Slashdot Mirror
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."
I worked for them. They have Linux HA failover setup on single network cable going to the same switch from both nodes. And then they debate why both nodes became master. When it was pointed out by me they stonewall and bounce between teams like engineering vs server ops. Nothing gets done. Engineering is a joke, they only know how to install linux from a CD. No tuning at all. SAN storage, where do I start. They recruit kids who got certifications, who use production as learning platform.
Some advice that was given to me years ago and has proven very accurate is to always be involved with the core business of anywhere you work. Never be a part of the support staff - accounting, IT, HR, etc.
If you make widgets, be a widget engineer or a widget assembler or a widget repairman.
Support staff is easily outsourced or replaced and you wind up bouncing from job to job and being cut any time your pay nears a livable level. If you work at N
ASA, have something to do with rocket launches or exploration and you'll be fine. IT? Not so much.
I worked at one of the NASA research centers when this contract was awarded. During the Due Diligence phase, HPE didn't even send a representative to our facility, and at other sites the reps were there for one day. We were incredulous; at our site alone there are 3,000+ people and a complex IT infrastructure. How can you do proper due diligence for a multi-billion dollar contract without even visiting the IT environment your going to be taking over, or talking with existing staff and customers?
Lockheed also competed for this contract and lost. (Lockheed was the incumbent on the expiring ODIN contract, and some of us suspected bias against Lockheed because of this.) Lockheed contested the contract award, which is something that is rarely done because you don't want to burn bridges with the government, and the United States government is Lockheed's customer for about 99% of all corporate revenue. Lockheed's position was something like, "you can't be serious! HPE has no idea what they are doing!" But NASA was insistent that they wanted HPE. It's been pure IT hell at NASA ever since.
MORE: During implementation, we found out that HPE's plan was to have a single HPE employee at our location! Any other staff would be outsourced or done via remote desktop sessions.
>> How do they get contracts?
Golf maybe?
>> It's not like their incompetence isn't already legend.
I took part in a state-wide effort to avoid hiring Accenture for some kind of state voting system about ten years, based on their demonstrated inability to complete that kind of project (they were getting sued by other governments during bidding) and their 3-4x run-up of costs at the same time. Guess what happened? The state hired Accenture anyway...got screwed with a system they couldn't use...and got charged about 3x what they were told. Unfortunately as I got older, I noticed that this happens all the time.
It's called lobbying (aka bribery). You funnel lots of money into the campaigns, foundations, or libraries of powerful people (for example....Secretaries of State) and magically you get whatever you want. Big government contracts. Laws that hinder your competitors. Regulations that benefit you personally. Tax breaks. The list goes on and on and on...
Or even make a decision without having to have 18 meetings with people who don't give a rip and don't know anything.
When I becane an IT manager, I instituted a "two meeting" rule. The first meeting to broach and issue and discuss it, and the second meeting to complete the discussion and make a decision.
This enraged people, who wanted multiple meetings spread out over weeks. Great way to avoid accountability but I wouldn't allow it. So people then started coming to me individually, post-decision, trying to get me to reconsider or have another meeting.
Sorry. I would rather have risked a sub-optimal decision than have no decision at all---- and the additional dozen meetings very likely would have resulted in something worse, not better.
I only lasted a few years in that job. Too counter-culture. (I also --- gasp --- got rid of subordinate managers who weren't getting the job done.)
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.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.