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.

24 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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?
    7. 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.

  2. 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 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.
  3. 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!

  4. 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/

  5. 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
  6. 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?
  7. 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.

  8. "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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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...