Re: Air Force

I'm not going to defend either software or hardware vendors here, they have their own demons , but having been involved in US Government software development in the past the problem is political not technical. Every new Administration/Secretary/Chief of Staff/Head Dog Dish Washer that gets put in charge has a different view of what should happen and how, of course without having a clue about software engineering much less the system as a whole. So they make it start all over again. To the vendors this drives profits straight to the bottom line while having to produce nothing of value, so they just ride the horse until it dies out from underneath them.

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects


On 12/11/2012 12:57 PM, Michael Ryan wrote:

CSC in particular.


On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Matt Olson<Matt.Olson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'd be willing to bet all these cost overruns are the result of PEOPLE not
> the software or hardware used to implement the processes.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nelson [mailto:nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:27 AM
> To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Air Force
>
> Heh. Oracle took my client for only $16 million. The client stayed on the
> iSeries and added another.
>
> Paul Nelson
> Cell 708-670-6978
> Office 512-392-2577
> nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gqcy
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:25 AM
> To:midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Air Force
>
> from the article:

> > The software initiative, called the Expeditionary Combat Support
> > System,

> was supposed to manage logistics using software from Oracle. In 2006, the
> Air Force announced that it had awarded a $628 million contract to the
> Computer Sciences Corporation to serve as lead system integrator; its job
> would be to "configure, deploy and conduct training and change management
> activities" before the launch.
>
> Strange, I think I have heard this somewhere else.
> Oracle plus gobs of money, multiplied by time, equals a "wicked problem"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/11/2012 9:11 AM, Raul A. Jager W. wrote:

> > I read an article in NYT about a failed "software upgrade" but there
> > is no details about what was going to be replaced by what.
> > It will be very interesting to know the details about the "upgrade".
> >
> >

>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/technology/air-force-stumbles-over-softwar
> e-modernization-project.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121209

> >
> >
> >
> >

>
> --