171–180 of 333 posts
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, what makes a payroll system at this scale so difficult? Complex pre-existing business rules of a large, sui generis employer (governments, especially sovereign ones rather than localities, often are because the laws that apply to other employees don't apply to them, and the rules that do apply often aren't coherent across-the-board policies determined by a central org focussed on HR, but often are set in specia…
It seems like lots of the payroll was being carried out by humans in local units. Humans are very good at holding lots of exceptions in our heads and, in the absence of clear rules, doing reasonable things. Computers are shit at both of the above. So things like Bob negotiated with his boss to leave early on Thursday to cover childcare and, in exchange, is coming in early on Tuesdays... but got asked to come in Satur…
So, what makes a payroll system at this scale so difficult? On the face of it, there are salary employees and there are hourly employees. How many taxing bodies does Canada have? Federal, provincial, and municipal? Is that a few dozen or a few hundred? Is Canadian tax code crazy complicated that doesn't allow for a rules based system? I'm honestly curious as to how a "simple" payroll system can go so far off the rail…
The Canadian government attempted to build a gun registry, originally predicting it to cost $12M, then $85M, then $1000M, then $2000M, and then it was scrapped. While it's easy to blame vendors like IBM, I have to imagine feature-creep and "what about"-isms lead to such monstrosities.
How many long guns are there in Canada anyway. Could you not use sheets.google.com? I'm serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know folks who work at IBM as well - don't mean to put you on the spot - but IBM should be far better at leading and guiding customers to success. Except at $250-350/hour, below average performance is more profitable than successful and a lot of good people suffer on both sides.
Didn't IBM effectively give them that guidance? It seems kind of simple in a way, if IBM was hired to build X and failed to do so, then there will be a law suit or some form of arbitration and some money will be recovered or something. It's pretty standard breach of contract type stuff. You can audit everything too, maybe IBM was billing for stuff they shouldn't have; I kind of doubt it but maybe there was something…
What if X wasn't defined to begin, besides a high level of saying "one way or another we'll get you a working result".
Any reasonable firm is hired to map out X to Y as best as possible, or at least be sure they did everything to uncover the possibilities, as much as they may, or may not occur. I have a hard time believing IBM has only experienced this once. I'm not saying IBM would do this, but maybe it happened that certain risks or unknowns didn't get the full attention or support from either side.
Contingencies in contracts are often for when things go to hell, taking up any action or arbitration is still not getting the client the result on top of taking resources away.
Saying we tried when we took a lot of your money isn't exactly a satisfying experience and use of taxpayer dollar. If this had been in the private world, would it have happened as easily?
Your point about competency in procuring digital solutions is a neat one - I don't know of many organizations, be it commercial, government, or academic that are good at this.
As a Canadian who has worked at IBM, I'm not surprised that this didn't find success. In IBMs defense, I don't believe our public sector has the experience or aptitude required to act as a supporting interface for a job of this scale. With that being said, IBM isn't a successful technology company with a proven record building good software products. They were an unwise choice from the get-go. IBM is a successful fin…
> IBM isn't a successful technology company with a proven record building good products. Whoa, what? Sure, some of their achievements are in their past, but that claim really overlooks a ton of history.
Was not surprised to see Oracle and PeopleSoft involved. I hope they get the crap sued out of them. That stuff is toxic, and I pity any organization that Oracle got its claws into using that junk.
> That stuff is toxic, and I pity any organization that Oracle got its claws into using that junk. In my experience, no one is really duped by these big companies. The people writing the checks generally start their search with magic quadrant leaders and then further narrow it down to the biggest players because "we can't trust our business to some no-name." It's really a situation that companies willingly put themse…
So, what makes a payroll system at this scale so difficult? On the face of it, there are salary employees and there are hourly employees. How many taxing bodies does Canada have? Federal, provincial, and municipal? Is that a few dozen or a few hundred? Is Canadian tax code crazy complicated that doesn't allow for a rules based system? I'm honestly curious as to how a "simple" payroll system can go so far off the rail…
Reminiscent of the state of Indiana's lawsuit against IBM for allegedly botching a project to automate the state's welfare system — lots of finger-pointing on both sides; the trial court's 65-page decision started out with the words, "Neither party deserves to win this case" [0]. The case has been up to the Indiana Supreme Court already [1]; on remand last summer, the trial court found that IBM is liable for USD $128…
Apropos HN, he then says, officials set out to fix Indiana's poorly-performing welfare system by inserting an untested, theoretical experiment, and substitute personal caseworkers with computers and phone calls ("remote eligibility"). This is now admitted to be an error, and there is nothing in this case, or the Court's power, that can be done to correct it, or remedy the lost taxpayer money or personal suffering of…