Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Well, let's not be too hard on him...

...being President was his first real job.

When it became abundantly clear even to your White House that the project could not possibly be completed in time,  your first response was to hold to the unrealistic deadline by shortening the required integration test period to a couple of weeks—an act that any competent project manager would consider negligent.  No engineer worth his degree would make that choice. No CEO with any experience or sense of ethics would ship an untested product against the pleas of his engineering team.

The stupidity continues.  The crush of the schedule left no time for critically important security testing and auditing. So how did your administration respond to that?  You granted yourselves a waiver, despite being told that there were known high risk security issues with the system. But hey, it's only connecting to many different federal and state databases containing the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. What could possibly go wrong?

This is the kind of behavior that causes space shuttles to explode while engineers are screaming about the risk. It's the kind of behavior that, had it occurred in the private sector, would open up a company to civil lawsuits and fines. It's the kind of behavior that, had it occurred in the private sector,  Barack Obama would be using as an example of why governments must regulate and control everything.

It's also the kind of behavior that leaves millions of formerly-insured Americans stranded without health insurance.

On August 17, you received this status report (PDF) from CGI, one of your main contractors. The status report shows that the project was only 66% complete a month and a half before going live.    Did you honestly think that a system 66% complete after years of development would magically be completed in a month and a half? Or is your staff so incompetent that, after receiving an e-mail describing an obvious upcoming disaster that could destroy your signature legislative achievement, they decided you didn't need to know about it? When you were giving speeches saying that the project was on track and was going to be marvelous, did none of your staff think to tell you what was really going on, so you wouldn't embarrass yourself in public?  If not, why do they still have jobs?

Dunning-Kruger t-bones into the Peter Principle.

No comments:

Who links to me?