Slashdot Mirror
Anatomy of the VA's IT Meltdown
Lucas123 writes "According to a Computerworld story, a relatively simple breakdown in communications led to a day-long systems outage within the VA's medical centers. The ultimate result of the outage: the cancellation of a project to centralize IT systems at more than 150 medical facilities into four regional data processing centers. The shutdown 'left months of work to recover data to update the medical records of thousands of veterans. The procedural failure also exposed a common problem in IT transformation efforts: Fault lines appear when management reporting shifts from local to regional.'"
Business as usual for the VA.
Once again, the VA shows its true colors and mucks up another project funded by taxpayers for the well-being of our nations Veterans. A more screwed up organization one will not find.
Volpp assumed that the data center in Sacramento would move into the first level of backup -- switching over to the Denver data center. It didn't happen.
DOH! Looks like it was all just due to someone's assumption that someone else would do their job.
From my experience, you can assume things happened, but if you don't verify that they actually happened - you are DOOMED.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
unfortunately one of the best ways to learn how well your disaster recovery system works is to have a disaster. The problem with scheduled drills is the scenarios themselves are planned out and typically not run system wide ie test the part of the system then that part of the system etc. on RTFA it seems much of the breakdown occurred because too many people assumed. There was also no centralized decision making identities who had access to all the information. All scenarios when view from there individual perspective seemed to have made the right decision. However sometimes when implementing a global recovery plan one system may have to be sacrificed by another.
I'm sure I'll get modded to -5, Flamebait, but fucking A, Zonk, Slashdot isn't a newspaper. You don't need to be so economical in your headlines. When I saw the headline, I first thought of VA Linux--you know, the guys who kinda sorta own you. "Medical centers" threw me, so I thought for a second that it might mean the state of Virginia. Then it dawned on me that you probably meant the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Please, God, isn't there some kind of Editing 101 correspondence-school course we can send all these guys to? I mean, I love Slashdot to death, but please God, can you give the staff just one ounce of basic editorial skills: spelling, grammar, etc? Teach them to write for clarity, not just brevity? Maybe go for broke and touch on dupe-checking, fact-checking, changing links so they point to the original article instead of some guy's AdSense-laden blog page that says nothing more than "here's the story"?
You're EDITORS, for God's sake (even if in name only), you are indeed allowed to EDIT submissions.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Isn't it obvious that the acronym "VA" isn't good to use in a title? FYI, it stands for "U.S. Veteran's Administration".
I wonder why higher management always wants to centralize their resources. The internet protocol and subsequent many IT applications were built to be efficient in small and decentralized environments.
1) Trying to centralize gives us large expensive computers that are made out of the same components as smaller ones and thus fail just as the smaller ones do, however, ever trying to cram more crap on the same machine will bring down everything at once whenever it fails.
2) Trying to centralize has the ultimate goal to eliminate jobs but they need those people since they know all the little details and hickups their systems have. If people know a project is going to eliminate their job, they won't be cooperative. IT not being cooperative is very bad in this world where everything is computerized.
3) Eventually the same number of people is going to have to work in the centralized system just because you also centralize the problems and more problems will bring more people, more people will bring more overhead and inefficiency, more inefficiency will bring more people (at least that's the default in today's business world, throwing more people at an IT problem doesn't make it disappear faster)
4) More people in a project that was designed to be more cost efficient means the managers will have to cut expenses. Cut expenses brings underpaid people, underpaid people bring less or no experience and higher turnover, higher turnover means more cutting expenses.
Therefore: keep your local IT guy(s) and infrastructure although you can't squeeze 100% of work/day and it will bring a little more expense. The end-users have a better relationship with the guy(s) and that makes happier people. Centralizing brings more overhead, less customer-interaction with IT and thus more inefficiency throughout the business.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yeah, time to fire your IT organization's management. And a few of their leads, too. And maybe some of the techs.
Couple of reasons: First, they're running Vista. I'm not trying to be all "You must only run Linux or ur a n00b" here -- you can run Windows servers just fine, but no reasonable IT planner should ever, *ever* consider using an OS that new for a mission-critical enterprise application. If it doesn't have two or three years in the field, don't even consider it.
Second, their failover plan sucked. Live data syncs are good for physical disasters (fires, earthquakes, zombie attacks) but, as the VA discovered, they leave you shitting your pants when you run into an issue that may or may not be data-related. The solution to this, of course, is to keep a day or week-old copy someplace along with an up-to-date (but not implemented!) transaction log that you can go through and update with once you've sanity-checked it.
Third, letting the vendor run "tests" on your production system. Nobody, and I mean nobody, should ever get to touch any production system unless they're implementing a specific change that's been tested in an identical environment, passed QA and review by folks who know the system and then only with a published implementation, testing and backout plan. If a system needs "tests", you pull it out of production before you start messing with it.
Finally, their "virtualized team" approach (read: our people are scattered all over the place) is moronic -- you see this sort of thing, and without fail it's the result of political pressures rather than sane management. In this case, I'll bet my hat is was a situation where a bunch of middle managers were allowed to maneuver to keep their fingers in the pie when centralization tool place, so instead of having everyone you need on hand and in one group you're busy setting up conference calls.
Plus, now their solution is to bring in a bunch of consultants. Yeah, that always works. Good luck, guys! You're gonna need it.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
staffers from Hewlett-Packard Co. conducting a review of the center's HP AlphaServer system running on Virtual Memory System and testing its performance.
We hardly knew ye.
--- I do not moderate.
What they were doing was a major change to their IT infrastructure. That's massive. Things happen. The fact that they were down at 17 of 128+3 (131) data centers because some IT staffer changed a port # at one of their hub data centers without following proper procedure -- that's minor.
Seems to me that things worked otherwise well is a major accomplishment. They are still on the old system and are entering in data back into that system and migrating into the new system. But it seems things went well otherwise.
Anytime you do a major shift like this, it's hard. The users hate it because they can do their job very quickly on the system they are use to, but now have to learn a new system and slow down.
Things happen.
Many companies don't know enough to fire people who are damaging to their operations.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Mod parent up. As a small business owner, I've found that one reason our clients love us is because we manage their entire environment (be it hosting or internal network) and we provide them with all the documentation. I tell them "If you can't fire us at any time and keep running with no problems, we haven't done our job." Luckily, our clients love us, and we haven't been fired yet (in business 7 years).
1st off... VISTA is not Windows VISTA. It's the "Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture". Do a google search on that.
.:Thinks:. Too bad they don't know about everything we've short changed to make such an obscene deadline!
VISTA runs on HP's VMS, and on top of that it runs Cache from Intersystems. (And yes it costs the tax payers a lot! But a lot less since we've been centralizing it over the last 3 or 4 years.)
It is a HUGE system.
The centralization that we're currently undergoing is massive, this problem was (IMHO) scape goated to a poor change control process.
I know what was change, I know who changed it, and I know when they changed it. However, this 'melt down' has happened three times... (Not to the same drastic outcome.) It comes down to VMS locking out logons because locks aren't being released properly. (Now you could argue that the reason locks got behind was this change... But I don't think that is the real reason because of our previous problems.)
It's that simple. Ask the VISTA manager over lunch sometime. They weren't afraid of data corruption. They were afraid if they moved the systems, the other system would lock up too with too much user load.
There goes "VISTA". Everyone logged in is fine. Everyone not on... Isn't getting on.
Now comes the bad part... No procedures!
We take 32 medical centers, and throw their IT into a data center. You 'had' clear lines of who owns what, and what happens when they go down. Now you centralize all that... Who raises the flag when something bad happens? Is it the site that has the problem? Is it someone who now controls the system at the data center? Who is responsible for what?
Oh wait... OI&T only has a dozen staff... And almost NONE of those people are technical. Everyones pay was simply moved from one appropriation to another. But what about the IT systems?!?! We moved those too, but didn't hire any permanent staff to take care of it? We just rubber banded a bunch of people together that work across the whole west coast and hand them a pager and say good luck?
Suffice it to say, we have some REALLY REALLY hard working people... And some really bad management. (Congress forcing us to do things on a time table is really annoying. Especially since they expect results, but don't expect any documentation... What do you think is going to get skipped?)
Congress: How is that data center move going!
Howard: We've moved 28 sites!
Congress: Good Job!
Howard:
Then again... Howard doesn't even know everything we skip to get things done.
Bah
Cowboy IT people remain employed because they're cheap!
First thing I learned in the military: your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
668: Neighbour of the Beast