Slashdot Mirror


Arlington National Cemetery's Many IT Flaws

imac.usr writes "A story in today's Washington Post calls to light the utter failure of the nation's most sacred final resting place to modernize its pen-and-paper record system. According to the story, the cemetery's administrators have spent $5 million without managing to accomplish the seemingly simple task of creating a database record of the site's graves. As Virginia senator Mark Warner points out, 'We are one fire, or one flood, or one spilled Starbucks coffee away from some of those records being lost or spoiled.'"

10 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. $5 million is a good deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government gets huge economies of scale. That's why we should have them in charge of the health care system. Clearly we will be able to save substantially more money than the private sector once the profit motive has been removed.

  2. How Sad... by Maximus633 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For all of our soldiers who have earned the right to be buried there and we can't even get a decent IT system in place to help people or keep such important records.

    To our Fallen Hero's.... I am sorry.

    I do think it is time that companies and even people stop being so damn greedy and do their jobs. Granted we may not have the insight as to what is happening directly but I am left to wonder who is asleep at the controls on this one. We have private sector people doing jobs that are comparable size to this job and I am sure 5 million dollars would have paid for their time and a mojito and Starbucks coffee whenever they wanted it. I think it is time to disband our Government and reform with people that a hell of a lot more honest then some of the guys we have in there now. Sorry to make this political but the fact remains that someone is not doing their job. Any person's loved ones are important to them but a person who defended our rights and country (regardless if the war is right or wrong to which those that feel it is wrong it is time to bitch at the civilian leaders case and point would be the recent Gen. McCrystal deal.) and we can't honor them with keeping accurate records and spending money WISELY when it comes to their final resting place. Sad...

    1. Re:How Sad... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The management at Arlington appears to have been too old. Computer literacy should be required of all Federal job holders and they should be shitcanned if they cannot adapt.

      Hold them to the standards expected of the military, which is to do your job or suffer appropriate punishment.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:How Sad... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know.. Some of those records are over a hundred years old. I dare you to show me any kind of electronic record from more than 30 years ago. Go ahead, I'll wait while you try to find a reel to reel, and a system to use it.

      To modernize they need to re-enter everything, then ensure that backups are carefully followed, then they have to replace all the technology every few years, and pay support. Then they have to convert the data when new format/versions come out. That is a ton of Money and Time.

      A Vet teacher had a sign on a door that pretty much summed up the Marine Corps feelings on Technology.
      A computer with a bullet hole in it is a paperweight. A map with a bullet hole is still a map.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    3. Re:How Sad... by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A computer with an offsite backup still preserves data when the building is bombed, burned down, flooded, or otherwise destroyed. A map in such a building will be gone forever. Sayonara, data. Your Vet teacher and apparently the entire Marine Corps have it wrong.

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    4. Re:How Sad... by nametaken · · Score: 3, Insightful

      C'mon people, this is pretty straightforward. These are two very different things, and both are best for their jobs.

      A map is more useful to someone trudging around in the sandbox with 80lbs of gear because it's lighter, the battery isn't going to die, it isn't going to break if you leave it in your pocket and it's invulnerable to software bugs or fried parts. Also, you can hand it to anyone else with basic map reading skills without the added encumbrance of old-timers that don't want your newfangled doohickey.

      A large data management task at an office somewhere is obviously is a job for databases and offsite backups. Paper records should still be kept in some vault somewhere to preserve them, but employees, guests, etc. should be working with a database almost exclusively.

  3. Re:That's All? by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And there are already systems available that can manage cemeteries so why not purchase one?

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  4. Re:Should be a fairly simple project. by KarrdeSW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might not be within the strictest interpretation of their (NA's) charter, but I think its certainly within the spirit of their mission.

    THIS does not happen enough in the Federal Government. 95% of the time when an agency is in need of a skillset that is outside its purview (or sometimes within its purview, but present in a different department), it contracts it out to some third party vendor with questionable skills and typically high prices. Every federal agency should be ready to consult for other agencies when its primary skills are in need, but it almost never happens that way.

  5. Re:Accountability 5 million is nothing by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where's accountability when 5 million gets spent and nobody can even make something as simple as a SPREADSHEET?

    Clearly you don't work in or understand IT. First there have to be meetings. Lots and lots of meetings. First at management level to initiate the project. Then detailed meetings to set up staffing and outline goals. Then middle management needs to be appointed (more meetings) so that they can flesh out those goals in more detail (more meetings). Of course this is after HR recruits the middle management. The middle management goes through the same process to recruit actual staff. Then management meets with staff that provide feedback on those tasks "No I'm sorry you can't magically walk around with a laptop and scanner and have it absorb names off the gravestones. No there's no technology to do that on the horizon". Then middle management needs to report back to senior management (did I mention meetings?) and senior management needs to meet separately to decide what it means to the project. At this point all those discussions will get confusing so will need to be summarised and corrected. Only now can we start to see a plan coming into being (drafted by middle management, approved by senior management. You guessed it more meetings). At this point work may commence but if it is it will typically be halted by a new priority/requirement being pulled out of senior management's rectum^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ahem I mean coming to light. This will totally screw up every agreement made about the direction and even nature of the work, which will require more meetings at all levels to sort out.

    Oh and don't be fooled this happens in industry as well as government. Privitising just adds another layer to all this mess and provides another opportunity for waste each time someone changes their mind or adds an unreasonable or ill thought through requirement.

    $5 million is nothing. The fact that an intelligent 6th grader could do better is by the by. it's not how the world works.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  6. Irrelevant quotation by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'We are one fire, or one flood, or one spilled Starbucks coffee away from some of those records being lost or spoiled.'

    This is not an IT problem. This is a basic information storage problem dealing with backup procedure. If you're a major organization and you don't have copies of your records, whether paper copies, microfiche copies (which seems to be the case here), or electronic ones, you're vulnerable.

    Similarly, IT doesn't necessarily solve this problem. If you digitize all the records to a single server and don't make proper backups, you could still be one fire or flood (or even a coffee) away from losing the records.

    (Btw, I do realize that original paper records may have some value as historical artifacts themselves. But those should be in an archive somewhere protected from floods, fires, and errant cups of coffee, while people accessing these records on a daily basis should be using copies, whether digital or microfiche or whatever.)