NASA's Outsourced Computer People Are Even Worse Than You Might Expect (arstechnica.com)

Eric berger, writing for ArsTechnica: As part of a plan to help NASA "modernize" its desktop and laptop computers, the space agency signed a $2.5 billion services contract with HP Enterprise Services in 2011. According to HP (now HPE), part of the Agency Consolidated End-User Service (ACES) program the computing company would "modernize NASA's entire end-user infrastructure by delivering a full range of personal computing services and devices to more than 60,000 users." HPE also said the program would "allow (NASA) employees to more easily collaborate in a secure computing environment." The services contract, alas, hasn't gone quite as well as one might have hoped. This week Federal News Radio reported that HPE is doing such a poor job that NASA's chief information officer, Renee Wynn, could no longer accept the security risks associated with the contract. Wynn, therefore, did not sign off on the authority to operate (ATO) for systems and tools.A spokesperson for NASA said: "NASA continues to work with HPE to remediate vulnerabilities. As required by NASA policy, system owners must accomplish this remediation within a specified period of time. For those vulnerabilities that cannot be fully remediated within the established time frame, a Plan of Actions and Milestones (POAM) must be developed, approved, and tracked to closure."

Comments

Who would have guessed?

[HornWumpus]

EDS under a new name is the same old POS.

How do they get contracts? It's not like their incompetence isn't already legend.

The only thing they are competent at is marketing to government and fortune 500s.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because management doesn't listen to IT people, or even consult them about IT-related contracts. Instead, they imagine that they have all the knowledge and experience required to judge the merits of a proposal and end up selecting the one with the slickest marketing.

Re: Who would have guessed?

[Anonymous Coward]

IT people mostly suck, too. And there's this fallacy that people will actually deliver on contractual obligations; they won't. People that are good at spotting bullshit are usually marginalized as negative influences.

Re: Who would have guessed?

[EndlessNameless]

People that are good at spotting bullshit are usually marginalized as negative influences.

I don't have that problem, so it's probably a question of how you identify BS or how you expose it up the chain.

The underlying issue is that you have to be right. If you call something out---even once---and it ends up doing what they wanted it for, then your credibility is shot.

There's an art to conveying uncertainty in regard to anything management wants.

I have never gotten a bad response from saying, "The suggested product does not have a perfect reputation, so here is an alternative if they can't deliver." And that alternative comes with a summary of the costs, functionality, and tradeoffs so he can justify the change if necessary.

The people I see marginalized as negative influences are the ones who talk shit about proposed solutions without offering one of their own. A business need can't go without a solution, so you're offering either a viable alternative or noise. And an alternative solution doesn't count if it can't check off all the major requirements, including the ones that might not be written down.

Outsourcing vs Inhouse

[Archangel Michael]

If you outsource, you get what you pay for .. maybe.

If you keep it in house, you get what you pay for .. maybe.

The problem isn't outsourcing, it is leadership that is incapable of articulating needs correctly. Or even make a decision without having to have 18 meetings with people who don't give a rip and don't know anything.

Re:Not surprising

[segedunum]

Not surprised at all. I interviewed with them, and they really wanted me mainly because I got the impression they desperately needed someone who knew what he was talking about for something they really needed. However, HPE already have a massive reputation for casting employees aside and I wisely backed out. They are a company that simply don't do anything useful at all but get cash thrown at them for some reason. That's the result.

Re:This is why

[shaitand]

True but in tech there is no advancement in position anyway, the only way you get a pay increase you'll notice is to get hired at the current market rates by another company. Within 2-3 years you'll pay will have advanced only joke 1-3% amounts while new hires will make as much or more than you.

Re:This is why

[__aaclcg7560]

50K is crap in SV

Not if you're living a modest lifestyle. The mistake that most people make is chasing the American Dream: big houses, big cars, big toys, big women, big kids. That gets expensive in Silicon Valley.

Re:This is why

[__aaclcg7560]

How's the cardboard box you're living in going? I figure that's about all you're going to afford in the Bay Area at that salary rate...

I rent a 470-sft studio apartment for $1,466 per month. I've been here for 11 years.

Re:This is why

[The-Ixian]

The nice thing about IT work is that all sectors need IT workers.

So you don't have to restrict yourself to one market sector.

Some sectors pay more than others.

For me, it is always a trade off between freedom and burdensome restrictions.

Usually, the bigger the company, the more you can get paid as an IT worker and the less you need to know. However, you also have much less freedom to drive company policy or to even do your job (or what you view to be your job).

OTOH, the smaller the company, the less money you make as salary but the perks may be bigger (retirement, medical insurance, free parking, etc) and you have more freedom to involve yourself in more things (wear more hats). However, the work is harder and you need to know more.

I personally like the smaller companies. I don't make as much as my peers, but I do get to do a lot more interesting things on a daily basis.