Slashdot Mirror


Accenture Faces Mid-March Healthcare.gov Deadline Or 'Disaster'

PapayaSF writes "TheHill.com reports that Accenture has two months to fix HealthCare.gov by building a 'financial management platform that tracks eligibility and enrollment transactions, accounts for subsidy payments to insurance plans, "provides stable and predictable financial accounting and outlook for the entire program," and that integrates with existing CMS and IRS systems.' The procurement document, posted on a federal website, states that if this is not completed in time, there will be 'financial harm to the government' and 'the entire healthcare reform program is jeopardized.' Risk mitigation (which pays insurers who enroll a higher-than-expected number of sick patients) must be accurately forecast, or it might put 'the entire health insurance industry at risk.' Accenture will also have to fix the enrollment transmissions, which have been sending inaccurate and garbled data to insurance companies. Because the back-end cannot currently handle the federal subsidies, insurers will be paid estimated amounts as a stopgap measure. The document also said that officials realized in December that there was no time for a 'full and open competition process' before awarding Accenture the $91 million contract. What are their odds of success?"

51 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is government software like this thing not open source? What is the motivation for it being closed source?

    1. Re:Open source by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Money.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Two reasons:

      1. People are (god help me, I feel a fedora sprouting from my head and hairs growing from my neck as I type this) sheep. Your average person would lose their goddamned shit if they didn't have someone telling them what to do and when to do it. This is the end result of an education system that teaches blind love of authority, followed by corporate structures that do the same with regard to their employees. Thinking is hard. Decisions are tough. Et cetera.

      2. The only way to resolve the problem of the system is to vote in people who will change it. But if we vote for the wrong people, those other people might get elected! And they'll destroy us all! We'd better just vote for our team. Oh, yes.

    3. Re:Open source by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would assume the simply tendered out the process and got a bunch of quotes (tender responses) from companies on the government preferred supplier list. Any companies not assumed "big enough" were discounted out of hand. Then they would have had 2 or 3 left over (because at the very start of the process, they would have decided to immediately short list down to 2 or 3 people at most because bigger numbers than that is too hard to comprehend) and had some presentations from them about their success stories and then asked themselves "who was the cheapest?" and "who have I heard of before?".

      That's how it works here in Australia, anyway.

    4. Re:Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you dense? Do you think Open Source means that people work for free? Accenture (or some other contractor) would implement it, get payed by the Government and put it on Github for example. Anyone could identify problems and point them out. The requirement of open source and an open process would be a requirement from the Government.

  2. Two months? by tftp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two months is barely enough to understand the problem and to start reading top level documents. Not even looking at the code. Most of those tasks are system-level, and it will be essential to understand what data formats each of those entities wants - before some poor code monkey is given signed requirements to generate that data.

    1. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Accenture isn't a technology consultancy they are a management/operational excellence company, they farm technology work out to Avanade. This has no chance of being a complete success, but Avanade is decent.

    2. Re:Two months? by BoFo · · Score: 2

      Plus, there was tremendous scope creep. The healthcare.gov website was designed to only front end the entire qualification/enrollment process. After determining if the customer was qualified and in which state the party lived, the work for the government website was done. Then the user was passed to the website for the state. The Supreme Court then came along and increased the task by ruling that individual states could opt-out of the program. Now healthcare.gov had to be able to apply rules from the 26 states that chose to deprive their less fortunate citizens of reasonably priced health insurance. That increased the complexity of the project at the last minute but the deadline was fixed. I know I've been in those sort of projects and the roll-out isn't pretty.

  3. 0% by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No chance at success. Just like the rest of ObamaCare, a misconceived piece of legislation that managed to take a market plagued by serial distortions of preferential tax treatment for third-party insurance and actually make them worse by larding on an individual mandate and even larger subsidies to insurance companies.

    And the worst is yet to come, when some 80 million additional employer-sponsored policies are cancelled.

    The failure of the website is just the cherry on top of incompetent conception, planning and execution all along the line. It can take Apple or Microsoft 6 months to fix the bugs in a major release to an X.1 release, and Accenture is supposed to take someone else's far-more-dysfunctional code-base and make it work in 8 weeks?

    Not going to happen, and just another example of the serial dishonesty and manifest incompetence of the Obama Administration.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:0% by DexterIsADog · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...And the worst is yet to come, when some 80 million additional employer-sponsored policies are cancelled

      Is this a realistic prediction? I ask because your link is almost two months old, it's a Fox News story with the usual bias against the administration, and the underlying "facts" come from the American Enterprise Institute, of whom George W. Bush gushed, '"I admire AEI a lot--I'm sure you know that," Bush said. "After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people."' And we know how that administration turned out.

      I'm not looking for Rachel Maddow's take, but how about something within the last month, from a source that's not rabidly anti-Obama?

      Thanks.

    2. Re:0% by abirdman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I fail to see how placing control of health care in the hands of government is more scary than having health care in the hands of piranha-capitalist medical care organizations. Healthcare Inc. is an extremely powerful and vicious adversary, bankrupting millions every year, and basically preying on the weakest and sickest among us. I've worked in a side industry (medical malpractice insurance) for 20 years, and I know the entire medical industry is a vicious money-grab from bottom to top.

      I'll take my chances with the government over any possibility of getting a fair deal from the likes of big-pharma, big-hospital, big-insurance. The logic of this choice becomes more clear the closer to retirement age we get, or the less healthy we get. A thirty year-old who contracts a leukemia that would have been fatal 30 years ago may likely be saved from the disease today, but their finances will likely never recover-- even if they're insured. By the time we're 75, we'll basically be signed over to the system, healthy or not. Would you rather petition the government or UnitedHealthcare? I'll take the former, though I respect those who choose the latter.

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
  4. Slim..... and None by kenwd0elq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Especially for Accenture, a company with a fairly consistent record for failure in large IT projects, especially for government IT projects.

    But at that, the chances of something that can be spun as "successful" are greater for Accenture than for Deloitte. Not by much.... but some.

  5. Time for them to change their name again by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's Accenture. They write contracts DESIGNED to make a profit if they fuck up.
    I know the name change had reasons other than getting away from the bad reputation of Andersons, but it did have that side effect. If they have a front page for a week fuckup it won't kill them but I bet they'll change their name.

  6. Close to 100% by artor3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It'll be "good enough". Accenture built the California site, which works fine, and the insurers really want it to work, so they'll accept less than perfect.

    Of course, the summary is designed to make everyone say "THERE'S NO CHANCE!!" It's kind of insulting in its blatant demagogy, but I've come to expect that here.

    1. Re:Close to 100% by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      If they really plan on doing it in two months, then the only way they can reach that deadline is by tacking together pre-existing parts, or by debugging code that is mostly working already.

      If they are planning on writing major pieces of the system, or even relatively minor pieces, then there really is no chance they will succeed. At two months, if they are planning to design, code, and test more than 20,000 lines, it's going to be very difficult.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Close to 100% by artor3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Two months isn't a real drop dead date. They'd certainly like it to be done by then, but it's not like everything gonna go down in flames if the insurers only get estimated payments, with adjustments coming in a couple quarters.

    3. Re:Close to 100% by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Obama will just decree that they can have more time, breaking his own laws once again

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. Disaster for who? by jaymzter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the headline writers are a bit confused on who exactly is facing the disaster here, and it's certainly not Accenture.

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  8. America Cannot Compete by The+Cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no longer any point to these discussions of American inability to accomplish anything useful.

    1. Fifteen years ago, Americans cheered as their neighbors were fired en masse while their retirement accounts were savaged by the dot com crash and corporations helped themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.

    2. Eight years later, Americans cheered as their still unemployed neighbors were thrown from their homes by bald-faced institutional fraud while corporations helped themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.

    3. Now, Americans cheer as their government passes, then ratifies a plainly unconstitutional monstrosity which deprives millions of families of affordable health care while corporations help themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.

    Americans once valued education and competence. Americans followed people they respect. American leaders took care of the people they led.

    But the word "American" no longer has any meaning to the people who live in this country. The average person is embarrassed to claim the name "American." Those who do are reviled, jeered and looked on with suspicion.

    We have completely forsaken our integrity, our parents, our country and everything it ever stood for. Flying the flag over the narcissistic wreck this country has become is nothing short of blasphemous.

    The men who died at Appomattox, and Normandy, and Lexington and the Somme died for nothing. We have abandoned our neighbors to the winds and freed our government to claim any power it wishes and to use it however destructively it wishes without even the slightest electoral consequence. America no longer has a soul.

    And that is why all the king's horses and all the king's men can't build a web site.

    1. Re:America Cannot Compete by The+Cat · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. Under the tenth amendment, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to manage or otherwise regulate the health care market. The Supreme Court directly and unanimously rejected their Commerce Clause justification.

      There is no such thing as an interstate health care market. In fact, practicing medicine across state lines is a felony in all 50 states, even if you have a medical license elsewhere.

      2. The only way the Supreme Court could possibly ratify the Affordable Care Act was to declare it a tax, which justified it under the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I Section 8.

      This despite the fact the U.S. Government repeatedly argued on the record that the ACA was not a tax.

      The problems with calling the ACA a tax are:

      A. If it is a tax, it is unconstitutional on its face under the origination clause in Article I Section 7. Only the House may originate a bill for raising revenue. The ACA originated in the Senate.

      B. If it is a tax, it must be apportioned under Article I Section 2 and Article I Section 9. The apportionment requirement is the only mandate that is repeated twice in the Constitution. There can be no doubt the ACA is a direct tax (regardless of the Supreme Court's hand-waving) since all citizens of the United States are liable to pay it. Since the ACA is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional.

      C. If it is not a tax, there is no power in Article I Section 8 that justifies it, therefore the tenth amendment governs. Health care is a state issue, and the Federal government may not interfere.

      3. When the ACA was ratified by the Supreme Court, the case was being heard illegally. Under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over any case in which a state is a party. Original jurisdiction means the case must be first heard in that court.

      However, the Supreme Court was hearing on appeal when they ruled the ACA constitutional. The Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a case in which 26 states were plaintiffs. Further, the district courts that heard the case in the first place had no jurisdiction to rule for or against it either. District courts have no jurisdiction over such cases at all.

      Therefore the Supreme Court ruling was and is illegal. The ACA has therefore never been ruled legally constitutional. That means the 26 states that sued to overturn it still have a case and under the 14th amendment, must have their day in court.

      The Constitution is not a list of suggestions. The tenth amendment, Article I Sections 2 and 9, and Article III Section 2 are all the Supreme Law of the Land under Article VI. Neither Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor any other authority in this nation other than a plurality of states may overrule it.

      Therefore, the ACA is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

    2. Re:America Cannot Compete by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      1. Under the tenth amendment, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to manage or otherwise regulate the health care market. The Supreme Court directly and unanimously rejected their Commerce Clause justification.

      It wasn't unanimous. Some of the justices accepted the commerce clause justification.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:America Cannot Compete by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But... you sound like one of those "The government doesn't have authority to levy income tax" whackos.

      If the supreme court ruled it was legal, there is zero chance the supreme court is going to come back and say it tried the case illegally. Even if you are correct- which you probably are not.

      And if the supreme court said it's constitutional- then it's constitutional. Full Stop.

      It may suck in other ways. It may be poorly implemented. It was definitely passed in a slackdash way.

      But you are wasting your life energy and merely looking irrational continuing to pursue this particular line of argument.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  9. The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is it that we landed men on the moon in ten years, but we can't write some web applications in six years? Or consider that the US involvement in the second world war was just four years, enough time for us to develop two different kinds of nuclear weapons, as well as build vast numbers of ships and airplanes that actually worked.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
    1. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Both World War II and the Apollo program had larger budgets and
      2) the delivery deadline was not flexible and was not adjusted even when it was clear the project could not be delivered as expected. E.g. D-day airdrops over Normandy were delayed because of fog. Might have been more expensive (in soldiers and $$) if the airdrops were performed regardless of the weather because the political cost of delaying it was considered too high.

      I guess it's Slashdot so there are a lot of poorly thought-out quips by smart people, but really, why is everyone taking this as proof of US Gov't ineptitude? Anyone with experience in large projects should know it's, at best, a 50-50 chance that any given project will succeed. Throw into the mix the opposition party amping up the political stakes for missing the deadline, a customer (the White House) desperate to prove them wrong, and you have a recipe for disappointment. I've seen the exact same thing in a large Corporation where one branch had a pet project and another branch was actively campaigning to kill it. In that case, the outcome was actually much worse than what's been happening with Healthcare.gov, but it was confidential so never made it to the papers (there was some suing involved so via court documents maybe it did have some visibility in some obscure fashion).

    2. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by Megane · · Score: 2

      Because landing men on the moon was done by engineers, to solve a problem based on scientific principles like orbital mechanics. This is being done by non-engineers, to solve a problem based on legalese crap crammed in by lobbyists. (But they're the best non-engineers that money can buy!) It's all about the A-ark types vs the B-ark types.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:The Right Stuff vs. Obamacare by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is it that we landed men on the moon in ten years, but we can't write some web applications in six years?

      NASA engineers didn't have non-technical stakeholders telling them what features the rockets should have. And the NASA engineers were employees at the top of their field not a collection of consultants put together by an outside firm.

      Have you ever seen the episode of the Simpsons where Homer designs a car? Imagine that, except with a committee of politicians. Reckon you could fly to the moon in something they had a hand in?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  10. Re:The odds of success are zero by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep. I see no mention anywhere of "penalties" or "personal liability".

    I bet those people who are busy pocketing money wouldn't be so eager to sign government contracts if they put words like those in them.

    --
    No sig today...
  11. Who are Accenture? by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Informative

    Accenture, from the multinational corporation formerly known as Arthur Andersen, changed their name after the Enron scandal, formerly residents of tax haven Bermuda, now residents of tax haven Ireland http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2013/11/06/if-ireland-is-not-a-tax-haven-what-is-it/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Enron_scandal

    1. Re:Who are Accenture? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Accenture worked on the Australian Taxation Offices "Change Program", which cost billions and was a debacle. From the moment that they got the contract it was all about trying to progressively descope so that they had to deliver less and less. They delivered a fraction of what they said they would and many years late.

      But then they have a habit of employing smart young non-techies and then putting them in technical positions, and work practices that border on a cult.

      Why anyone would throw money at these clowns is anyone's guess.

    2. Re:Who are Accenture? by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why anyone would throw money at these clowns is anyone's guess.

      Because they are highly respected in management circles. You get the tech view on them and I have to agree that I would never, ever, ever hire them unless you put a gun to my head or something equivalent. But management thinks differently. From what I've grasped, they deliver excellent work, as far as management is concerned - that means regular status updates in easy-to-digest powerpoint slides, solid contract work, and instantly available expertise (if you tell them you need an expert on your big-ass storage system, tomorrow, they'll fly someone in and send you a bill).

      All of these and many similar things are like miracles to a beleaguered manager who needs to save his neck from the management layer above him who's asking for his head in order to save their own.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Who are Accenture? by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Andersen Consulting split off from Arthur Andersen a few years before the Enron scandal.

    4. Re:Who are Accenture? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, although the expert will often as not turn out not to be, and they will make decisions that will haunt you for years.

      Not that the competition is any better.

    5. Re:Who are Accenture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good at management? Ok here is a story from Norway, I won't name names but I personally know the lead developers of the project. Accenture was hired by DNB to work on a pension system, worth "billions". The application was utter crap, atleast the lead developer said so. So one day DNB (which had employees in Accentures offices due to the project) came and had some change requests – Accenture's management estimated it would require 2000 man hours to complete the task (pulled a random number out of their frickin' management ass). At the same time DNB's person in Accenture's offices had contacted the lead developer and asked him about this change also. He fixed the issue even before Accenture's management had the opportunity to talk with him, 8 hours spent.

      Accenture is nothing but a fuckin' scam, good at snake oil talk – officials working with this company is probably very very incompetent or even worse corrupt.

    6. Re:Who are Accenture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice paranoid conspiracy theory. The same Wikipedia article to which you link contains the facts: Accenture is not Arthur Anderson; it's the renamed Anderson Consulting, which split off from AA in 1989, 12 years before the Enron scandal. AC had nothing to do with the Enron contract; that was all AA. The renaming of AC to Accenture was due not to a PR decision by AC, but to a 2000 court order in AA's favor, awarding AA all rights to the "Andersen" name. AA subsequently renamed themselves "Andersen." all this took place the year before the scandal came out.

      The Enron scandal took down AA; their involvement as the actual shredders destroyed their reputation. Accenture, having nothing to do with it, was largely unaffected and unharmed.

    7. Re:Who are Accenture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      My wife used to work for Accenture.
      The culture is typically bounding "consultants" which jump into a project, and then within 1 month jump to another project, in order to pump up their list of successful projects & plump up their personal resume .. without ever contributing any real work to a project.

      This project is doomed.

    8. Re:Who are Accenture? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I worked with a customer that used them for building a new data mgmt system. Instead of guiding the team to starting with the basic structure and build on it, they wanted to map every conceivable use. A huge amount of time/money wasted on hypothetical data structures and unneeded complication. But, as you said, they had executive mgmt sold that they were the right company. They have good salesmen.

      Unless they are replicating an existing system, I wouldn't use them.

  12. Alas another lesson about paper power :-) by John+Allsup · · Score: 2

    The government has a real chance of learning the lesson that pieces of paper containing the words 'A will do B or else C' for various combinations of A, B and C, are nowhere near as effective as an imaginary fairy with a wand when it comes to actually getting stuff done. If real fairies with real, working magic wands were an option, it would most likely work much better than the current approach, but alas all the fairies were driven out long ago by the forces of insistent scientists demanding that fairy magic has no place in a modern scientific world. 'Suit yourself,' said the Fairy Queen, 'we thought we were doing you a favour, seriously, it's better where we come from, magic works properly there, and we're only too happy to oblige!' So the Fairy Queen and all the magic fairies and their magic wands disappeared into the sunset, and the US government was left with only paper, letters and no magic spell power besides 'contractual terms' to allow the pieces of paper to have any useful effect.

    --
    John_Chalisque
  13. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They got the plan straight from the Mendacity King, Mitt Romney.

    People love to bring this up, but protip:

    There is a massive difference in legality*, complexity, necessity, and implementation in running a program in a state, vs. running it at the Federal level.

    "Obamacare" is most certainly not "Romneycare".

    (* The Federal government has absolutely no authority to be enacting health care nonsense. In effect, this legislation is illegal. In reality, the Constitution is long dead in all but in the form of something to trot out and thump one's chest about, so it's game on, of course. I'm not calling out either party here, because you'd pretty much have to go back to John Motherfucking Adams if you want the first real boot to the Constitution's head, or George Kills-For-Fun Washington if you want to see where the destruction of the supreme law of the land actually began.)

  14. The numbers don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, it's a $91 million dollar contract on a two month timeline.

    Let's say there is a profit margin in there, of 50%, so cost is 45.5 million

    Let's say it's really important, and everybody works 60 days.

    That is over 750,000 per day.

    If we average $4,000 (total guess) per day per project team member, we have 190 people on the team.

    Who the hell can organise 190 people on a two month project.

    How has this been estimated?

    Can anyone else make the numbers work??

  15. For some, thinking is *impossible* by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Two reasons:

    1. People are (god help me, I feel a fedora sprouting from my head and hairs growing from my neck as I type this) sheep. Your average person would lose their goddamned shit if they didn't have someone telling them what to do and when to do it. This is the end result of an education system that teaches blind love of authority, followed by corporate structures that do the same with regard to their employees. Thinking is hard. Decisions are tough. Et cetera.

    It's only partly because of education, but for the *most* part, it's the innate human instinct to "go with the flock", and yes, just like the sheep.

    Idol worshiping is everywhere, from movie stars to athletes to religious figures to even people of the most untrustworthy occupation - politicians - flocks of sheep pay their homage to their idols.

    Whatever their idol did, no matter how wrong it is, the sheep will find excuses to defend - even when it is utterly *un*defendable, they still try their best to defend.

    Like the original contract for this website which went to a college buddy of the POTUS' wife, without open bidding.

    If we are to criticize the award of that original contract to someone who has no clue in setting up a website, the sheep will be rubbed the wrong way and they will revolt. They will attack whoever dare to criticize their idols.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:For some, thinking is *impossible* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Baa!

    2. Re:For some, thinking is *impossible* by MisterSquid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like the original contract for this website which went to a college buddy of the POTUS' wife, without open bidding.

      The executive whose company won the no-bid contract is Toni-Townes Whitley and the only association she and Michelle Obama have had is that they were classmates at Princeton.

      The right-wing media attempted to twist this fact of attending the same school at the same time as proof of cronyism. Fortunately for those of us who would be informed rather than manipulated, the biggest evidence of this failed smear campaign is the blasted Google landscape around the search terms "michelle obama yale classmate".

      The only people repeating this as proof of corruption are biased right-wing media organs and poorly informed /. readers.

      --
      blog
  16. Besides the jokes by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Accenture (and the like) image in IT departments (technical side) is often illustrated thanks to some jokes, like the famous Why did the chicken cross the road?. While the IT department usually delivers practical and tangible services, these "consulting companies" made their way up to the management. The management, IT illiterate, is always keen on overpaying some comforting but useless lengthy overpriced reports from such a consulting company, stacked later on at the bottom of a cabinet, having a sticky note inserted on page 3/1000, page where the reader gave-up reading. Useless reports aimed at influencing high level decisions at the management level, that may not have a direct or lethal impact on IT productivity. Besides the heavy cost embedded in the management budget, usually no one really cares. The problem arises when a big entity, IT illiterate, does not have a solid IT structure yet, and assigns full responsibility to such a "consulting company" to manage a new IT service, from A to Z.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  17. Re:The odds of success are zero by DexterIsADog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why is everyone responding couching this in terms of a binary success/failure? I have worked in the health insurance industry for 20 years, through lots of business, state regulation and federal regulation clusterfuck deadlines, and the typical pattern is;

    Note that a deadline is approaching in a year or so
    Meet occasionally to marvel at how complex the change will be until 6 months before the deadline
    Assign a team to do the work with 4 months to go
    Have an "oh shit! ALL HANDS ON DECK!" come-to-Jesus meeting two months before the deadline where the CEO kicks some rhetorical ass
    The team works like hell to implement what they can
    Mid-level managers identify the *least* required functionality to avoid firing/contract penalties/lawsuit and/or prosecution
    Deliver *something* that technically meets the requirements
    Get an "attaboy" from the CEO on the heroic work done by everyone involved

    I'm not even being sarcastic. This is how it works. ICD-10 ring any bells?

  18. Accenture Expertise by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good old Accenture. I remember having to work with those clowns on the London Stock Exchange website. Our small company had been running it since day 1 but due to a deal between Accenture, Microsoft and HP we were slowly being pushed out of our position. They decided to let the Accenture guys handle running the website which led to a few funny events, the best of which were:

    1. Our team noticing the website had stopped serving pages for price information. We rang their team who were supposedly monitoring it 24/7 and told them. They asked what they should do...uh, so I said "Just IISReset the server, it should come back up". Their highly paid tech then asked me..."how do I IISReset it?"...oh god, no!

    2. Accenture wanted to push a change out to part of the site. They let their best and brightest do the work. Instead of copying over the files he somehow managed to delete the 15 minute delayed price site. They then tried to blame that on us, but when I mentioned in the emergency meeting that we no longer logged on to perform maintenance and we could simple check the security log to see who did it they clammed up.

    3. The same idiot who deleted prices went and deleted the entire website by mistake. We laughed, a lot.

    What's that old line..."Accenture, taking the freshest recruits straight from college and putting them in charge of your billion dollar enterprises." :D

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  19. Revisit a year from now by us7892 · · Score: 2


    * Accenture will realize the problem is much worse than they first realized, or that they chose to admit (by choice.)
    * The first two months they will have actually done very little. Perhaps created a plethora of new documentation.
    * Accenture will have extended the contract several more times, the new total amount will be near 250 million dollars.
    * Additional exceptions to the law will help to extend the contract so that changes can be implemented, and deadlines will simply keep moving.
    * The whole system will operate in pretty much the same way it does today.

    Accenture will not be at fault, however. They were just trying to fix the problem. And there just was not enough time and money. Then begins another year. Start the whole process again...

    Eventually,this will all go down as a miserable failure. But don't underestimate the amount of dollars that can be wasted along the way.

    Then begins phase 2, under Hillary Clinton most likely. Give it another try, why not?

  20. Accidenture by BoFo · · Score: 2

    I know of at least one project bunged up by Accenture. That why they're called Accidenture: http://accidenture.com/

  21. Re:Why are you looking at the Obama Administration by BoFo · · Score: 2

    And allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines is what the industry has been salivating for and the Republicans have been working hard to pass. Tha same thing happened with the banking industry with credit cards. That is why all credit card companies are based in South Dakota. When the government allowed all banks to operate across state lines, the race to the bottom began and South Dakota won. Whichever state has the loosest regulatory structure is the one that will be chosen and every consumer pays the price.

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Put "the entire health insurance industry at risk" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    The article says this, like it's a bad thing.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  24. Patriot Alert by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    If you know competent Accenture employees, persuade them to quit.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate