[Thom Pain]

In my experience in S/W development (45 years) adding resources to a project that is behind or in trouble ALWAYS makes things worse. ALWAYS

And usually in proportion to the amount of new resources added. And it usually incurs a disproportionately high increase in costs.

Oh, and I am sure the requirements are well defined and documented, and have been thoroughly vetted against the regs that define the Law itself.

sigh

Stock up on popcorn boys & girls!

[CommieCutter]

Do you think it’s possible for them to hire people that actually know what they’re doing and have this website recoded properly in a short amount of time, say six months to a year?

[upchuck]

You have more years in the barrel than I. But, having worn the white hat many times, I agree with you.

IMHO, first thing: A comprehensive document that does a no nonsense comparison between the published specs and the “finished” product. Oh, there are no specs? Well then, we may have to go back and start over.

[MarkL]

In my experience in S/W development (45 years) adding resources to a project that is behind or in trouble ALWAYS makes things worse. ALWAYS

Something I've wondered about quite a bit is that businesses are put through the wringer every year, in order to comply with SOX regulations. Given the reports that the system wasn't tested until the week before the rollout, but the company I work for spends at least a full month every year, just working with auditors for SOX compliance, I'll bet dollars to donuts that ObamaCare IT infrastructure does NOT comply with SOX! IIRC, non-compliance with SOX makes the CEO criminally liable. Since Barky is the "CEO" of the USA, I wonder if he's criminally liable?

Mark

[Neidermeyer]

Absolutely right .. if he really wants this to work the only way to do it by Jan 1 would be to make a simple .pdf for people to print , fill out and then mail in or call a rep who understands the options. I myself have filled out the requested info at least 6==>10 times and always get a failure at the very end .. "unable to verify xxx" or similar.

[DaxtonBrown]

I do in house software, so my perspective isn’t the same as big team kind of software writing. However, as I go back through my old code, I always find a lack of documentation and places where I haven’t a clue what I was doing. I would suspect in something as massive as Ocare, the new team will have to take several steps back just to figure out what the hell is going on, all to understand a failed product. 50/50 they would want to rewrite parts from scratch.

Who pays for this rewrite, by the way? Medicaid enrollees???

[no-s]

Oh, and I am sure the requirements are well defined and documented, and have been thoroughly vetted against the regs that define the Law itself.

Dude! Where ya been? Requirements are so 20th Century! Relax already!

You're old enough to remember the giant systems integration contract failures of the 80's and 90's. Surely you remember the cure for failure! Redefinition of Success! These ACA guys are way ahead of you on this, the Secretary of HHS gets to redefine everything without having to go back to Congress for much. It's like totally covered!

Consider the classic progression of bad news:
"It is a crock of s--t, it stinks."
--> "It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odour thereof."
--> "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."
--> "It is a vessel of fertiliser, and none may abide its strength."
--> "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."
--> "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."

[Cementjungle]

In my experience in S/W development (45 years) adding resources to a project that is behind or in trouble ALWAYS makes things worse. ALWAYS

These people obviously haven't read "The Mythical Man-Month"