Boondoggle Goes Boom - A demented tale of how the Army actually does business
62 views
Skip to first unread message
Kane
Jun 19, 2013, 1:09:58 PM6/19/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
A must-read for contractors/engineers.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113484/how-pentagon-boondoggle-putting-soldiers-danger#
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113484/how-pentagon-boondoggle-putting-soldiers-danger#
John Scott
Jun 19, 2013, 2:49:42 PM6/19/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
palantir needs to stop its whining
if they want more installs drop the price THAT is the hurdle to all this
bunch of babies
On Jun 19, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Kane <mclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
A must-read for contractors/engineers.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113484/how-pentagon-boondoggle-putting-soldiers-danger#
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Military Open Source Software" Google Group.
To post to this group, send email to mil...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mil-oss+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mil-oss?hl=en
www.mil-oss.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Military Open Source Software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mil-oss+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Christopher Dale
Jun 19, 2013, 5:45:01 PM6/19/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
'Or take saic, whose former vice president, Dr. Russell Richardson, is
now one of the Army’s architects of a future iteration of DCGS-A. Or
take General Dynamics Information Technology, which recently hired G-2
Chief Information Officer Lynn Schnurr. Each of these mega-firms has
been among DCGS-A’s principal subcontractors for years, despite the
system’s continued failings and cost overruns. As Republican
Representative Jason Chaffetz told me, with specific reference to
Schnurr’s lateral move into the private sector, “If you’re nice to a
contractor, your payday will come.”'
I suspect that, with deference to the two individuals noted here of
whom I know very little, that this article could have been condensed
to just this point. Contracting companies are a business and their
life blood is the government's money.
If we really needed a second take away from the article, it would not
be that Palantir is the answer to the problem as it may well be an
overpriced app as indicated by its detractors in the article. Instead,
the second take away would be to question the rigidity of the
environment that does not allow for the use of the best suited tool
for any particular task.
For those of you who have read the trio of Nassim Taleb books (Fooled
by Randomness, The Black Swan and Antifragile), I believe that this is
a case study in the lack of optionality and fragility.
now one of the Army’s architects of a future iteration of DCGS-A. Or
take General Dynamics Information Technology, which recently hired G-2
Chief Information Officer Lynn Schnurr. Each of these mega-firms has
been among DCGS-A’s principal subcontractors for years, despite the
system’s continued failings and cost overruns. As Republican
Representative Jason Chaffetz told me, with specific reference to
Schnurr’s lateral move into the private sector, “If you’re nice to a
contractor, your payday will come.”'
I suspect that, with deference to the two individuals noted here of
whom I know very little, that this article could have been condensed
to just this point. Contracting companies are a business and their
life blood is the government's money.
If we really needed a second take away from the article, it would not
be that Palantir is the answer to the problem as it may well be an
overpriced app as indicated by its detractors in the article. Instead,
the second take away would be to question the rigidity of the
environment that does not allow for the use of the best suited tool
for any particular task.
For those of you who have read the trio of Nassim Taleb books (Fooled
by Randomness, The Black Swan and Antifragile), I believe that this is
a case study in the lack of optionality and fragility.
Adam Morgan
Jun 19, 2013, 6:04:26 PM6/19/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
You could also include the multitude of groups that act as "unbiased" consultants in suggesting COAs for programs like this.
If you have been in this business long enough you have seen a nimble/low cost program gobbled up by one of those integrators you mentioned from the article only to cost more and do less.
The argument that the government needs these integrators for almost everything they do to ensure it all works together or in the name of efficiency certainly is hard to defend in cases like this.
Kane
Jun 20, 2013, 1:36:53 PM6/20/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
My point in posting this had nothing to do with Palantir (who's PR machine is clearly in full-on offensive mode).
The point is to demonstrate that just because we have something better/faster/whatever doesn't mean we'll be able to get it into a place of operational significance simply on its own merit. This story is a case study in the reality that most decisions have absolutely nothing to do with the actual results the decision-makers themselves want.
To be effective in getting our OSS projects we have to navigate the bureaucracy well. Fighting the powers that be, as Palantir is, is ineffective and nobody actually wins.
CD, great reference to Nassim Taleb. We tend to approach most of our systems as though they are fragile which perpetuates their fragility. Fortunately DCGS is moving open source (I believe the first code release was last month or thereabouts), the Open Source mindset itself is antifragile, meaning that it improves under stress. Hopefully we'll see the the antifragile perspectives inherent to Open Source be absorbed into the thinking of more decision-makers as Open Source itself spreads in our space.
The point is to demonstrate that just because we have something better/faster/whatever doesn't mean we'll be able to get it into a place of operational significance simply on its own merit. This story is a case study in the reality that most decisions have absolutely nothing to do with the actual results the decision-makers themselves want.
To be effective in getting our OSS projects we have to navigate the bureaucracy well. Fighting the powers that be, as Palantir is, is ineffective and nobody actually wins.
CD, great reference to Nassim Taleb. We tend to approach most of our systems as though they are fragile which perpetuates their fragility. Fortunately DCGS is moving open source (I believe the first code release was last month or thereabouts), the Open Source mindset itself is antifragile, meaning that it improves under stress. Hopefully we'll see the the antifragile perspectives inherent to Open Source be absorbed into the thinking of more decision-makers as Open Source itself spreads in our space.
Kit Plummer
Jun 20, 2013, 1:59:48 PM6/20/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
It's a stretch to say/think DCGS is going OSS. Pieces and parts of
it are, yes. But, as a program no. DCGS itself is under ITAR
regulations, which in itself is problematic. The parts that are
going OSS also aren't guaranteed to be used in future generations of
DCGS.
The sooner everyone accepts that DCGS, in whole, is too complicated (in requirements and implementation) to be "engineered" by our backwards complex the better off everyone will be - most importantly the warfighter and tax-payers (the former is getting double-dinged). Much like the FCS debacle, the slate needs to get cleared and everyone should take a quick look at how the Internet evolved from the core out, organically based on some pretty effing simple standards. Emergent innovation anyone? I could rail here for an hour and not cover all of the bullshit Systems Engineering hours/dollars that have been wasted by schmucks without a technological, standards, or common-sense clue.
The amount of technical debt in DCGS is irreversible. Even if there was a mass substitution for OSS to replace the licensing burden of owning a node (or two, or three...) we still can't overcome the ineffectiveness (performance) of the architecture and current component/part implementations. The thing is so far from modern technology (architecture, design and implementation) that it simply can't scale or progress. Nevermind DCGS-as-a-Service kinds of scaling requirements.
All that said it isn't all DCGS's problem. Most of the systems that it's trying to interface were never, or aren't, designed to be federated or interfaced in an external way. It's a legacy of stoopidiotic engineering that is continuously drug through the mud, hoping that somehow someway it'll all work. Forget open standards and open architecture. Just give me a fracking API that works and only gets updated every six months.
If there's a continuing need to navigate bureaucracy we're doomed. Well, we're doomed and warfighters will continue to needlessly die. But, hey the dumb-asses in charge and the big metal-benders turned techies will continue to make money on their contractual rotations, so our economy will continue to churn.
(Off my personal, not corporate-sanctioned soapbox now)
Kit
The sooner everyone accepts that DCGS, in whole, is too complicated (in requirements and implementation) to be "engineered" by our backwards complex the better off everyone will be - most importantly the warfighter and tax-payers (the former is getting double-dinged). Much like the FCS debacle, the slate needs to get cleared and everyone should take a quick look at how the Internet evolved from the core out, organically based on some pretty effing simple standards. Emergent innovation anyone? I could rail here for an hour and not cover all of the bullshit Systems Engineering hours/dollars that have been wasted by schmucks without a technological, standards, or common-sense clue.
The amount of technical debt in DCGS is irreversible. Even if there was a mass substitution for OSS to replace the licensing burden of owning a node (or two, or three...) we still can't overcome the ineffectiveness (performance) of the architecture and current component/part implementations. The thing is so far from modern technology (architecture, design and implementation) that it simply can't scale or progress. Nevermind DCGS-as-a-Service kinds of scaling requirements.
All that said it isn't all DCGS's problem. Most of the systems that it's trying to interface were never, or aren't, designed to be federated or interfaced in an external way. It's a legacy of stoopidiotic engineering that is continuously drug through the mud, hoping that somehow someway it'll all work. Forget open standards and open architecture. Just give me a fracking API that works and only gets updated every six months.
If there's a continuing need to navigate bureaucracy we're doomed. Well, we're doomed and warfighters will continue to needlessly die. But, hey the dumb-asses in charge and the big metal-benders turned techies will continue to make money on their contractual rotations, so our economy will continue to churn.
(Off my personal, not corporate-sanctioned soapbox now)
Kit
--
Charlie Greenbacker
Jun 20, 2013, 2:25:44 PM6/20/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
Just give me a fracking API that works
Charlie Greenbacker
Principal Data Scientist
Berico Technologies
mobile: 860-965-8885
Kit Plummer
Jun 20, 2013, 6:40:33 PM6/20/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
Good timing on Brian's part.
http://brianoneill.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionary-architecture-stop-divining.html
http://brianoneill.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionary-architecture-stop-divining.html
Andy Ennamorato
Jun 20, 2013, 11:06:27 PM6/20/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com
Neal Ford has a good series of blog posts on emergent design/evolutionary architecture over at IBM developer works: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/views/java/libraryview.jsp?search_by=evolutionary+architecture+emergent+design:
He also has related talks/slides/videos out there if you google for his name and those topics. If there was one speaker I could bring in to have them talk to every systems/software engineer I've ever met Neal would be a top choice.
Andy
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Kit Plummer
Jun 21, 2013, 12:33:35 AM6/21/13
to mil...@googlegroups.com, Andy Ennamorato
+1
Great stuff.
Great stuff.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages