Slashdot Mirror


Is the Federal Government the Most Interesting Tech Startup For 2009?

With all of the recent focus on technology and the promises to continue "getting stuff done" by the US government, Techdirt's Masnick suggests that they might just be the most interesting tech startup to watch this year. "But, of course, talk is cheap (especially in politics). And, while Chopra (and Vivek Kundra, the government's CIO) both actually have a nice track record of accomplishing these sorts of goals in their past jobs, the proof is in what's actually getting done. We'd already mentioned at least one success story with the IT dashboard at USASpending.gov, but can it continue? I have to admit, a second thing that impressed me about Chopra was that, even with such a success, he didn't focus on it. The fact that he got together such a site in such a short period of time is impressive enough, and while he mentioned it in his talks, most of them were much more focused not on what he'd already done, but on what he was going to do — and the plans all seemed quite achievable.

43 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. No, it's the stupidest tech startup by winkydink · · Score: 4, Funny

    No competent tech startup would pay $18 million for recovery.org

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by tvjunky · · Score: 2, Funny
    2. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by Reverend528 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...unless they could get VCs to foot the bill.

    3. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

      No competent tech startup would pay $18 million for recovery.org

      Well, it was recovery.gov not org and really the comments the first time we discussed it noted worse problems. I mean, if they have a full time staff for the site and lots of servers and a lot of research going on, $18 million is about on par with what the government drops on crap like that. Fine. The fact that it was bidless and the company that got it gives tens of thousands of dollars to house majority leader Steny Hoyer (D) is what we really should be upset about. I thought the days of Haliburten were over ...

      --
      My work here is dung.
    4. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...unless they could get VCs to foot the bill.

      Obama's smarter than you. He gets taxpayers to foot the bill.

    5. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought the days of Haliburten were over ...

      What would make you believe that? Because the Democrats are in charge? Pa-lease. That just means the no-bid contracts will be going to their friends instead of those of the GOP.

      Amazing how the new kind of politics looks and smells a lot like the old, isn't it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where did you get the idea that it was a no-bid contract? Or did you just mean that the bidding process was accelerated.

      Smartronix won the Recovery.gov contract over two other bidders, SRI International and Accenture, in an accelerated bidding process that only included companies who are part of the multi-vendor Alliant contracting vehicle.

      By law, Recovery.gov must be up and reporting stimulus spending in detail by October 10, but Pound said that the normal, full, and open competition process takes an average of 267 days to award a contract. "That's unacceptable and people would be screaming for our heads," he said. Now, the RATB expects the site will be up as early as late August.

    7. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Funny

      That just means the no-bid contracts will be going to their friends instead of those of the GOP.

      I do believe that that would fall under the definition of change.

    8. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by ahabswhale · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, if you used the website, you would know that 30.4% of all government contracts in 2009 were no-bid. You would also know that Steny Hoyer isn't unique in any way and that they ALL do it. In fact, if you want to stay in office, you better be able to report in your election campaign all the jobs you created. Of course, the website will let you know all the money that is going to each congressional district. Everyone has their hands in the pie and USASpending.gov has plenty of pie charts to illustrate that for you. Oh, and it does this very rapidly with no evidence of /.ing.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    9. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by ToxicPig · · Score: 3, Informative

      Having worked in Federal Government IT for 15 years, I can say that it certainly DOES NOT have any kind of start up mentality. Startups can be dumb or smart, but usually they are quick to act, for better or for worse. Fed programs are slower than a snail running a cross pattern, and usually don't have nearly so clearly defined a direction. They spend good money after bad to get the best solution, and always end up being at the mercy of their vendors.

      I worked for the hosting and proserv provider for USAspending.gov and helped bring that site up. I left their employ just before recovery.gov got its legs. In both cases, the sites were deployed on old hardware, and were backed up by a CDN. Good enough, but we warned them that they really needed to get new hardware for their backend. Wouldn't hear of it. They had servers. They spent their money on programming and the CDN. Seems to be working well for them, but it's the proverbial house of cards. Hopefully they've improved things since I left.

      In any case, equating the Federal Government to an IT startup is like comparing a Shelby GT 500 to Steny Hoyer on roller skates strapped onto a couple of model rocket engines. Just not in the same league.

    10. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're telling me that there aren't any other qualified people out there who offered to build the site for less than $18,000,000? I find that hard to believe since even if they did it for $4,000,000 they would have a massive profit on it. Surely someone would have offered a better deal.

      Oh well, the CIO position just mirrors so much of the rest of America. Either offshore all tech/information jobs or bring in cheap labor from India, like Kundra. I know some might take that as a racist comment. Or at least, their only defense for the guy is accusing those who question is position of racism... but really, what the hell ARE his qualifications? He's very young. He doesn't have much experience. And listening to him talk... he doesn't even have a clue what he's rambling about.

    11. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I thought the days of Haliburten were over ..."

      And, not to put too fine a point on it, the services contract to which you refer WAS bid. Companies bid on the cost of their services - labor rates, markup on subcontractors, etc. They won it. Did there scope increase dramatically with the start of the war? Sure. But the only differences between KBR and, say, Bechtel doing the work are:

      1) We would have paid MORE for Bechtel
      2) No one would have heard about it because of the lack of connection to Cheney

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    12. Re:No, it's the stupidest tech startup by lumpenprole · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. Besides the aqueducts, medicine, roads, and irrigation, the bully has given us nothing!

      --
      Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
  2. Stephenson's foresight by LogistX · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's the Government of the United States
    Where hackers go to die
    The largest, and yet the least efficient, producer of computer software in the world.

    1. Re:Stephenson's foresight by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you have them confused with IBM.

  3. If they want a lasting legacy... by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should work with Obama to get executive orders and statutes written to position the federal government's management to not only hire 1099s like the private sector can, but to have that become the norm. One of the biggest reasons why federal IT is so expensive is because the federal government's management culture is still not conducive to having managers hire, direct and take responsibility for contract workers directly. If they could insource the project management en masse, that would shave an incredible amount of tax payer's money off of the cost of contracting as it would reduce the overhead that they pay to the big integrators to manage the projects (as well as pay HR, etc.)

    1. Re:If they want a lasting legacy... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They should work with Obama to get executive orders and statutes written to position the federal government's management to not only hire 1099s like the private sector can, but to have that become the norm.

      That will never happen. The public sector unions are huge supporters of the Democratic Party. Care to take a wild guess as to what they would think about a plan to increase the number of independent contractors working for government?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:If they want a lasting legacy... by vertinox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They should work with Obama to get executive orders and statutes written to position the federal government's management to not only hire 1099s like the private sector can, but to have that become the norm.

      As someone who has worked a portion of their life living off of 1099s, I have to frown on that simply because contract work does not induce economic stability if done on a large enough scale. People want permanent jobs (well most people).

      Living off of contracts month to month is great when you are young because you can take as much vacation as you need and you don't have to worry about having a boss you don't like for that long.

      But sometimes work gets slow and you have to turn to other work besides IT especially in a down turn.

      I've always believed in having internal IT not because of the efficiency aspect but because it provides economic stability for those involved. Its more of an ethical thing to me.

      I'd rather have my tax dollars go to that.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:If they want a lasting legacy... by EsJay · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The very large DOJ org I work with has no union people in IT. Or in any support positions, except maybe the contracted cleaning crews.

    4. Re:If they want a lasting legacy... by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They should work with Obama to get executive orders and statutes written to position the federal government's management to not only hire 1099s like the private sector can, but to have that become the norm. One of the biggest reasons why federal IT is so expensive is because the federal government's management culture is still not conducive to having managers hire, direct and take responsibility for contract workers directly. If they could insource the project management en masse, that would shave an incredible amount of tax payer's money off of the cost of contracting as it would reduce the overhead that they pay to the big integrators to manage the projects (as well as pay HR, etc.)

      Instead of making it easier for the government to hire individual contractors that are supervised by regular government employees to reduce the waste from the government hiring integration contractors to manage development contractors, why not just have the government hire, as regular employees, the technical staff to meet its ongoing technical needs so you also in-source the work itself rather than just the management of the work.

    5. Re:If they want a lasting legacy... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may find yourself in a union as a condition of your employment, whether you like it or not.

      Only if more people vote for the union than vote against it. That's what elections mean, whether the votes are cast by checking a card or by raising a hand or by super-secret, computer-tallied, proprietary Sequoia machines.

      Remember, the decline of the number of union workers in the US exactly tracks the decline of real income of American workers, which has been inexorable since the election of Ronald Reagan (who coincidentally, was also anti-union). People who like to spread FUD about unions and organized labor generally really ought to take a look at how organized labor was instrumental in creating a prosperous middle class in America who could count out safe working conditions and reasonable working hours. You can also bet that the people who are most decidedly opposed to organized labor really would rather the middle and working classes be a little less prosperous.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:If they want a lasting legacy... by Korin43 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even if the majority vote to join a union, how does that make it in any way fair to force everyone to join? I've heard the argument that non-members get the "benefits" of being in the union without paying for it, but have you ever considered that people might not WANT a union? Oh wait, how could they possibly disagree with you? You're probably much better at running their lives than they are..

      Unions in a lot of businesses are just there to make sure that incompetent people can't get fired, which just makes it harder for competent people to do their jobs (because they have to pick up the slack). They also make sure that good employees who've worked somewhere for a short time make less money than employees who don't do anything but have worked there for a long time.

      Not that all unions are bad neccessarily, but in most cases now, working conditions aren't nearly bad enough for a union to do anything useful, so they exist anyone to waste their members money and make working conditions worse (by keeping bad employees around).

    7. Re:If they want a lasting legacy... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only if more people vote for the union than vote against it. That's what elections mean, whether the votes are cast by checking a card or by raising a hand or by super-secret, computer-tallied, proprietary Sequoia machines.

      Except if you make me raise my hand in front of my co-workers and boss I'm potentially subject to intimidation and coercion by either side. Tell me, why are the Union folks so eager to see the elimination of the secret ballot?

      People who like to spread FUD about unions and organized labor generally really ought to take a look at how organized labor was instrumental in creating a prosperous middle class in America who could count out safe working conditions and reasonable working hours.

      And people who drink the Union kool-aid really ought to look a hard look at the downsides of organized labor. Tell me, would you rather work somewhere that rewards you for competence or somewhere that rewards you based on seniority? Guess which system is more likely under the unionized shop?

      Unions were necessary back in the day. Anybody who has ever taken a tour of an old coal mine and seen the working conditions those poor bastards worked under can attest to that. The problem is that many of the Unions ceased to be about the workers a long time ago. Now they are all about protecting the institution and expanding it's power and reach. This tends to happen with most organizations after awhile and is one of the many reasons why I'm skeptical of unions.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:If they want a lasting legacy... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why not just have the government hire, as regular employees, the technical staff to meet its ongoing technical needs so you also in-source the work itself rather than just the management of the work.

      Because it's really hard to lay off government employees when they are no longer needed.

      I think you missed the phrase "ongoing technical needs", and, additionally, have failed to consider that the overall technical staff needs of a very large organization (like the government) may be far less variable than the technical staffing needs of individual units of such an organization.

      Also, as far as dealing with "surge" needs, its really not hard to shed government employees that are hired for limited-term positions -- which exist in most civil service systems, including, I believe, the federal system -- when the term of those positions expire.

  4. The most interesting tech startup... by ristonj · · Score: 5, Funny
    • They have software processes so convoluted, you need GPS navigation to make sense of them
    • They spend money on failing projects like it's going out of style
    • They once had a well managed project, just to see what it felt like

    Quite simply, the Federal Government is....The Most Interesting Tech Startup in the World!

  5. Kundra's Credentials by colsandurz45 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kundra is at worst a fraud and at best someone who is clueless. Listen to some of the things this guy says. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/

  6. In a word . . . by PapaSmurph · · Score: 2, Informative

    No.

  7. No, it's the not-a-startup-iest "startup". by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought the defining features of a startup were being small and not having any money.

    1. Re:No, it's the not-a-startup-iest "startup". by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea it's like calling Microsoft the most recent Video Game Console start-up.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  8. Re:Is the writer on the Government payroll? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Informative

    No company in their right mind would pay 18 million for a website. There are many many websites that get more page views are were made for much less. To consider that website a success is a joke.

    This was discussed to death the first time this information was posted on Slashdot...

    But it isn't like they paid 18 million for a single, static page. From the original link:

    The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

    Roughly $27.5 million over five-ish years is $5.5 million a year. Consider they're paying for servers, electricity, bandwidth, data processing, updates... That doesn't seem like a huge amount to me.

    It's a lot of money, sure. But it isn't like someone went out and spent $18 million to shine up their Facebook page, which is what some people would lead you to believe.

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  9. Re:Is the writer on the Government payroll? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Informative

    Roughly $27.5 million over five-ish years is $5.5 million a year. Consider they're paying for servers, electricity, bandwidth, data processing, updates... That doesn't seem like a huge amount to me.

    Is that $27M total, or $18M total of which $9M is this year?

    Assuming the lower amount, that comes to, what, maybe 15-25 people full-time plus $4M of initial expenses (hardware and executive/sales bonuses, I guess)?

  10. Re:ha interesting... very funny by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm heading back to private industry where were driven by profit or efficiency. Find the problem own the problem fix the problem. Not find the problem sit in two and half years of meetings discussing the problem and one day we can actually devote some funds to fixing the problem... 3-4 years later.

    There's companies out there like that? Every one I've ever worked at has been find the problem, pass the buck, blame others, pass again, hire an outside consultant too much to fix the problem, let him do a half assed job, declare success, give the manager in charge a bonus. Private is no better than government, government just has more due to scale and gets more publicity on their problems.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  11. Re:Do NOT work for the government by cptdondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you ever thought of what would happen without government? Lessee... The government runs the vast majority of water and sewer plants. No clean water to drink. Raw sewage in our rivers and lakes. The government controls the airways. Do you really want anarchy in the skies when you fly? The government builds virtually all of the roads in the US. Want to go back to the days of the toll roads of the last century? (Do some historical research first.) The government mandates most of the safety features on cars. Want to go back to the death traps of 1950s cars? The government provides fire fighting, EMS, and police protection. Read up on what used to happen when firefighters were private. So please, think before you drink any more Rush koolaid, OK? "Starving the beast" makes great rhetoric, but it's downright dumb as an idea and a way to live.

  12. Why the hell was the parent funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spending $18,000,000.00 of my money is funny!?

    1. Re:Why the hell was the parent funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your money? Some of that was mine, asshole!

  13. "Startup"? No. by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the Federal Government the Most Interesting Tech Startup For 2009?

    No, its not. The US Federal Government has been in business continuously since the late 18th Century. Its not, by any sane standard, a startup.

    It remains, as it has been for the whole time compting has existed, one of the biggest customers for (and funders of) new computing technology, and any major initiatives it has in that area will have potentially wide-ranging impact on the industry, but an established institution engaging in one or more new technology initiatives is a different beast than a tech startup.

  14. Re:Is the writer on the Government payroll? by chrb · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well it all depends on what you mean by "web site" - $18 million is cheap for some web sites. I have worked on an internal web site for a medium size company (few thousand employees globally) and the development costs ran to over $1 million. For the amount of work that went into it, that was a pretty good deal. It's not just html pages these days - when you have developers spending several years writing, refining, and maintaining complex backends with custom databases, a few million $s begins to look cheap.

  15. realistically by recharged95 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The words Tech + Startup ==

    initially:
    • lots of $$$ lunches, free snacks and food.
    • corporate apartment, likely in Dupont circle
    • salaries 15% above the going average.
    • good looking receptionists, marketing folks
    • long hours........ with 3hrs of playing MMORPs intermingled
    • business development racking up huge travel costs.
    • everyone gets to go/participate in a tech convention (with usual partying with booth babes)

    AND in the end:

    • company runs out of cash
    • pissed investors
    • revolving door of Wharton, HBS, Kellogg, Columbia MBAs acting as CEO/CXXs
    • vaporware and a lot of bugs
    • software no customer wants or it out of date from delays
    • worthless options
    • jobs that are really boring
    • weight gain

    Gov't the new tech startup? This is looking bad. Really bad.

  16. Re:Do NOT work for the government by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also labor laws that keep your employer from killing you for the sake of money; environmental laws - before the EPA you could NOT drive past Monsanto in Sauget with the windows down, even in 100 degree heat and no AC; government is there to write and enforce laws that protect me from you.

    Anyone should be able to see from the Bush/Cheney years what happens when you have people who think government is always the problem running the government.

    Good job, Brownie.

  17. Re:Do NOT work for the government by oneirophrenos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah yes. It's not so much the government that is the problem, it's those who run the government...

  18. Re:Do NOT work for the government by cptdondo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Free flight" over the Pacific is one thing. Do you really want to free flight at, say, O'Hare? As for the fire departments, even volunteer fire departments have to comply with standards, and only the firefighters are volunteers. The facility, engines, and training are likely paid for by taxes. I don't know of a single FD that is run out of someone's living room, using private vehicles. I don't believe the gov't is the answer to all our problems, just as I don't believe it is the source of all problems. Government does certain things very, very well, and others poorly. Just like private industry. I refuse the neocon mantra that all government is a cesspool of waste and private industry is always the knight in shining armor.

  19. The Irony by dangitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Kundra is at worst a fraud and at best someone who is clueless.

    And you attempt to demonstrate this by linking to well-known clueless fraud, John C. Dvorak? Excuse me while my head explodes.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:The Irony by koiransuklaa · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're the clueless one here, so look it up. The guy is a joke. He makes wild ass predictions that mostly have no basis in reality (like Sun and Apple merging) and complains about technical details he obviously doesn't understand. Examples of the latter include complaining about "the idle process" taking 95% of his CPU and slowing down his computer, as well as stating that website SEO is useless (because when he changed _all_ his sites page names to SEO friendlier ones, his traffic dropped. No, he didn't know about 301, all the old addresses just 404'd).

      Basically, reading Dvorak is like listening to your dad complain about something he thinks he understands, but doesn't really. Except fathers usually don't troll like mr Dvorak does.