish that the ARRA deadlines were more sensible and less politically driven. but none of this is an excuse for trying to simply layer stuff on the existing system. Because, by your logic, you can NEVER replace outmoded or bad technology. It will always take too long or conflict with other priorities.
I'm having flashbacks to a book I worked on last summer:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyC...
Harold,
Pretty interfaces aside, its like paving pot holes on a bridge that has too many bolts missing. The core problem is that the grants process is still a series of independently developed schemes by the individual government depts (FCC, Comm, Ag, etc.)
The various process mavens in each need to agree on a 'grand unifying theory' that they all can accept with supplemental components based on grant specifics.
I have seen kludge in SW design and it can get ugly.
Comments must be approved before being published.
Comments must be approved before being published.
Want to get updates when someone comments on this story?
Click here to manage subscription




Welcome to the Public Sector! Isn't seeing the execution of Public Policy you used to advocate fun?
As to starting from scratch. Well yeah, but that requires a contract to be let, well that requires a DUNS......