Slashdot Mirror


US Requirement For Software Dev Certification Raises Questions

dcblogs writes "U.S. government contracts often require bidders to have achieved some level of Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). CMMI arose some 25 years ago via the backing of the Department of Defense and the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. It operated as a federally funded research and development center until a year ago, when CMMI's product responsibility was shifted to a private, profit-making LLC, the CMMI Institute. The Institute is now owned by Carnegie Mellon. Given that the CMMI Institute is now a self-supporting firm, any requirement that companies be certified by it — and spend the money needed to do so — raises a natural question. 'Why is the government mandating that you support a for-profit company?' said Henry Friedman, the CEO of IR Technologies, a company that develops logistics defense related software and uses CMMI. The value of a certification is subject to debate. To what extent does a CMMI certification determine a successful project outcome? CGI Federal, the lead contractor at Healthcare.gov, is a veritable black belt in software development. In 2012, it achieved the highest possible Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) level for development certification, only the 10th company in the U.S. to do so."

228 comments

  1. So that's what the model is based on by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Why is the government mandating that you support a for-profit company?"

    Works for Obamacare.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So that's what the model is based on by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. The Supreme Court already ruled you can be forced to contract with a private company for many different things. That cat is out of the bag.
      Expect more of this in the future.

      As for certifications, like virtually all of them, this one (CMMI) is totally useless in assuring quality.
       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the ACA dictates exactly what company you have to spend money on.

      Also, the fact that your post says 'score:4 insightful' at the moment shows that the intelligence of the average slashdot reader has gone down massively since the last time I bothered logging on here.
      Congrats to the readers here for showing that people going completely off topic is exactly how to get a high rating.

    3. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Informative

      As for certifications, like virtually all of them, this one (CMMI) is totally useless in assuring quality.

      Proof:

      CGI Federal, the lead contractor at Healthcare.gov, is a veritable black belt in software development. In 2012, it achieved the highest possible Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) level for development certification, only the 10th company in the U.S. to do so.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    4. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And homeowners insurance, and fire insurance, and auto insurance, and tollways that have been sold to a private company, and zoning regulations that prevent you from growing your own food. The article asks about forcing people to support a *particular* private company, which is different from all of these (the PPACA included, known by people who watch too much shitty news television as "Obamacare").

    5. Re:So that's what the model is based on by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      'Why is the government mandating that you support a for-profit company?"

      Works for Obamacare.

      OK, point taken, but it's a lot more common than that, making the question seem naive. The government also requires you to have non-bald tires on your car, car insurance, wear clothing when you're out in public, and a hundred other things that you get from for-profit companies. And, trust me, you wouldn't enjoy a society in which everything mandated by the government was actually produced by the government.

      Of course, the core issue is whether CMMI does what it's supposed to. I have no idea, but will note that governments tend to love all sorts of mandatory "certification," despite their often spotty track record and the negative economic consequences.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    6. Re:So that's what the model is based on by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      'Why is the government mandating that you support a for-profit company?"

      As well as the entire "defense" industry. And not entirely but still significantly the telecommunications, railroad, oil / natural gas, agriculture, airline, shipping, automobile, pharmaceutical, medical device, and finance industries. And I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch.

      I mean, why do you think big companies pay big bucks for lobbyists and campaign contributions?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Desler · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The Supreme Court already ruled you can be forced to contract with a private company for many different things. That cat is out of the bag.
      Expect more of this in the future.

      More? Or did you miss that pretty much every state requires you to hold at least liability insurance to get a drivers' license? And that certainly isn't even the only case before ACA.

    8. Re:So that's what the model is based on by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Works for Obamacare.

      There is a difference between a mandate to buy something when there are competing suppliers of the product and a mandate to buy something from a single for-profit supplier.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all of those are optional. You don't *have* to own a car. you don't *have* to buy a house with a zoning rule, etc. With obamacare, they've essentially made it illegal to be alive without handing money over to a private corp.

    10. Re:So that's what the model is based on by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can choose not to have a driver's license.
      You get fined for not having health insurance.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Desler · · Score: 1

      Illegal? No. You are simply taxed more if you don't. The only time you reach "illegality" is if you fail to pay your taxes.

    12. Re:So that's what the model is based on by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question in the summary left out an important word:

      "Why is the government mandating that you support a [particular] for-profit company?"

      This would be a lot less of an issue if the company in question didn't have a monopoly on providing the required certification.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:So that's what the model is based on by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      The difference being that the government does not require that you purchase non-bald tyres, car insurance, or clothing from a particular (monopoly) retailer.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    14. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      As for certifications, like virtually all of them, this one (CMMI) is totally useless in assuring quality.

      Yeah, that CMMI stuff is old hat for waterfallers, but don't worry, by 2038, the government will have updated its requirements to mandate that all projects shall be conducted using Agile(tm) methods under the direction of a Certified Scrum Master(tm).

    15. Re:So that's what the model is based on by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There was a social contract your Obama support ilk changed the rules and just expect the rest of use to go along with your tyrannical theft of the freedom we thought we had. Its you people that should get the hell out, go build your workers paradise somewhere else; write back with how well it works out for you.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    16. Re:So that's what the model is based on by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 2

      Just like you don't have to enter an airport. Therefore, when you do enter an airport, you consent to being molested by the TSA.

      Sorry, but I don't buy that sort of logic.

    17. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of curiosity, what state are you from?

    18. Re: So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet if you face a life threatening illness and you don't have insurance the hospital can not refuse treatment because you can't pay them.

    19. Re:So that's what the model is based on by ewieling · · Score: 1

      It also works for car insurance. Car insurance and health insurance require you purchase a product from a variety of companies. With CMMI requirements you can only purchase the product from a single company.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    20. Re:So that's what the model is based on by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      "Why is the government mandating that you support a [particular] for-profit company?"

      This would be a lot less of an issue if the company in question didn't have a monopoly on providing the required certification.

      Actually, government has done it a lot of times. Education is huge - you may have heard of stuff like the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the SATs, GMATs, and other degrees? Do you know that the Educational Testing Services (ETS) which provides those tests also own some rather fancy hotels and other things?

      You know why? They're non-profit, and every student is subject to those tests - either paid for by the state (ITBS, among other tests that elementary students take), or the student (SATs, etc). And each test is expensive, despite being well, evaluated by a bunch of fancy Scantron machines. So much so ETS makes a pile of money every year they have to spend (as they can't make a profit - "non-profit") thus ending up owning a pile of hotels and other stuff.

      Standardized testing - now there's a profitable market that's really owned by one company.

      At least with software development, you can opt out of CMMI and just not do government contracts. Or you can be "the only one in your field" and be exempt from regulations because your product serves a niche - if the government needs your software, they aren't going to demand CMMI from you - they'll just request it.

    21. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Desler · · Score: 1

      Just to add, I love how I've both been called an Obama lover when I don't froth at the mouth over every libertardian anti-Obama talking point or criticize Dubya and at the same time I've been called a Dubya lover for all the criticisms of Obama I've made.

      Seems like today I've been labeled the former. I await to amusingly be called the latter again in the future.

    22. Re:So that's what the model is based on by s.petry · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly. The Supreme Court already ruled you can be forced to contract with a private company for many different things. That cat is out of the bag. Expect more of this in the future.

      More? Or did you miss that pretty much every state requires you to hold at least liability insurance to get a drivers' license? And that certainly isn't even the only case before ACA.

      What? What planet are you living on? There is no insurance requirement to get a drivers license, and no requirement for a drivers license for that matter. Most states will require you to have insurance in order to register your car, but that is not the same thing as having Drivers License or State ID.

      Care to retract your fabrication and start over?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    23. Re:So that's what the model is based on by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

      Yay! I could be completely free only if I was homeless and unemployed! USA! USA! USA!

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    24. Re:So that's what the model is based on by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      What monopoly are we talking about? If we're talking about health care, the cost monopoloy is always $WHATEVER_YOUR_EMPLOYER_GETS_YOU. It's pretty much never cheaper than that.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    25. Re:So that's what the model is based on by ClioCJS · · Score: 0

      Contracts require agreement by both parties, with one being of legal age to enter a contract. The social contract is a made-up concept... Strange, though, I usually only hear mention of it FROM Obamacons.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    26. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing with insurance (including Obamacare) is that you can choose from a bunch of companies which are mandated to compete for your business. Sure its a captive market, but they can and do compete.

      The only case like this I can think of would be for an attorney that wants to practice law he must be certified by a state bar association which is technically a private entity. It is a non profit, but still private as far as I know. The state medical boards that certify doctors are public entities.

    27. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Desler · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing "social contract" with "social justice". Social contract is a 17th century Enlightenment concept. It has little to do with Obama or his supporters.

    28. Re:So that's what the model is based on by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      auto insurance is mandatory in all states, isn't it?

      if you get hit, your insurance company will pay instead of you having to track down the person who hit you.

      do you want to fight that idea, too? sure, there are people who drive uninsured, but most people don't 'fight the system' and they do buy car insurance. and its always by a private for-profit company, too.

      how is the dreaded obamacare so different? we 'force' car insurance on every driver; why is it so wrong to force everyone who is of age to partake in the shared risk program we call 'health insurance'? I don't get the objection to that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    29. Re:So that's what the model is based on by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The government also requires you to have non-bald tires on your car,

      If you own a car, which is NOT mandatory.

      car insurance,

      If you own a car, which is NOT mandatory.

      wear clothing when you're out in public,

      Unless you live in a nudist colony. And even if you don't, the government doesn't require you to go out in public.

      and a hundred other things that you get from for-profit companies.

      Thing is, the ACA is the first time since FDR was King that the Feds have required you to buy something from a private company if you are alive.

      Used to be their requirements were a matter of "If you want this option in life, you have to pay this company for the privilege". Now it's "if you're breathing, you have to pay this company for the privilege".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    30. Re:So that's what the model is based on by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I am not confusing anything for anything. I was talking about what I was talking about.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    31. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the intelligence of the average slashdot reader has gone down massively since the last time I bothered logging on here.

      Says the man (and we all know you are a man) who cannot even figure out how to log in.

      If you can't figure out the tie between the two topics I would say the average level of discourse has gone substantially UP since you last managed to figure out how to log in. It seems to be too abstract a concept for you at any rate.

    32. Re:So that's what the model is based on by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      The majority voted for something you don't like. Cry me a river, it happens all the time. I didn't like GWB but you didn't see me running around telling jack asses like you to leave the country because you voted for the son of the bitch.

      Either you support democracy or you don't.

    33. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a big difference between " a for-profit company" and " this specific for-profit company". Even as someone who wasn't a fan of Obamacare, I can appreciate that mandating that everyone procure insurance from a company of their choice from among a wide selection of companies who are all competing against each other for your money is one thing, and that mandating that everyone get certified by the one and only company that the government has declared we must use and who has effectively been granted a monopoly by the government is something else entirely.

    34. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Been a while since I worked for a company that cared about the CMMI (UPS back in '96 or so) but IIRC a company can not reach the highest level of CMMI. Only project teams can reach it. So just because CGI Federal had a project team with the highest level of CMMI doesn't mean that was the team working on Healthcare.gov.

      I also remember in my CMM training that they taught us that the highest level of CMMI (5 I think) should be reserved for things that essentially affect people's lives (medical equipment software, nuclear power plant software, etc...) and trying to reach anything past level 3 introduced inefficiencies in the development cycle that were unwarranted expenses to most software development.

      But I agree with your overall point, CMMI certification is a waste of time and money.

    35. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 0

      'Why is the government mandating that you support a for-profit company?"

      Works for Obamacare.

      And the DMV for many states.

    36. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not really on topic, but the original form of Obama care allowed people to buy insurance from the government, it's the republicans that required that that be dropped, and that people be required to buy from a for-profit company.

    37. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So only obama supporters talk about a concept dating back to at least the 18th century (note to the GP: if a year not ending in 00 start with 17, it's the 18th century not the 17th). See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_contrat_social

    38. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Either you support democracy or you don't.

      So is genocide OK in your mind as long as a majority of voters vote for it?

    39. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I live next door to tens of millions of people who don't have a driver's license (or liability insurance): they live in NYC.

      What is it with morons like the OP who trot out the liability insurance thing every time this comes up? Lots of people don't have cars.

    40. Re:So that's what the model is based on by jayveekay · · Score: 2

      The government does not compel you to drive.
      The government does compel caregivers to provide health care to you.

    41. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      auto insurance is mandatory in all states, isn't it?

      No, it's not. Come over here to Manhattan and ask some people on the street if they have auto insurance.

      Are you really that stupid?

    42. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No one is required to own a car or drive. Clothing is the only thing the government actually requires you to purchase, and that's pretty hard to get around in most places anyway because you'll get hypothermia if you're outside for too long without it, at least during some parts of the year.

    43. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The Supreme Court already ruled you can be forced to contract with a private company for many different things. That cat is out of the bag.
      Expect more of this in the future.

      More? Or did you miss that pretty much every state requires you to hold at least liability insurance to get a drivers' license? And that certainly isn't even the only case before ACA.

      No state requires that to get a license. Owning and operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a whole 'nother story..

    44. Re:So that's what the model is based on by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      If you are comparing genocide to obamacare you are an idiot. If you are trying to make a rhetorical argument by arguing the same you're an even bigger idiot.

    45. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you're not forced to have auto insurance since you're not forced to drive. ACA doesn't give a person the right to decide.
       
      NEXT!

    46. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for other states, but in California, you must be insured. That does not mean you must be insured by a company. You are legally able to insure yourself. Most people don't do that because it means having 10's of thousands of dollars locked up, but it is legal.

    47. Re:So that's what the model is based on by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      You generally need insurance to operate a vehicle on a public road, not to get a license.

      That aside, you don't need auto insurance in New Hampshire, which is still a state, last I checked. The state calls for its motorists to be responsible. Is responsibility non-existent in the other states? NH has plenty of other similar types of freedoms. No helmet required on motorcycles or bicycles for adults. No seatbelt requirement for adults. The state runs liquor stores right on the highways. Non-felons can open carry, no permit required. Despite all this, the state continues to be a fine place to live. No mass-hysteria.

      The government doesn't exist to run people's lives for them, or to protect them from themselves. To me, the right to make bad decisions is a hallmark of freedom.

    48. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a tax. You'll also find that it's illegal to be alive and make money without paying income taxes. If you have zero income, you won't pay the tax on having no health insurance, just like you won't pay any income tax. In fact, the government will likely end up giving you money in both cases.

    49. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what if I don't?

    50. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you; nobody is "getting out" just because you're hell-bent on letting people die die of treatable diseases as part of your social contract. Your president, legal system, and Supreme Court upheld the law and it was passed via the democratic process that you support. You lose; suck shit and deal.

    51. Re:So that's what the model is based on by rnturn · · Score: 1

      ``Of course, the core issue is whether CMMI does what it's supposed to. I have no idea, but will note that governments tend to love all sorts of mandatory "certification,"..

      Q: Does the CMMI certification require that all individuals that work on projects have some kind of certification? It's one thing for an organization to be certified but if they use that certification to win a contract but then staff it with a bunch of grunts that aren't capable of producing a usable product then there's a serious problem. I have no idea if this is what happened with CGI and the ACA web site but, obviously, something went seriously awry with the process. It wouldn't be the first time a company used their ace team to win a contract only to bring in green staffers to perform the work (and perform badly) after the first few weeks.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    52. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is, the ACA is the first time since FDR was King that the Feds have required you to buy something from a private company if you are alive.

      That's my problem with the whole thing. I have no problem with nationalised health care, and initially was pleased that the US was finally going that route...until it turned into what we got. Nationalised health care should have been a death knell for private insurance companies, not a way to prop them up indefinitely with no alternatives. Now, everybody is being forced to line their pockets or be fined like petty criminals for not doing so.

    53. Re: So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A: Pretty sure the answer is no. I am a software engineer and have worked several projects for the government, and the company I work for has the CMMI cert. I do not have any "software" or IT certs of any kind (beyond a CS degree). I suspect this is the kind of cert gained by showing documentation about your development process (at a systems level?), and not the kind of cert that demands you follow said documentation.

    54. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also outlawed posting with awful grammar and run-on sentences. You have exceeded your permitted tired cliche quota for this month. Please liquidate all your assets and bring them to the nearest FEMA concentration camp for rendering and re-education.

    55. Re:So that's what the model is based on by neglogic · · Score: 1

      State vs federal rights - car insurance is irrelevant to health insurance. Learn about federalism some time.

    56. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it was a great idea. The idea that insurance cannot refuse anyone for pre-existing conditions and have to price insurance to actually cover the masses actually fixes a whole host of issues with the way it used to be. Just read about people that have been trying to buy insurance or too scared to use what they had bought due to pre-existing conditions clauses. I don't much care for the rest of the law, but this one facet made it bearable.

      The argument that you are no longer free to freeload doesn't bother me. Yep - if you didn't have insurance, you're a free-loader, unless you could self-insure (in which case you didn't care about this law in the first place) Why? Because you fell off the curb and hit your head, resulting in a few hundred grand of hospital care while you're in a coma, or anything like it. i.e, accidents you are at fault for, or no one is, and yet you will still expect to get care. Insurance covers that percentage.

    57. Re: So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you wanted the economy fixed, you should tell the House majority which has prevented it and failed to prosecute those who broke it.

      Where is our trial for the criminals who created mortgage scams?

    58. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You kid, but agile as a buzzword is definitely in the public sector, and by extension private companies who are contracted for public sector work, and SCRUM seems to be the one everyone latches on to (why in gods name I don't know).

      It's not pretty. You end up with:
      - Mangers on the government side that basically want exactly what they've always had, but "more agile"
      - Managers on the private side that mostly fall in the same boat
      - Older developers who think it's all bullshit
      - Younger developers who knows it's all bullshit
      - Testers that jump on board and completely fail to get it
      - This AC who has been living this nightmare for like 3 years now. Help me.. please :(

    59. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's disproving your argument by proposing a situation where it is false. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction ) Namely, he is proving that it is possible to support some (or even most) democratic decisions without supporting all of them dogmatically.

    60. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can choose to live. The alternative is illegal in almost every state however.

    61. Re:So that's what the model is based on by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's utter bullshit, and you know it. If the government tells you to do something, and you don't do it, and they make you pay money for not doing it, that's "punitive" by definition.

      Support it or don't, but I think there's entirely enough intellectual dishonesty on both sides already without the ostensibly "intelligent" people ("News for Nerds") adding more of it.

    62. Re:So that's what the model is based on by OhPlz · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It passed by democratic process only if you're good with the "tyranny of the majority". Not one vote from the opposing party? That's not a beautiful rendition of democracy. Democracy should promote compromise. Even Mitt Romney managed to get votes from both parties (his party was in the minority) for his health care reform when he was governor of Massachusetts.

      The Supreme Court had to shit all over the Constitution to allow the law to stand. This was the "it's-a-fee, no it's-a-tax" argument. It reminds me of arguments made to uphold the "legality" of sobriety checkpoints. They were ultimately allowed, but the dissent was quite right that they were a violation of the 4th amendment. These types of legal shenanigans do not do our nation justice.

      When the opposing party regains enough control, there's guaranteed to be major changes to the AHA, if not an outright repeal. Is that really what everyone wants for their democracy? Law shouldn't be interpreted or upheld with preference to the party that is in power. Powerful laws like this should be written to pass the test of time, not to just ride out the immediate election cycle.
       

    63. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you have any dislikes in food?"
      "No, I eat everything"
      "So, you say you'd eat broken glass?"
      "Wait, what?"
      "Proof-by-contradiction'd, bitch!"

      Seriously, this kind of uber-literalism and meaningless pedantism is one of worst social life inhibitors for geeks. Don't be that guy.

    64. Re:So that's what the model is based on by khallow · · Score: 0

      You forgot the other class of freeloaders. People who have pre-existing health conditions and expect other people who don't have pre-existing health conditions to pay for their health care. It turns health insurance into pay-as-you-go health care, but it is viable only as long as enough low cost insurees are paying in.

    65. Re: So that's what the model is based on by khallow · · Score: 0

      If you wanted the economy fixed, you should tell the House majority which has prevented it and failed to prosecute those who broke it.

      Why go through the motions of impeaching Obama? It won't get past the Senate.

    66. Re:So that's what the model is based on by OhPlz · · Score: 0

      Wow, and that qualifies as flamebait? Good grief. So laws should be contorted to fit the whims of the ruling party? Seriously?

    67. Re:So that's what the model is based on by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's some pretty harsh fucking judgment you have there.

      Way to blame the victims.

      The whole point to insurance is spreading the risk. Somebody is going to get sick at some time. I do have pre-existing health conditions, and guess what? CANCER IS A PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITION YOU JERK.

      So don't speak down to me.

      I'm fully willing to help pay for my share of the risk. However, you need to face one simple fact:

      THERE IS NO WAY ON GODS FUCKING GREEN EARTH THAT ONCE SOMEBODY HAS SOMETHING HAPPEN TO THEM THAT THEY CAN AFFORD THEIR HEALTH.

      How many good people (in your estimation apparently) were paying contributors, only to get really sick, and then go bankrupt due to medical debt? Even when they had insurance? How about afterwards if they survived the crippling debt? Everybody is a walking pre-existing condition at some point. Get over it and stop blaming the victims for getting sick, and for sure, stop punishing them.

      Getting sick doesn't just ruin your health (and possibly kill you) it completely guts and destroys you financially.

      So before you go calling me a freeloader again buddy....

      1) FIX THE FUCKING ECONOMY. I'll pay for my insurance, but dammit, you have got meet me halfway. You can't demand something and then refuse to give people the ability to do it.
      2) FIX THE FUCKING MEDICAL INDUSTRIES. The reason why I can go under, lose my houses, go bankrupt, is because a medical operation can actually cost a million dollars. That's beyond ridiculous.
      3) TAKE PROFIT OUT OF THE FUCKING EQUATION. This is a big one. If you want to force it on everybody, than you need, NEED, ABSOLUTELY NEED, to reduce the costs and make it as efficiently as possible.

      I've seen those stats. The US spends many times more person for health care and actually receives less than 80% of the same benefit that other Western countries do. That's with nearly 5 times more money being expended!!!

      Here is what you don't understand, and neither does that other asshole.

      YOU CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH CARE IN THE US.

      There. The Truth.

      Minimum wage does not even begin to cover basic living costs, and health insurance companies fuck you at every turn.

      You ever hear that saying you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip? Same thing here. You can't demand that the working poor pay for health insurance when the middle class can barely afford anything either.

      I know young people that turned down medical insurance because they could not afford their half. You seem to want to drag them through the mud for it.

      That's great. When it comes to deciding which one of the absolute necessities needing to be sacrificed for that health insurance, are you going to do it? Are you going to tell them that they need to go hungry for a few days? Have the power shut off to their overpriced apartments/shacks? Lose their vehicle so they can still spend over a hundred a month taking the bus?

      That last one surprised the hell out of me. I moved from a much smaller place back to a city after giving up my car. Biked to work for a year or two. The actual costs of bus fare were $4 PER DAY. That's $120 per month. Take that out of minimum wage and push their faces in the dirt huh?

      You just don't get it. You can force it all you want upon me and others that are on hard times. Unless you fix the fucking economy I will never have the money to survive, and if you penalize me in the coming years by absorbing my tax refund, you only push me under slowly.

      So pass your fucking Obamacare and shove it down our throats. Not saying it doesn't have benefits. For Christ's sake, at least have the fucking decency to hike up minimum wage the amount needed to pay an average insurance policy.

    68. Re:So that's what the model is based on by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      You don't get to choose to not pay taxes either, including SS tax. So what's your point? There's nothing about the ACA that makes it other than a dedicated tax. If we had done this with Social Security, it might not be facing these issues 20 years from now.

      The problem is that people spend taxpayer money because they're not insured, because insurance companies won't insure them for anything like a reasonable rate or b/c of preexisting conditions. People show up in emergency rooms with acute conditions that are 1000'x as expensive to treat as the ounce of prevention they couldn't afford and we all pay for it.

      One REAL logical entailment of your "plan" is to deny everyone even acute emergency care unless they can pay for it. Oh but that's too much like just outright killing poor people.

      When your "plan" leads you to the plot of a movie as ham-fisted and brutish as the movie Elysium , maybe that's a signal that you need to rethink your premise.

    69. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get fined for not having health insurance.

      No, you do not.
      They raised your taxes to help cover the costs of Obama/Romney Care. If you have health insurance, you get a tax break.

      While it may appear to be the same thing, it's not. A fine is something you have to pay, regardless of your income. With it being implemented as a tax, there are a variety of situations where you could have NO health coverage and still not actually have to pay any taxes.

    70. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh that's so insightful to point out that auto insurance isn't mandatory unless you have a car.

    71. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live next to millions of people without CMMI certification. What's your point?

    72. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Carolina requires proof of insurance to get a Drivers License.

    73. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Alioth · · Score: 1

      In the two states I've lived in (North Carolina and Texas) there most certainly was a requirement to show proof of insurance when getting a driving license.

    74. Re:So that's what the model is based on by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Which way do you vote if you don't support democracy?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    75. Re:So that's what the model is based on by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Also worth mentioning, there's a difference between a state requiring you to do something and the federal government requiring you to do something.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    76. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Only project teams can reach it."

      And NOBODY cares.

      CGI was already notorious for failed large projects when it was selected for healthcare.gov. (Anybody who thinks the fact that a officer of CGI was a classmate of Michelle Obama does NOT have something to do with its selection is living in lala-land.)

      GOOD software developers, and software development organizations, almost universally oppose efforts at certification. Because the only thing it measures is bureaucracy, and the extent to which someone is willing to live with it.

      States (and Feds) are nowhere near competent enough to "certify" programmers. The very concept is a joke.

    77. Re:So that's what the model is based on by keneng · · Score: 1

      I happen to know a thing or two about losing job opportunities because of a lack of official technical credentials. Life is not fair and we all have to accept that. How we redirect our emotional energies with respect to results we get in every situation is vital. The only advice I dare say is to be hopeful, pray, be constructive and distract yourself once in a while and waste time doing things you like to do. If you're a coder than that would mean wasting time learning stuff on some cool new world-improving tech algo, or fiddling with some cool new world-improving gizmo.

      Now here is a different approach I have stumbled upon just recently about Iceland and their job situation and what they did about it:
      http://therebel.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=721143:icelanders-overthrow-government-and-rewrite-constitution-after-banking-fraud-no-word-from-us-media&catid=135:news&Itemid=1229

      Whether it's an approach that could be applied in the U.S.A. or CANADA, it could but it would require a lot of momentum to make happen.

      The first on my list of GOVERNMENT/INSTITUTION changes would be to make sure that all jobs don't require credentials, but rather a level of passion toward a particular position's subject matter. To demonstrate that passion to substantiate your application submission, I would leave that up to you.

      In the situation for a job like OBAMACARE developer, I would submit myself as a web developer and like any other developer before building any system, I would need to clarify the requirements of the system to build. In the case of obamacare, the requirements are written somewhere so I would request to see them and come back in a few weeks to state my reflections about the system. I would also recommend obamacare have it for a limitless supply of developers doing the same thing. In two weeks time, all the developers could gather round and discuss write up some clarifications, analysis plans, design plans and implementation plans all together. The government could all pay us the same fee for doing so. It could be minimum wage or not. The point is those that have the passion and those that will want to work together will stick around and those that don't will go elsewhere.
      As time goes by seniority will count for something and rewarded accordingly up to a certain acceptable threshold. As it stands the threshold should be low considering the country's situation job-wise and debt-wise. Everybody ought to have an opportunity to get out of a bad situation and help the rest of the country get out of a bad situation. With all the rules and regulations as they are protecting the old boys club, ROME will fall as it has before.

      I don't really see the light at the end of the tunnel here in Canada either, I am a programmer working as a security guard doing coding as a small-business sideline in my spare time, but I am hopeful the Canadians and Americans alike will reach their level of acceptable of tolerance and eventually turn to solutions like Iceland thought up as point of reference of a country that is in a state of recovery from a huge economic crisis.

    78. Re:So that's what the model is based on by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      Except that some areas are only served by a single insurance company. It's sad but true. Many local monopolies still exist. The barriers to entry are just too high, or the expected return is just too low for anyone else to compete.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    79. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Desler · · Score: 1

      How exactly am I forcing you to do anything? I have no power of government. Seriously, just because someone is not a mouth-frothing libertardian doesn't mean they support Obama. Maybe you should redirect your butthurt to an actual Obama supporter?

    80. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CGI was already notorious for failed large projects when it was selected for healthcare.gov. (Anybody who thinks the fact that a officer of CGI was a classmate of Michelle Obama does NOT have something to do with its selection is living in lala-land.)

      Meh, firstly I'd chalk it up to the small world effect due to the networking effects of the ivy league schools. You were bound to find a link between someone close to Obama and Kevin Bacon. It would be more impressive if you showed that the White House didn't have any connections to any other federal contractors.

      Second, doesn't the federal procurement process involve a lot of stringent bright line tests on how to award contracts (such as this CMMI business) making it difficult for the White House to push down a pick of a contractor. Of course, if you draft a piece of legislation so that when you implement it, the procurement rules result in one natural choice of the contractor, well that would be a different matter. However, the White House didn't have a direct hand in drafting the text of the legislation, so that doesn't play into your theory.

      Third, the reason why first ladies publicly maintain a focus on sappy social initiatives is because it's politically toxic for substantial policy to have originated from the spouse of the person who was elected president. Even if this officer of CGI has such an in with Michele Obama, she has no traction with anyone else in the administration to sell CGI.

    81. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the PBGC some time.

    82. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Meh, firstly I'd chalk it up to the small world effect due to the networking effects of the ivy league schools. You were bound to find a link between someone close to Obama and Kevin Bacon. It would be more impressive if you showed that the White House didn't have any connections to any other federal contractors."

      Bullshit. First, there are a LOT of ivy-league-school-associated software firms, right here in the U.S., not Canada. This isn't "6 degrees of fucking Kevin Bacon". Michelle Obama knew the person, personally. This was not a matter of competitive bids, either. If it had been, no sane person would have hired CGI. The sole thing it had going for it was that it had acquired other companies that had done U.S. government contracts. RESPONSIBLE and competent tech companies didn't want to touch it.

      "Second, doesn't the federal procurement process involve a lot of stringent bright line tests on how to award contracts (such as this CMMI business) making it difficult for the White House to push down a pick of a contractor. "

      Okay, I'll concede that the choice for contractors WAS somewhat limited... they could have chosen THIS company with a track record of failed large projects, or THAT company with a track record of failed large projects. Since the fact is that otherwise there isn't much to distinguish between them, my guess is that the Obama connection was still significant.

      "However, the White House didn't have a direct hand in drafting the text of the legislation, so that doesn't play into your theory."

      As a straw-man argument, this one would on its face seem well-crafted. But the key word here is "direct". You know damned well that ACA was the President's baby and main political objective from when he was first elected in 2008. Implying anything else is just plain dishonest, you dishonest person.

      "Third, the reason why first ladies publicly maintain a focus on sappy social initiatives is because it's politically toxic for substantial policy to have originated from the spouse of the person who was elected president."

      Hahaha! Tell that to Hillary Clinton, who drove her husband like a brain parasite with NASCAR experience. I strongly suggest you start living in the real world.

    83. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, Not really sure who you're angry at. Not saying that as a slight, because you genuinely seem to be really hurting emotionally. I don't think the Democrats are against minimum wage increases. In fact almost everything you're asking for seems right out of the Democratic book. (Not to say that Republicans don't want to fix the economy, they just are stuck on failed fiscal policies) Most of the reasons for these problems are cause by the fact that the wealthy don't want to pay into the system in ways that they did before. Under Eisenhower the wealthiest millionaires were taxed in the 90%s and people today complain if you raise above 30%. Trickle down anything doesn't work because the economy is pyramid not an inverted pyramid. In order to make it work, people like you need to have the money to grease the gears of the economy. As long as money is moving, money is being created. Right now the gears are getting creaky.

    84. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't actually expect people to pay their own medical; they expect poor people to die. That's what they want.

    85. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simple truth is that everyone has a health care incident eventually.

      In this system, that means we all die impoverished so that share holder value can be maintained.

      The rich getting richer on the premature deaths of an entire society.

      It's evil and people are in denial so far that it boggles the mind.

    86. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Cmmi is going from a federally funded entity, aka a cost center, to a profit center. Instead of bring supported by taxes it earns its own keep. And how is this bad?

      Only in the context of Obamacare. Did we not have the argument to prizatize NASA? It was terribly argued, but there were good points made. When you put it as it is in tfs, it sounds horrible. Saying it is privatized sounds way better.

      And Obamacare was poor legislation all the way through, to the point that supporters didn't know what they were getting until it was too late. Completely different, as it is not privatizing like this bit with cmmi is.

    87. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'll spell it out for you, idiot, because you and the other Obamabots are obviously too fucking stupid to understand if I don't: no one is required to have a car. So no one is required to have auto insurance. The government regulates lots of voluntary activities because of the need for safety: if you run a farm and sell food, they have regulations about how you can safely grow and process that food, so no one gets sick and dies from your food. If you build cars, they have regulations about how safe your cars must be so people don't get killed in fender-benders in your cars. If you run financial services companies, they have regulations to make sure people aren't throwing their money away and thus harming the economy (too bad Obama doesn't believe in actually enforcing those laws, but I'm sure the Obamabots like you have some lame excuses for this). None of these things are required of everyone or involuntary; they only affect you if you decide to start companies and go into these industries. Most citizens, who are just employees, will never be affected by these requirements, except for the auto insurance requirement. Instead, when the government required something of citizens, they normally make it a government service, to make sure some private company isn't being enriched unjustly. Everyone has to get a government ID for instance (which is frequently, but not always, combined with driver's licensing; not everyone drives, so those people just get a government ID): to get one, they go to a government office (usually called "DMV") and pay a small fee. This was true until Obamacare, which now requires everyone, no matter what, to buy insurance from a private corporation and thus enrich that corporation.

    88. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Talderas · · Score: 1

      States generally require you to show proof of liability coverage and New Hampshire is one of these states. Auto insurance is one of many ways to show proof of liability coverage and some states may place restrictions on which proofs are permitted to which entities but very few, if any, states only allow auto insurance as the sole proof of liability.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    89. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Edgester · · Score: 1

      What? What planet are you living on? There is no insurance requirement to get a drivers license, and no requirement for a drivers license for that matter. Most states will require you to have insurance in order to register your car, but that is not the same thing as having Drivers License or State ID.

      Care to retract your fabrication and start over?

      Insurance requirements vary by state.

      You are required to have liability insurance to get a driver's license in the state of North Carolina, USA. This is a requirement even if you don't own a vehicle. You may get a state ID card without insurance. The liability insurance follows the person, not the car. For example, if person A drives persons B's car into person C's car, then person A's liability insurance covers C's car, but not B's. Person A & B's insurance companies would have to figure out who covers the damage on person B's car.

    90. Re:So that's what the model is based on by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      My company is one of those 10 big-name federal contractors with CMMI 5 teams, but for this certification period we have decided to switch to CMMI level 3. There were essentially no government groups that care about CMMI 5 anymore, and they told us that even if we did comply with CMMI level 5, they weren't paying extra for it.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    91. Re:So that's what the model is based on by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Drivers license or license plate? There is a huge difference, and I guarantee that Texas does not require insurance to get a drivers license. For a license plate, most states require auto-insurance.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    92. Re:So that's what the model is based on by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      We also need to stop the monopolistic stranglehold that we get with employers dictating who we contract our health insurance with. It has taken choice out of the equation for many.

      If you want something particular covered and it doesn't happen to be covered in your group plan, you have to pay full price on the private market. Meanwhile your employer pockets the money they would otherwise be using to subsidize your group plan membership.

      That is why I have had to pay over $30,000 out of pocket this year, not including premiums. And that unfortunately is pocket change compared to some conditions.

      Does my employer subsidize my car insurance? My house insurance? Of course not. I pay those out of the money I take home. It should be the same with medical insurance, especially now that by penalty of law everyone must have health insurance.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    93. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would pedantic assholes that make idiotic comparisons be part of this proposed genocide? Sure, I'd consider it.

    94. Re:So that's what the model is based on by sjames · · Score: 1

      Now that a few have reached it, I'm sure they'll come up with CMMI-OT3 which you can reach if you just do more audit sessions and listen to the tapes.

    95. Re:So that's what the model is based on by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      So, Mr., Paid for by GOP and Tea Party, PR company to troll these groups, come out like a man and identify yourself.

    96. Re:So that's what the model is based on by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in a nudist colony. And even if you don't, the government doesn't require you to go out in public.

      Unless you receive a summons.

    97. Re:So that's what the model is based on by khallow · · Score: 1

      Under Eisenhower the wealthiest millionaires were taxed in the 90%s

      They didn't pay anything near that. I've even seen research that claims that actual taxes paid by the highest income brackets haven't changed much since the end of the Second World War.

      and people today complain if you raise above 30%

      Why shouldn't they complain? The federal government doesn't do that much for most people. Especially considering that state governments do most of the government services people actually need the most like police and fire fighting services, education, etc.

    98. Re:So that's what the model is based on by khallow · · Score: 1

      THERE IS NO WAY ON GODS FUCKING GREEN EARTH THAT ONCE SOMEBODY HAS SOMETHING HAPPEN TO THEM THAT THEY CAN AFFORD THEIR HEALTH.

      If they can't afford their health, then who can? Health care is a bottomless pit of need which can suck up any sum of money thrown at it. There has to be limits or that demand will completely break society. I think it quite reasonable that you only get the health care you paid for.

      For Christ's sake, at least have the fucking decency to hike up minimum wage the amount needed to pay an average insurance policy.

      Minimum wage is zero for being unemployed. If you aren't working, then you're not earning money which can be used to pay an insurance policy.

    99. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority voted for something you don't like.

      The majority? The people who didn't vote and didn't vote for the people in charge are the majority.

    100. Re:So that's what the model is based on by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      New Hampshire is not, except in certain cases. Coverage is only required by the following (Title XXI 264:2):

      I. Upon receipt of an abstract of the record in case of conviction of any person for one of the following offenses, the director may suspend the license of the person so convicted and the registration certificates of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer registered in the name of such person and require the surrender of the registration plates of any such vehicle, unless and until such person gives and thereafter maintains proof of his financial responsibility in the future:
                    (a) Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs;
                    (b) Failing to stop and report when involved in an accident;
                    (c) Homicide or assault arising out of the driving of a motor vehicle;
                    (d) The second time for driving a vehicle at an excessive rate of speed;
                    (e) The second time for driving a vehicle in a reckless manner and a violation of such other of the provisions of any state law relative to vehicles as the director shall determine.

      Note that the director has the ability to demand proof of coverage, but is not forced to do so by law. The state defines minimums for auto insurance, and the insurance companies try to use that to deceive people into thinking coverage is mandatory, but the minimums are only for folks that have run afoul of what I quoted above.

      I looked for any recent changes in the law, but nothing jumped out at me. The text I quoted is directly from the state:
      http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXI-264.htm

      Motorists may be required to have coverage by the terms of their auto loan, but that's between them and their bank. It's not a matter of law.

      If Wikipedia is correct, NH stands alone. I'm surprised at that. It's a non-issue for those of us that live here.

    101. Re:So that's what the model is based on by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Actually, healthcare is a state right. It is not a right delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution. The only reason the mandate wasn't struck down is because the federal government has the right to impose taxes. The incredible part is, the court allowed the mandate penalty to be a fine during some parts of the trial, but to be a tax during other parts. It was a despicable decision by the court. The feds didn't try to argue interstate commerce because it's rather obvious that a person's health care won't necessarily cross state lines, state sovereignty would have been an easy counterargument to crush an ICC defense.
       

    102. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      go build your workers paradise somewhere else

      Slippery-slope fallacy.
         

    103. Re:So that's what the model is based on by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I don't follow. It's an independent agency of the US government, in much the same way that NASA is. It's not a private entity, like what I was talking about. I feel like I'm missing the relevance. Clue me in?

  2. Proof! by Cornwallis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That CGI "achieved the highest possible Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) level for development certification..." more than proves that the entire model is useless!

    1. Re:Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've learned that to get successful software, you simply cannot do things "by the book". That's why Skunkworks projects happened, exactly BECAUSE if you go "by the book" (or "follow the process") stuff just won't get done, or will get semi-done spectacularly crappy.

    2. Re:Proof! by drdread66 · · Score: 2

      Actually, CGI has some great talent in both engineering and project management. How do I know this? Because I have worked at CGI Federal for three years now. The company's track record of successful deliveries is enviable in the Federal space. I say this based on 10+ years of experience in US Govt software development and contracting.

      Of course, none of this is relevant to the CMMI discussion. Bringing up the CGI bogeyman as a counter example to the value of CMMI is purely intellectual dishonesty and FUD-mongering.

      Not defending CMMI (IMO it's completely worthless), but I *am* defending CGI.

    3. Re:Proof! by tricorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember working on a product produced by a company that proudly trumpeted their Six Sigma certifications. Had a problem with a board that was sold with the explicit feature of being able to do read-modify-write bus cycles on shared memory (each board had a section of on-board memory that could be shared with the other boards across multibus).

      Unfortunately, it turned out that the target board would get memory corrupted when you did that (interfered with refresh cycles, I believe it was). Once I figured out that was happening, I contacted the company.

      Six Sigma is all about repeatable and documented processes. Well, they documented it all right. They documented that they had no idea what was wrong, that the person who had designed the hardware had retired, and that they had no one there who was qualified to even understand what I was talking about. I guess since the problem with the board was repeatable, that justified their Six Sigma level! They continued selling that board, with the same claim of capability, for several more years.

      Ever since then I've had little respect for that type of certification - worried more about the proper process than about the actual results.

    4. Re:Proof! by hey! · · Score: 2

      There's a big difference between people who are capable of doing things "by the book" making an informed decision not to do so, and people deciding to do things in an ad hoc manner because they can't master the "by the book" method.

      Every successful project, in my opinion, requires both discipline and risk taking; the art is knowing how much of each the project you are currently managing needs. Every project should have a bit of a stretch built into it, otherwise people get sloppy because they've become complacent. But *too* much risk, and they get sloppy because marginal additions to risk become meaningless to them.

      You want control and measurement and all that rational stuff, but developers aren't automatons. They need motivation to care about those things; if they're just going through the motions a formal methodology becomes so much dead weight. So excitement, challenge, novelty, even a whiff of fear can be healthy things. But not chaos, impossibility ,blue-sky goals and outright terror. An excessive dose of medicine is poison.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for them here in Atlantic Canada. They arn't a terrible company, however they are basically a new graduate grinding mill (along with Keane). Most people work there for 2 to 3 years then jump into a better job. Those that can't junp into a better job stick around, become leads, and maintain the environment that causes people to leave as soon as possible in the first place.

      It's basically a culture of meh.

      (Disclaimer: obviously the CGI experience is probably largely location and project based.)

    6. Re:Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't CGI fired by the province of Ontario in 2012 for absolutely screwing up a simple single-payer health care website? Why yes, they were.

      Also, I'd like to hear your defense of useing Marklogic, an XML-based database as your backend storage mechanism. Any reason beyond client lockin?

    7. Re:Proof! by drdread66 · · Score: 1

      CGI Federal didn't pick MarkLogic -- the Lead System Integrator (aka US govt) did that. I have great respect for MarkLogic and what it does, and know lots about the product...but if that had been my decision to make, ML would not have been my choice for this project.

      FWIW, CGI in Canada is a substantially different organization than CGI Federal. We ("Federal") are a US corporation that operates under an SSA ("special security agreement") with the US govt in order to mitigate our FOCI ("Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence") situation. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of CGI Group aka the Canadian Mothership, but we have an all-US citizen board of directors and agreed-upon policies that limit how we interact with CGI group -- that's the SSA.

      Full disclaimer: I am not authorized to speak on CGI's behalf, and don't work for the division that was involved with healthcare.gov. For the most part I only know what I read in the papers plus what I hear around the virtual water cooler. But I know a witch hunt when I see one, and that's what the Washington Post has been pursuing since 1 OCT 2013.

    8. Re:Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your response. There is much blame to spread around.

  3. Realistically, only one cert needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In my IT experience, there is one cert that guarantees you meaningful employment no matter what in the US:

    H-1B.

  4. Because... Corruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the way you like it, isn't it?

  5. Adam Smith and Milton Friedman to the rescue by JoeyRox · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Adam Smith and Milton Friedman to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, crap. Here we go again with the Milton Friedman worship. Pull your head out of your ass. This is the guy who, together with his acolytes (continuing after his death), guided half of Latin America through the scourge of disaster capitalism, with parts of Eastern Europe following behind to their inevitable sorrow.

      If you want to point to some authority who can properly put these certification organizations into the 9th circle of Hell which they deserve, you can do much better than this.

  6. Bogus from the beginning by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CMMI was always SEIs way of trying to reduce programming to bricklaying (only with a lot more paperwork), leaving academics like them as the only real thinking people in the process. It can't work and will never work.

    1. Re:Bogus from the beginning by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      As part of becomming CMM 3, we had to uabe code reviews. We paid a shitload for some asshole who wrote a book to come in and teach us.

      "Do your review before you even make sure it will compile!" he swore. My skeptic bullshit detector went off -- transparently he was trying to amp bug find statistics to make the process look good.

      But nevermind -- he got his giant check, the ignorantly savage management had a cover story of doing a good job, and we ate a shit sandwich.

      We never did find any real bugs in the several years more I was there, though we did find many coding standard violations. My colleagues had grave difficulty understanding those violations were not actually bugs -- they were to reduce the chance of bugs, but none found were ever actually a bug in effect.

      Snake oil & the supposed intellectual in their own field.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Bogus from the beginning by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Back when I actually paid attention to it, the CMMI was in levels. Level two was having procedures and sticking to them. Level three was using good software engineering techniques. Level four was measuring results in some manner, and level five was institutional commitment for improvement (and that's really hard in a large company). While I'm dubious about some of the things, it was hardly an attempt to make programmers into bricklayers.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Bogus from the beginning by david_thornley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're not using code reviews, chances are your code sucks. I don't see any need to pay somebody big bucks to tell you that. Similarly, coding standard violations increase the chance for bugs, and it's worth making code conform.

      In my experience, with very good people, we find a lot of bugs in code review. If you're not finding bugs, either you're superhuman or you do need instruction in code review.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Bogus from the beginning by olau · · Score: 2

      Regarding code reviews: why do you think they are about finding bugs? While you can probably discover some problems through code reviews, a far more important goal is making sure that people are not turning out shitty code that will blow up the first time someone has to do any maintenance on it. You really want to make sure that people write understandable code.

    5. Re: Bogus from the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, Level 3 is NOT about good engineering practices, but about being able to produce repeatable results -- whether repeatably good, or repeatably awful.

      A Level 3 organization that repeatably produced garbage products would be rated higher than a Level 1 organization that produced superior (but variable) quality ones based on the skills of non-interchangeable engineers.

      Levels 4 and 5 are concerned with quality, but Level 3 itself is no guarantee of quality and may actually represent a regression.

    6. Re:Bogus from the beginning by locopuyo · · Score: 2

      uh yeah, but it is good to at least make sure it compiles before you send it off for review.

    7. Re:Bogus from the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fun thing about CMMI is you pay to get a certificate that asserts you will not innovate, ever. CMMI is even more useless than ISO 9000, which was largely a european plot to slow down american innovation.

    8. Re:Bogus from the beginning by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Code reviews are quite valuable in large scale environments where there are many experienced eyes to review new code. Put together most of those people will have seen a lot of mistakes made, so they can help avoid the same mistakes in the future. But in small, agile environments, its not as much use.

    9. Re: Bogus from the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can speak from experience.

      Level 3 did nothing to either improve or lower quality of product. What it has done is make every project take a little longer and put people more on edge.
      More paperwork that doesn't directly lead to any real improvement but takes time away from actual useful work (aka, tester spends 30 minutes looking at the result of nightly regression test, noting no new failures - then she spends hours filling out paperwork.
      Code review paperwork in a place that managers who don't understand it can see it and misinterpret it.

    10. Re:Bogus from the beginning by russotto · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure CMMI, ISO 9000, TQM, and all the rest ultimately derive from Deming, so despite having "ISO" in the name it's not a European plot; it's an American own-goal.

    11. Re:Bogus from the beginning by Alioth · · Score: 1

      We did CMM 3 and we never had anyone come and tell us that. We did all our code reviews after the code was at least unit tested.

      While the majority of what the reviews found was coding standard stuff (I suspect it usually is) we did have a lower defect rate on the delivered software than the industry average, and the code reviews had the side benefit that people in the team knew what each other's code did and how it worked, rather than having to try to figure it out when a crash report came in and the original developer had left or was out on vacation in Patagonia. This we found to be pretty valuable.

  7. Certs are next to useless .. by codeusirae · · Score: 1

    "To what extent does a CMMI certification determine a successful project outcome? CGI Federal, the lead contractor at Healthcare.gov"

    Certs are next to useless in determining project outcome, all they do is generate revenue for the lawyers. How many PCI Compliant Credit Card clearing houses have been knocked off - hundreds. For a successfully project what you need is a small core team of top-notch programmers. Apart from getting awarded certs can you name any large-scale projects CGI Federal worked on that could be declared a success by reputable programmers and the end-users.

    1. Re:Certs are next to useless .. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Oh please. Don't fucking insult our intelligence here. You damn well know that all future devices will be PRISM compliant (brandishing logo and all) and require anyone working in IT to have a full security background check. This certification will be weighted based on party affiliation and immigration status. It also must be renewed each year with a certification cost associated with it.

      That's the future of Government controlling IT. They damn well won't allow another "Snowden" incident to occur. EVER!!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Certs are next to useless .. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I could clarify this is for the entire civilian sector. In the interest of national security and all. Can't have cyber warfare going on without our civilian cyber warriors undocumented, now will we.

      We live in such an Orwellian world now, it's not a prediction, it's tyranny right on trajectory that can be mapped out in stages!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  8. CMMI is a scam by drdread66 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In 2005, my employer at the time decided to go for CMMI level 3 because it was required by a govt customer for their project. Certification achieved. Then in 2007 my employer opted to shoot for the moon and go for CMMI level 5. Again, certification achieved.

    Two years later I left the company, because it was clear that CMMI level 5 was going to kill the company. CMMI level 5 introduced a high level of bloat, inefficiency, process overhead, documentation requirements, and (worst of all) process rigidity and attempts yo manage the development process by statistical analysis. Our delivery times more than doubled. The cost of delivering projects more than tripled. And the Holy Grail of reduced defect density? Nary a sign of such improvement. As far as I could tell, there was -zero- impact on code quality.

    Our customers started abandoning us, our reputation circled the bowl, and everyone who had any business sense left the place in droves. What was a $100M/yr contract software development house is now down to 1/4 of the staff and revenue it had in 2009, and I fully expect their parent company will close their doors this year.

    I firmly believe that CMMI Level 5 killed that company.

    1. Re:CMMI is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have worked with CMMI twice in my life. Once at the very beginning of my career and once a few years ago 20 years in. Given these experiences I firmly believe that following CMMI processes is highly likely to make a project fail not succeed. Projects succeed in spite of CMMI.

    2. Re:CMMI is a scam by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      If CMMI was such a stupid idea, its not what killed your company. Management killed it, that would have only been a small part of it. Your blaming it CMMI shows a distinct lack of understanding how companies work, which goes to show that you're probably not really that experienced, and like wise, probably no where near as good as you think you are.

      What also strikes me as funny though, is that in my experience, the people who scream most about how stupid certifications are, are the exact ones you don't want to use. Certification scares people who aren't confident in their abilities ... because they really suck at their job.

      Every competent developer I've ever met has no personal problem getting any certification asked by their companies or perspective employers. Its just something that you have to do for a job sometimes.

      When people get so uptight about certifications that 'don't mean anything', watch out. That person is afraid of a certification that 'means nothing' ... what does that say of their abilities? Are you really that scared of not knowing anything at all?

      I would fucking kill for software developers to be licensed like an engineering displine, do you realize how much more those of us with a clue would be worth if we could dump all the morons who managed to install a compiler or IDE on their Linux box and suddenly think they are 31337 h4x0rz programmer gods after they managed to run a shell script on their own.

      Of course, the problem with that is that any sort of proper certification would weed out 9 out of 10 employed 'developers' instantly.

      You're probably a pretty shitty developer for multiple reasons, the easiest to cite is the fact that you think you're a business manager as well when you clearly demonstrated in your post that you have no clue about the complexities of running a business. No one thing kills a business, especially when getting that one thing brings you the potential to get MASSIVE government gigs. Your business was fucked long before CMMI even if you couldn't recognize it.

      You need to learn what you don't know, then get back to me about being a qualified developer.

      Knowing what you don't know, is FAR more important than what you actually know.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:CMMI is a scam by greyparrot · · Score: 1

      CMMI just the latest scam. I can't remember the names of all the attempts to "manage" software development that I experienced in about 30 years of it, but it was all a way to get expensive experts in expensive suits to annoy the crap out of the project and development groups. I don't know if it started in the days of Anderson Consulting (not to pick on them, but that was the period where I started to run into it). Six Sigma, anybody?

      Not really having project management is what made Healthcare.gov such a fiasco. Probably CGI Federal had the wrong kind of managers to herd the cats that were the subcontractors. They may not have really understood testing, which was critical in this multiple-system case. Test planning is really boring but can't be skipped. Huffing over the documentation doesn't really help unless it is test planning documentation, but I bet it wasn't. Corporate-speak loses something in translation.

      If buildings were built this way we would all be living in mud huts. Well, maybe not, but nobody would have built a cathedral or a skyscraper this way.http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/12/30/2219243/us-requirement-for-software-dev-certification-raises-questions#

    4. Re:CMMI is a scam by sbjornda · · Score: 1

      I would fucking kill for software developers to be licensed like an engineering displine

      Out of all your rant, I agree with this. Engineering got licensing because of human deaths attributable to lack of enforceable standards. I think the same will have to happen in I.T. - some huge disaster will happen that kills thousands of people, and then the population will arm itself with torches and pitchforks and require us to police ourselves adequately and put our very livelihoods on the line each time we claim something is ready to promote to production.

      --
      .nosig

    5. Re:CMMI is a scam by Stormin · · Score: 1

      My experience with CMMI level 5 was from a vendor with that certification providing us code years ago.

      They claimed as part of CMMI level 5 that errors would be detected at every possible point in the code. The problem was, this was applied without any thought to maintainability, nor to the fact that in certain places, if an error occurs, the implication is the system is so far gone that the error handler won't be able to run. The language was Sybase stored procedures; the below is a rough example. Their error blocks were even longer.

      Maintainability when you can see at most 3 lines that actually DO something on your screen at once is greatly limited - everything else is the same error block copied again and again and again, so even figuring out what variables were used took much scrolling.

      We asked the vendor to cut the crap, and they said this was mandated by CMM Level 5 and they couldn't change it without risking their certification.

      I briefly considered asking them if they should perhaps add statements of the form "IF 0 = 1 THEN (some error handler relating to the server being broken)" just in case that happened.

      The reality of course is that if the server didn't have enough memory to declare variables, it would most likely crash entirley. It certainly wouldn't have enough memory to run the error handler.

      /*
        * @company_identifier will hold a numeric(15,0) ... [snip]
        */

      DECLARE @company_identifier numeric(15,0)

      IF @@ERROR > 0
      BEGIN
                      INSERT INTO ERR_LOG (error, time) VALUES ( 'Error: Unable to declare @company_identifier due to error ' + @@ERROR, getDate())
                      PRINT 'Error Logged In ERR_LOG TABLE with ID ' + @@IDENTITY
                      EXEC sp_logErrorRemote @@IDENTITY
                      SELECT @ERRORSTATE = 1
                      ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
                      RETURN
      END

      /*
        * Documentation on @person_identifier
        */

      DECLARE @person_identifier numeric(15,0)

      IF @@ERROR > 0
      BEGIN
                      INSERT INTO ERR_LOG (error, time) VALUES ( 'Error: Unable to declare @person_identifier due to error ' + @@ERROR, getDate())
                      PRINT 'Error Logged In ERR_LOG TABLE with ID ' + @@IDENTITY
                      EXEC sp_logErrorRemote @@IDENTITY
                      SELECT @ERRORSTATE = 1
                      ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
                      RETURN
      END

    6. Re:CMMI is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I helped with a CMMI audit for a large company and it was a complete joke. The "evidence" they used to substantiate their CMMI level claims was vacuous at best.

    7. Re:CMMI is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must be fun to work with...

      As much as I like the idea of requiring a license to develop software, you'd need a consistent set of best practices first. This works fine for other professional disciplines because while people will argue, there are usually at least some common basics people can agree on.

      With software, for every successful idea on how something should be written, tested, documented, or managed, there is usually an exact opposite that can claim a success case. Many companies became egregiously successful by taking an approach that would kill other companies.

      How do you define good software engineering in that kind of environment. And even more importantly who defines software engineering in that environment. The whole thing would be a huge mess.

      As for CMMI certification (or ISO certification, SAP adoption, or any other widely referenced "company killers"), I'll agree that they don't actually kill a company. The decision to implement them and ride them until the company is dead is what kills the company.

      I don't claim to be a business manager, but my personal opinion from "down here" is that CMMI is mostly useless. It's a bunch of hoops to jump through to prove you are already doing what you should have been doing, a requirement to do some things that you wern't doing before because they didn't make sense, a huge audit expense, and a set of handcuffs to ensure you don't innovate (something most large companies can't do anyway).

    8. Re:CMMI is a scam by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Your consistent and almost obsessive negativity interests me.

    9. Re:CMMI is a scam by russotto · · Score: 2

      I would fucking kill for software developers to be licensed like an engineering displine, do you realize how much more those of us with a clue would be worth if we could dump all the morons who managed to install a compiler or IDE on their Linux box and suddenly think they are 31337 h4x0rz programmer gods after they managed to run a shell script on their own.

      Too bad you'd also dump nearly all the "morons" who wrote the fucking compiler and the Linux kernel and the drivers for it and the IDE and the shell.

      Of course, the problem with that is that any sort of proper certification would weed out 9 out of 10 employed 'developers' instantly.

      To anticipate the No True Scotsmen answer: No such proper certification has ever been described. Every system proposed which would weed out 9 of 10 employed developers would leave at least 99/100 good developers in the weeded-out bunch. And that certainly includes CMMI.

    10. Re:CMMI is a scam by drdread66 · · Score: 2

      Nice way to go fully orthogonal ad hominem while not addressing the actual subject at hand. Did you find your debate skills in a cereal box? Froot Loops, perhaps?

      OK for the record: I wrote my first multi-thousand line program in 1978. I was 12 at the time. I hold a PhD in experimental nuclear physics, a PMP certification (project management), have forgotten the details of approximately 119 programming languages that I have learned over the decades (although for some reason, good old fashioned K&R C sticks with me like a bad habit), and don't bother with certifications until my employer wants me to get one for some reason or another, at which point I do what any professional does: I go buy the book, read up until I feel confident I can pass the exam on the first try, and then pound the exam into dust.

      The PMP is one example; I had to get that to satisfy the company policies when they promoted me from Chief Engineer to manager of an entire operating division that numbered about 150 people. I took the mandated class and then the exam, out-scoring every single one of the multi-decade experienced program managers who were working for me when I took over the division. Then I went on to grow that division from $24M/yr to $35M/yr in 2 years, when the company split my division in half because it had gotten too big. Then I took the $20M piece and grew it to $35M again in another two years, at which point it was (again) the single largest division in the company.

      So: you are demonstrably, provably wrong in your assumptions about what I know about software engineering, business management, and probably everything else you think you can guess about me based on a single post. You also clearly don't understand the complexities of CMMI, how a company earns such a certification, and what the implications and resulting process burdens are downstream of the cert.

      Surprisingly, there is one nugget of half truth in the steaming torrent of verbal diarrhea that was your unprovoked attack. You said "Your business was fucked long before CMMI even if you couldn't recognize it." The truth is that there were things wrong with the company, but we were doing just fine overall. The problem is that CMMI added so much friction to the way we worked that the previously minor problems became huge ones. The fundamental mistake the company made was playing along with SEI's demand that we apply CMMI to the entire company rather than just the division that had the mandate to attain at least Level 3. That project was OK with taking 3 years to develop 50k lines of code, and was more than happy to see costs in the $5-10 per SLOC range. The average customer is not OK with those parameters. Incidentally, the project in question was ultimately canceled (not just our part, but the entire acquisition), with sunk costs so high that it makes the taxpayer in me weep like a baby who just dropped the ice cream ball out of the cone. But we made every deadline, met every cost target, and hit every defect density goal. Thank you, CMMI, for making our customer so happy with our performance that they gave us upwards of 97% of the maximum award fee (it was a CPAF contract) but making the overall project so expensive that even the US Congress choked on the bill and killed the thing.

      Hey kid, running a software business requires much more than just disparaging other professionals whose skills and history you nothing about. You need to learn what you don't know, then get back to me about...

      Oh let's just cut to the chase: go fuck yourself.

    11. Re:CMMI is a scam by drdread66 · · Score: 1

      So here's the part the press doesn't cover thoroughly: CGI Federal was not the Prime or Lead System Integrator on this contract. We had no authority to issue orders or assert requirements on any other contractor. Sure, CGI made some mistakes, but we can't be responsible for the other contractors when we have no contractual relationship with them!

      Testing, in particular, was something CMS reserved for themselves to manage as the LSI on the program.

      Again, I don't work for the CGI division that had the contract, but I do read newspapers and follow the internal chatter on this sort of thing, so I'm pretty well "up" on CGI's experiences on this project.

    12. Re:CMMI is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for Motorola (in the US) back in the early '90s, when Motorola India achieved a CMMI Level 5 certification. Shortly before this was announced, Moto India had given us a 12-month schedule for some part of a project we were working on; a few weeks after the announcement they turned around and told us that it would be 24 months, instead.

    13. Re:CMMI is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engineers will always trail computer scientists. Their adherence to process and management is admirable and necessary in many cases, but they are not, and will never be the pioneers in the software field.

    14. Re:CMMI is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      That is all.

      (OK, I lied. MOD PARENT UP, DAMMIT!)

  9. What a dumb question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Why is the government mandating that you support a for-profit company?' said Henry Friedman, the CEO of IR Technologies, a company that develops logistics defense related software and uses CMMI.

    The same reason that you need to support a for-profit insurance company to get a drivers' license? The libertardian bullshit is every so tiring.

    1. Re:What a dumb question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Slight difference between mandating e.g. insurance from an insurance company vs insurance from this insurance company.

      s/insurance/certification/ if you're still confused.

  10. The Project Management Institute certifies by sandbagger · · Score: 1

    .that you wrote an exam. Nothing else. However, PMI Certification is demanded in so many bloody places for no goddamned reason.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:The Project Management Institute certifies by rnturn · · Score: 1

      It was years ago but I seem to recall that one of the things you needed to do -- along with the normal completion of additional courses -- in order to maintain your project mgmt. certification was to promote the idea of project management certification, i.e., become a PMI evangelist. Seemed too much like a cult. (Plus I hadn't met anyone with such a certification that could manage a project worth a damn -- or at least not any better than most people without that piece of paper.) I'm sure there are some damned good project managers out there that have taken the time and forked over their hard-earned money to receive a certification. My gut tells me, though, that the vast majority of those people would be managing projects just as well without that certification as they do with it. Because they are folks with exceptional organizational skills, eye for detail, etc. Things that they didn't learn in a class.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    2. Re:The Project Management Institute certifies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, selling the kool-aide as well as drinking it is still a part of the cult. Some of the best PM's I know are PMI PMPs. Also one of the absolute worst. And while it isn't an exclusive requirement (GSA and DoD accept a few other comparable PM-certs), it's made for a nice business for PMI and many training companies. And a bunch of other societies and orgs (INCOSE, DMA) trying to copycat PMI's success.

  11. Bid: by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    If you're going to apply to work for the government, and be their subcontractor, it is acceptable to imagine they'll be telling you what to do in exchange for the checks they hand you. That's what the people who write the paychecks do. (In my experience)

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Bid: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to apply to work for the government, and be their subcontractor, it is acceptable to imagine they'll be telling you what to do in exchange for the checks they hand you. That's what the people who write the paychecks do. (In my experience)

      Our procedures required that you please kill this person for me. Here's a paycheck.

  12. Define compete by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    There is a difference between a mandate to buy something when there are competing suppliers of the product

    At least one state has only one Obamacare provider.

    Also none of the insurance companies really "compete" because they can't sell insurance across state lines. That's why insurance rates and health care costs are so high, because real competition is not allowed. A small number of players are allowed to control each state (Hello Cable Monopoly).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Define compete by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And, if there is only one ACA provider in a state, that's a business opportunity for other insurance companies, assuming the existing company tries to exploit its temporary monopoly position. If people don't like what they get from the CMMI Institute, then presumably another company will consider it a business opportunity and move...um...well, maybe not.

      That's the difference.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. It's insane what else the government requires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's absolutely ridiculous that the government requires electricians to be licensed, medical doctors to go to medical school, lawyers to pass an exam demonstrating their competence, engineers to be licensed and have a minimum level of related experience, etc. The free market should be deciding all of these things. The government should stop intervening and do no diligence in lessening the number of its own citizens dying horrific deaths due to the negligence of its own populace. It's absolute socialism for a people's own government to do anything to serve them or do anything to ensure that tax dollars are well spent.

    1. Re:It's insane what else the government requires by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Only extremists would argue for no government, and fanatics on either side of the political spectrum are to be discounted. Obviously we are too fragile a creature (nature's sacrifice for the big brain?) to be left completely without a few rules and regulations, but it would be sweet if the government could be a little bit less evil.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  14. Good for sausage manufacturers by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    High CMMI maturity levels are really only achievable if you are in the business of mass producing something. They emphasise continuous refinement of production processes, as opposed to research and the development of totally new products. You can write procedures for R&D but they don't allow you to include steps like and then a miracle happens.

  15. Rampant Protectionism by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Meh. There are a few times when certification that are useful--certification for certain contractors makes it more likely they follow certain safety rules, but you can also deal with that just by making inspections common, cheap, and painless. For the most part, certification processes are really about excluding people from local markets--rampant protectionism by people in power. (Like any institution, you become a part of it, gain its advantages, and then it begins to seem hunkey-dorey, if it didn't already. You drink the cool-aid.)

    The way the bar works, for example, is much more of an impediment to good representation than it should be. There are some good things it does, like requiring a minimum continuing legal education and making it impossible for some of the people who steal from clients to represent clients. But it also divvies up the market absurdly, on a state-by-state basis, which artificially keeps the price of lawyers higher than it would otherwise be; and it makes their careers much more tenuous than most careers because of the disciplinary system.

    Similarly, the way plumbers are licensed divvies up the market absurdly and artificially inflates prices. On the upside, it tends to mean that licensed plumbers at least know how things are supposed to be done and that they have an incentive (keeping their license) to do it the right way. But it costs everyone a fortune.

    There's some stuff you could do intelligently on the software side--you could just have a test in a couple of programming languages or concepts to show basic competency--but the idea of requiring a certification with training is nothing short of ridiculous. It's just shooting money to a company that manages the cert process. Seriously, if you want people to not learn a subject, the surest way to do that is to require them to take a class in it. Think about the difference between student participation in optional classes and core classes.

    1. Re:Rampant Protectionism by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're comparing institutional certification with individual certification. CMMI level 3 is an attempt to guarantee that a company uses good software engineering techniques. It's similar in concept to ISO 9001, but actually applicable to software development. It actually has some use. My experience with individual certifications in software is that they're mostly useless, and as you point out it frequently acts to reduce competition.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. some of it is useful by Goldsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've worked in the past as part of the DoD Acquisitions Workforce.

    CMMI is really just part of a broader obsession in DoD with project and program management. Abstractly, these are good things. When implemented correctly, they make debacles like healthcare.gov nearly impossible. Good planning, budgeting and in-progress evaluation are generally applicable to basic research projects, software development and building ships. We all want to work on projects which are well run.

    The problem is, blindly stepping through the predefined process of project management has nothing to do with actually managing a project. You still need good managers who can recognize problems in the technical fields they're working with, understand what to do when problems crop up and are empowered to act. DoD in general fools itself into thinking it has people like this because the paperwork is done right. I suspect that's a fairly common problem.

    We all know there's a problem with treating the "talent" (i.e. programmers) as interchangeable blocks using these systems. I think treating management the same way is worse. The ideas that management is mastery of a process and operates solely for organizational interest over individual interest are flawed, but central to things like CMMI.

    1. Re:some of it is useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I currently work in DoD acquisition and Goldsmith is correct, although I would point to a slightly different root cause. DoD is obsessed with process improvement and process management. They want to take the "who" out of the equation so the results will be measurable, controllable and the same regardless of who they hire to do it (assuming whoever they hire is appropriately "certified").

      I always tell people that DoD is so scared of building the next $600 toilet seat of $500 hammer that they impose $700 of bureaucracy and checks and balances to ensure there is adequate documentation to justify the $800 hammer. The right answer is to just fire the guy that bought the $500 hammer.

    2. Re:some of it is useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When implemented correctly, they make debacles like healthcare.gov nearly impossible. Good planning, budgeting and in-progress evaluation are generally applicable to basic research projects, software development and building ships.

      Does the role of "lead contractor" include the responsibility for the overall product and its delivery in the US under the government acquisition rules? The summary suggests this indirectly.

  17. Programming by contract by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    I really love to watch programming by contract systems fall flat on their face. First they write a huge specification for what a bid will look like. Then in the bid they write a huge specification for the bid which is a bid to write a specification. Then when they start the project they write one last specification that lays out in extreme detail what they are going to build. This is then signed off on and finally they start to build something huge.

    But the entire process is not focusing on sorting out the most critical problems, then figuring out the costs to solving them, then picking which problems would be solved. The entire process is all about getting the maximum "buy in" from the "stakeholders" who then lard up the project with any features that pop into their head. A key sign that all this has happened is when the front interface has a message from our leader front and center surrounded by links to all the crap that nobody wants. Buried deeply will be things that most people want and need.

    A simple example would be my local schoolboard website. Parents want basic information like enrolling their kids in school, curriculum, and how to contact the school board. Not a single person gives a flying crap about who the schoolboard head is or any opinion she holds; zero. I am willing to bet that the schoolboard spent enough cash building the website to refurbish one of the junky gyms in the school system, or restock a lab, or provide instruments to a music program. Priorities that most people want; not a message from the leader or a bunch of crap about recycling at home.

    My schoolboard example is small and a petty source of bad management but typical of even the biggest multi hundred million dollar disaster that you can find governments doing all over the world.

    People on slashdot blah blah about opensource which is definitely where governments should be going with all projects but it is to open source the procurement process that would save the massive bucks. If we geeks had a few weeks to look over the various bids and proposals we could feed back some seriously creative and intelligent suggestions. If a project required a room full of servers and switches, an opened design phase would probably result in a huge rewiring/cost cutting/and solid capacity analysis. If proposed interfaces suck then all kinds of suggestions for improvement would flow. If bad software packages were selected then better ones would be proposed.

    1. Re:Programming by contract by greyparrot · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have been there, on both sides actually LOL. Sometimes the business actually REQUIRES some sort of bid document and generally it is safer to propose the preliminary design phase before committing to the rest of it, as one generally does not know what is involved before actually finding out what is needed. That is, asking over and over again, what do you need to know and when do you need to know it? Anything bigger than a breadbox requires a bit of planning.

      The point is not that you have to produce a document. You really have to find out what the project is. One of my jobs back when I was a consultant was to help produce a Request for Proposal for the US Navy. Now that was a document! Even for that, I had to find out what we were trying to buy and what the reasonable shape of it would be.

      But you are quite right about bloat, lard, narcissism, and petty bureaucracy. The worst thing is that at some level you run into management who have no idea of what they are going to need, because they don't use it anyway. But they feel threatened by the people who DO know what they need, so you don't get to interview them.

    2. Re:Programming by contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 to this !!

      "Where are the requirements, where is the spec?" ... Fk that build v0.95 and live/die by your work.

      Drucker said it 100 years ago, if you need stakeholder buy-in you are either plagued by an overstaffed culture or under-experienced...

      Thanks for this post.

  18. CMMI utterly useless in my opinion by Guillermito · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in Argentina, where any software company getting a CMMI certification can apply for a tax cut. Because of that, CMMI was all the rage around eight years ago or so. Turns out CMMI was so utterly useless and cumbersome that at this point most companies prefer to forget about the tax cuts rather than bother with being CMMI certified. Only companies seeking government contracts continue doing so.

  19. Not fun to work in CMMI environments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've worked under CMMI level 3-5. Make no mistake it is not cheap in the manpower youll be dedicating to it. It really makes your job difficult process-wise and dull. The fun work will only come infrequently once you get through the process. I wouldn't even thinking of getting the cert unless you project is very mature and the customer requires it.

  20. the GOP killed the public option by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    but we stilled needed some thing.

  21. comcast uses Six Sigma and they have shit hardware by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    comcast uses Six Sigma and they have shit hardware that they still reuse even when it's several years old.

  22. i dont believe in calculus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a liberal scheme for world domination. Just like gravity and ele ctric cars. Jesus save us from these communist plots!

  23. We need to combine CMMI, SOA, Six Sigma, ISO 9001 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course you need an Agile component, so we'll get Scrum training and introduce Extreme Programming into the mix.

  24. Carnegie Mellon Mafia Institute by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    This arrangement is a Mafia-type's wet dream - incorporate your proprietary, expensive license or credential into federal standards so that everyone must pay you your protection money.

  25. Silly Billy by bfr99 · · Score: 2

    Yet another dig bites man story. Government requirements often mandate testing and certification by third parties, For example, FCC emissions testings.

  26. Re:Future will be different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could cheaper to hire in the "US America" soon with new "Coding Programs" like "Code.org" were degrees will be useless. It use to be cheaper to train young Indians then young Americans. And then laying off Old Americans.

  27. Certifications are absolutely worthless.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    End of story.

    1. Re:Certifications are absolutely worthless.. by 2fuf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we don't need no stinking badges

  28. Re:Certifided Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blame the Certs or realizes that Healthcare is Politics!

  29. Making sense of federal contracting by symbolset · · Score: 1

    There is no sense, no reason to it. If you are not prepared to cynical up and drain the public trough to enrich yourself providing no public benefit whatsoever, stay away from federal contracting. Far away. They are quite dangerous to the naively sincere.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  30. 1792 Militia Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Required every white male between 18 and 45 to buy a gun. No ands, ifs, or buts. And to report on a routine basis to their local Militia captain, demonstrate said weapon worked, and conduct training under arms. Oh, and they were registered including what weapon so they knew what regiment/company to assign them to.

    Been going on for 200+ years - nothing new.

  31. Truancy by tepples · · Score: 1

    the government doesn't require you to go out in public

    I was under the impression that all fifty states had mandatory school attendance laws.

    1. Re:Truancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression that all fifty states had mandatory school attendance laws.

      Wouldn't home schooling allow both criteria to be met simultaneously? Or is that no longer a thing in the US?

    2. Re:Truancy by tepples · · Score: 1

      How does one obtain materials for home schooling and register one's child for home schooling without going out in public?

  32. Capability Immaturity Model. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Immaturity_Model

    Reading that made me cry, for the wasted years of my youth.

    If you are there, quit now, it's not worth it.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  33. It's a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have 30 years IT experience, last 15 as "design lead". Big projects, small projects, lots of programming.

    My company bought in IBM on a project, and I was told I was going to be working under a "Certified Master Architect". Great! This was going to be great learning experience, right?

    Day 1, in walks this 22 year old kid, freshly graduated. And, by virtue of the fact that IBM corporate had some certification, all their designated architects automatically became "Certified Master Architects".

    1. Re:It's a joke by BreakBad · · Score: 1

      Wow, words like Master and Architect merged together. You would almost think they'd let you pick your own certification title:

      "Lord Wizard Ninja of the Architecture Legion"

  34. Re:We need to combine CMMI, SOA, Six Sigma, ISO 90 by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    I worked on that project.

  35. Licensing software developers == nightmare by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

    The trouble with the idea of licensing software developers is that no-one really knows yet how to develop software well in general. At most, so far, we have some people who have found practices that worked well on previous projects in their parts of the software development world, and sometimes when the stars align they share their ideas for mutual benefit. This is still a long way short of the standards found in true engineering disciplines.

    I suspect the inevitable result of licensing today would be that a lot of consultants who talk a good talk would convince the relevant officials that they knew best, and some sort of dubiously authoritative body would be created to mandate that everyone else should follow the will of the consultants. Imagine a world where Robert C. Martin's claim that if you don't do TDD then you can't possibly be a professional software developer actually carried the force of law.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  36. Wrong - Auto insurance is for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not true. You are required to have proof of financial liability coverage. The insurance requirement is to protect others, not you. In my state (and I assume others) this can be done by holding a bond or some other financial instrument, essentially self insuring. To my knowledge no state mandates that you carry insurance coverage on your own vehicle for financial loss.

    If you want an automobile analogy, it is more like the government requiring you to carry an extended warranty.

  37. US Requirement??? by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

    http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/12/30/1646227/the-startling-array-of-hacking-tools-in-nsas-armory

    US "Requirement"?

    This is a joke, right?

    You have lost your moral high ground. You are not in a position anymore to demand or require anything from other people or other countries. And this includes certain western european countries as well.

  38. I love CMMI shops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love CMMI shops since CMMI makes a good litmus test of where I don't want to work.

  39. Instead of auto ins. some states allow you to buy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked (decades ago) California required either insurance, or a $50,000 bond for liability. Interesting, the insurance only had to be $10 or was it $15,000? The bond I think is hard cash, or maybe some instrument that is back by an assurity...which is kinda not exactly insurance...okay, I don't understand it on a an deep level. But my point is, at least California gives you another choice. Pony up $50,000 (I could be wrong on that amount), which is deposited...somewhere. No you don't earn interest on it.

  40. SEI != CMMI by kfall · · Score: 1

    To be clear, the CMMI part of SEI moved over to the CMMI Institute at the end of last year, as the article suggests. Carnegie Mellon University continues to operate SEI as a (not-for-profit) FFRDC. [SEI continues to do a number of other things, including the CERT (www.cert.org)].

  41. CMMI != Certification by syntap · · Score: 1

    It should be noted that a CMMI maturity level designation is not a certification. It may help to have some CMMI appraisal team experience to understand it (I do), but the designation is the result of an organization's self-assessment based on an appraisal model (SCAMPI) developed by SEI/CMMI Institute. When a company claims a certain maturity level, CMMI Institute does not say "we certify this organization (or organizational unit) is CMMI maturity level n." CMMI Institute says "based on our review of the result forwarded by the organization, a result approved by a certified CMMI lead appraiser, we conclude the organization appears to have correctly followed the SCAMPI method and met the standards the organization's appraisal team agrees they did."

    An organizational unit is not CMMI-certified by an external certifying authority, it is appraised based on work of a mostly-internal appraisal team (usual exception is the appraisal team leader, a certified individual not employed by the appraised organization in my experience). I don't blame anyone for being confused on the "certification" label... I see it all the time. The title of the /. article itself incorrectly uses the term.

    My concern with CMMI is not the procedures and practices themselves, I think they are brilliant if implemented and the organization is resourced to handle it while not tripping up development teams. My concern is in self-assessment, that an inherent conflict of interest exists for the members of an appraisal team employed by the company they are appraising. A company that spends a lot of money preparing for and conducting a valid appraisal it expects a positive result for. But an accredited lead appraiser (again, not an employee of the appraised company in my experience) is not going to keep that distinction for long if they pass through insufficient/bogus appraisals, and that is supposed to be the check on self-assessment risks.

    So it isn't the same as PMI, which gives a four hour exam to produce a quantitative, evidenced pass-fail score for a project manager and puts their stamp on a certification that the candidate knows the material with required proficiency and has met other work experience requirements. It is more nuanced and really comes down to how much you trust a given self-assessment.

    1. Re:CMMI != Certification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ++1^^^^

      I worked for a small-mid size consulting company that went through CMMI level 1 (everybody gets that one for free, level 1 = adhoc processess), and then CMMI level2 for several of our branches. We achieved level2 and then went on to attempt level3. We needed to do this because several of our large clients we starting to require it as a gateway to bidding.

      BTW, the parent is correct, there is no certification of CMMI levels. It's quite the scam actually, almost as bad as ISO re-certification, but at least with ISO, you do get certified, but must pay each time (usually there are yearly audits).

      The company I worked for went bankrupt before getting to level 3. Why, you ask? Because when we started bidding on new contracts with the clients that required CMMI level 2 or greater, we lost them due to higher costs and longer project delivery dates. Do you want to know who won those contracts? - A group that was internal to the client and was not required to be at any CMMI level..

      OT: It's quite hilareous to watch ISO weenies attempt to wrap ISO processes intended for manufacturing around R&D and software. The image that always comes to mind is that it's like watching a monkey try to fit a square peg into a round hole and then throwing his feces around when he becomes frustrated.

    2. Re:CMMI != Certification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Yes, I do know that ISO has processess specific to software development, but for some reason they are being ignored by the ISO weanies..

  42. Re:We need to combine CMMI, SOA, Six Sigma, ISO 90 by tapspace · · Score: 1

    ISO 90? Light-gauge metal containers!?

    http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=23336

  43. marriage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So then you feel that in the states where the majority voted that marriage was between a man and a woman, and it was overturned by the judicial system that democracy failed?

  44. woods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except I could choose to not have a job and walk off into the woods and live off the land for the rest of my life without breaking any laws. But for the first time that I'm aware of that isn't possible. I legally must have health care so if I do separate myself from society then I am a law breaker. This is the first time in the history of the US that this has happened and I see it as a serious blow to freedom.

    1. Re:woods by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Without breaking any laws except hunting out of season, lighting a fire in forest-fire-ban season, construction of an unpermitted permanent structure, and mischief and negligence for causing an unnecessary search-and-rescue operation.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  45. homeschooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh.

  46. Re:We need to combine CMMI, SOA, Six Sigma, ISO 90 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those light-gauge metal containers were some fucking high quality light-gauge metal containers. If an ISO9000 certification would have been acquired for the company making the containers, the quality of the containers would have made the Six Sigma certified poop of baby Jesus green with envy.

  47. Actually, car insurance is not required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    READ the fine print. Government is counting on most people being too lazy to read the fine print.

    I am not aware of any state in the U.S. that requires you to buy car insurance before driving your car.... the laws require you to be able to financially handle a certain amount of liability, and you may satisfy that by buying car insurance that meets certain minimums.... BUT those laws also allow you to self-insure. There was never a precedent that government could force you to buy some product, so the state legislators who wrote those laws wrote them with alternate methods of showing responsibility. You can prove you can pay for the damages you might do by, depending on the state, buying a bond, or some other financial and legal arrangement. Most people do not have enough cash sitting around to do this so most take the easy route of buying insurance and society has adopted the short-hand of saying "you must buy insurance" but that's not technically true.

    Incidentally, by getting sloppy with language and pretending we are required-by-law to by car insurance, we all enabled the Obamabots to more-easily lie the nation into the truly revolutionary notion that the federal government could force people to buy commercial products (Obama and his supporters lied, saying "we all MUST buy car insurance, and Obamacare is no different"). Americans are no longer truly free, thanks to Obama and the millenials who voted for him in droves, .... happily THEY will be the first generation that ultimately suffers the full impact as they get older.

  48. Yeah, those horrible Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they killed the "public option" for food, clothing, shelter, movie tickets, cars, TVs and everything else. What IS it about those idiots that makes them hate bogus economics and cling to freedom and liberty?????

    What to YOU do for a living? Perhaps the nation needs a "public option" for it. Whatever product or service YOU provide needs to be "free" to everybody and YOU need to be pain 35 cents on the dollar for YOUR work. Gadzooks! Lefties are all alike, no grasp of even the most basic laws of economics, and a constant conviction that their current Marxist wet dreams are not working because of some evil conspiracy .....

  49. The reason is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the government makes a bid invitation, they are forced to take the offer with the lowest price. This rule was set into place to prevent crownyism and corruption. The problem with this, is the small unreliable company that undercuts everyone and will probably fall flat on it's face, doesn't deliver anything usable, and is probably bankrupt before you could get any money back.

    This is what that certification and quality management junk (CMMI, six sigma, ISO9000) is supposed to prevent. Only large shops can get a certification, and requiring it, limits the offer to large companies. And it also saves some asses of government employees, because these systems are designed to shift blame around.

    Whether either the rule of the lowest bidder or the certification requirement saves money, prevents corruption or ensures quality is questionable.

  50. There was no social contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Social contract , implies society, implies acting as a group. But the private insurance system on the contrary ensured that this did not happen, those well off (young and/or wealthy, without preexisting condition) did well and did not want to "share" at all. It is all good and a choice, but to call that a social contract is a lie ---- individuals centred choice are not social. ACA *is* a social contract, by accepting that some worst off (pre existing condition , old etc...) get a better deal, while everybody pays a bit more initially.

    Now if it was a *public* institution, I would expect your cost to go down as more insured pays. But as this is the US, and the reps made sure it could not ever go away from the private insurance model, I expect your payment to increase to increase insurer profit.
    Mark my word. Buy a lot of health insurance company share because their profit next years will explode litteraly. If anybody broke the social contract , it was the republicain which torpedoed a true reform , because some of their friends in health isnurance firm would have been bound to lose a bit of profit. Health care is among others one of the branch where private insurance does a worst job the public.

  51. Anyone and Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dev for Linux, open source coding, anyone could have a go and just go for it. Break these monopolies, vendor lock in's and authority of who they think can code and who can't. Everybody: yes you can (dev). Obama reference geek style. Screw these 'licenses to code'. They'll demand a license to breathe next. Where does it stop? With Linux and open source. Dev, dev, dev away and break this license rubbish.

  52. CMM(I) was good for its original intent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The goal of CMM was never to be a certification. It was a description of a process. The thought was that as a process matured, it went thought these various phases. Nothing about how to do it; it just described the characteristics of those phases. Very good for academic study of process.

    The problem is that someone decided to monetize it and make it a goal. That's where all the bullshit artists latched on and decided that creating Word documents for others to fill out was worth thousands of dollars.

    I worked for a company that decided to go CMM level 3. I was invited to a code review of my code. It was because their CMM consultant says that's what you do, not because it's a good idea. The only problem I had was that the code had been in production for a year without any incident. Why after a year it was important to do a code review, no one could say. I didn't attend, but I often wondered what would happen if they decided it wasn't up to standards.

    That's the problem with anything viewed as a certification: Management believes that process alone guarantees quality and quality guarantees that the program works correctly. So you can make the same mistake hundreds of times, but if you do it the same way every time, quality! The desire on the part of management for mindless drones to work for low wages never ceases to amaze me.

  53. CMMI is a tar pit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen one project after another gummed up and brought to a halt by this elephantine methodology. And the CMMI documentation has to be the worse ever written for a methodology and that is saying a lot.

  54. Every Detroit Public School teacher ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    ... is fully state certified.

    Your honor, the prosecution rests.

  55. Choice ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I can choose to not drive and not pay insurance ... but have no choice in case of Obamacare ? It is a tax just because you exist.

  56. Re:CGI and CMS by greyparrot · · Score: 1

    Trying to find out anything from public sources is pretty tiring, as they start out partisan and get worse. I rather liked this one from Reuters

    I don't think there was a real System Integrator on the whole project. The guys at CMS were out of their depth. They had their doubts about the delivery date quite early. But as we all know, the customer manager and the salesmen have the last word on that! Responsibility without power leads to insanity.

    The CGI contract was apparently based on the ongoing contract for IT services, based on an older RFP. (The same sort of thing goes on in NYC, for instance. You have to use on of the short list of pre-qualified contractors.) It appears that CGI were responsible for "the website", which to my mind is only part of the project. But integration with the middleware, back end, and inter-system communications is SOMEONE'S responsibility. That is why there is all this finger-pointing.

    It appears also that CGI were more or less successful in the smaller implementations by the states that took responsibility. Possibly their management skills were spread too thin. Well, it all seems to be more or less working now, which is a great accomplishment. Thanks to all who participated over many sleepless nights!

  57. USG is LOUSY at being the LSI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which fortunately means continued employment for us folks who do LSI stuff for a living. And free advertising for what happens when you don't use us.

  58. Determine success? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To what extent does a CMMI certification determine a successful project outcome?

    It doesn't. Neither does having a degree in medicine determine a successful operation. A degree in medicine has been shown to to increase changes of success.

    If we do these these CMMI behavior that have proven successful in other situations, versus behaviors that have proven consistently unsuccessful in similar situations, we can expect a chance at a better result.

    Using a cardiologist for your heart operation has a better chance of success than using a veterinarian, a mechanic or a fry cook.

  59. Wrong by BranMan · · Score: 1

    Incorrect my good man - you certainly CAN choose not to pay taxes. While you may not like the eventual outcome, you DO have that choice. You can still choose not to get health insurance. You may not like the alternatives very much in the end, but you still have that choice.

    And there is now a floor at least for coverage. There are NO preexisting conditions anymore. There are NO charges for routine yearly preventative care physicals. There is a minimum level of coverage now - and as you can see by the thousands of policies terminated, a lot of companies were not meeting that standard (are you really covered if the policy is 'affordable' but doesn't really cover you?).

    It may not be perfect, but I think its at least a small step in the right direction.

    1. Re:Wrong by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      For shits and giggles try calling all of your local doctors to find out which ones are taking new Medicaid or Medicare patients. Surprise! Surprise! Now look at a few of the Bronze plans offered through the exchange - wow. To use your words, are you really covered if the policy is 'affordable' but doesn't really cover you?

  60. Another Anonymous Soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2038? As a contractor, I can tell you we're already developing using multiple Agile methodologies!

  61. Government contracts, private business, subsidy by bbsalem · · Score: 1

    With all the heat here, and little light, on two separate issues, the risks of the government procurement process, and how law, most law, subsidizes private business and always had, a problem emerges. The privileged position of business special interests is a big historical problem for the U.S. System, and the Right Winger's here running simple interference on the rights of individuals vs. government, are not as forth coming when it comes to business subsidized by government whether it is a contract or the granting of a charter, as to the railroad lands, or aircraft landing rights, or mineral rights in the national commonwealth. There is huge interplay between private economic interest and public policy, and it is business who has greater access to the Congress and for whom Congress passes most of its legislation than do the people. So the Right Wingers here are also the same people who say here over and over again that decisions always boil down to business profitability and they argue here as though there was never any other standard of value.

    And so Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act is basically a subsidy to the insurance industry, and does not address the cost side of the health care industry. I see no effort to hold the fees changed by hospitals, clinics, and doctors up to scrutiny, and although the law says that insurers cannot under the law discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, there is no assurance that premiums charged with be affordable. The activity in the exchanges is revealing that the demographic problem that started the cost escalation, young people not buying insurance and spreading the risk for insurers, is not being solved by the mandate in the law. There is a good chance that the law is based on an economic structure that was failing and will continue to fail and that people once more will not be able to get adequate health care. The result is inevatable, either we let people get sick more and die, or we provide socialized medicine in a two tier system in which we have the current system but we do things in the public health sphere and the subsidized medical sector to serve the majority who will become underserved by the current economic model. In a way, this mirrors the more general economic disadvantages emerging in the economy and could be the touchstone for a social revolution in which the selfish Right Wingers, like many of the people who post here will become targets of some sort,

    The disadantages of the economy, the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer and the decline of spending power, job security, for the vast majority of people in the U.S. are having and will continue to have a negative impact on the nation as long as the underlying causes aren't addressed in economic and public policy, and in which the political rhetoric does not create a dialogue and solutions. I blame the cost of energy, the peak of oil, but also the digital revolution for this imbalance. The rise of elites who behave selfishly and act as conservatives have reason to spoil the discussion, as I think that some of them are paid by public relations companies paid for by Republican and Tea Party super PACS to cruise the internet and troll against conversation that may generate solutions and make misleading and simplistic conundrums about individual vs. government, when the real issue is what are the responsibility of being a member of society instead of going to live as a selfish hermit in the wilderness, a rapidly diminishing wilderness at that. There are fewer and fewer places to run and hide and techies, who may be antisocial and avoidant to start with, have a problem if the future is that they have to live with a much higher population density and learn to cope with other people's problems in a compassionate and cooperative way. The Luxery of Rugged Individualism and avoident selfishness, a loaner's mentality, may do for the mountians of Colorado or Alaska, but more and more of us live in cities. This is the lesson of the Gun Control Debate, that an idiot with a firearm in the city is far more dangerous than the same idiot in the wildlands, The standards for living in a city are different from going off by yourself in the country.

  62. Re: Not paying for level 4 or 5!!! by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Because who would want a company that is managing its development processes or focussed on optimizing them?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  63. So now the non-voter wants a say? by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Should have thought of that, when you actually had a say.

    Non-voter whiners are beyond lame.

    That is, unless you can articulate a superior method of picking leadership of a very large group. I'd respect you if you are saying you won't vote until the voting method is improved to e.g. mixed member proportional rep or single-transferable vote. But if you're just one of those "all politicians are the same" non-voters or lazy-ass non-voters, then STFU about politics.

    In the current system, if you don't express your opinion on policy at the ballot box, you don't have the right to get your number counted in the political policy opinion statistics.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?