Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USDS Digital Services Playbook

playbook.cio.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 103 posts

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#41

Post by bladegash »

adbachman wrote: post #38
bladegash wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have certainly seen and experienced what you did, so I hear you. However, there are improvements slowly being made to be optimistic about. DevOps (or DevSecOps as they like to refer to it now...) is definitely becoming a more ingrained practice. If you’re interested, take a look at initiatives such as Cloud One, or some of the work being done by GSA (especially 18F) and USCIS (of all places). Interestingly, the 21st…

I'm curious how you've heard about USCIS' work / style? I'm new to the system, so this is the only one I know (wrote about joining here: https://twitter.com/abachman/status/1217795232449859585 ), but I'm currently on a team of 6, all feds: 1 designer, 1 product mgr, 3 engineers and I'd say we're fairly to extremely self-directed. User-research based product development, pair programming, short iterations, deploying d…

Other than previous work experience at DHS, bidding USCIS solicitations was the biggest difference I had observed with USCIS/way I became familiar with their practices. They’re pretty unique/developed with both their acquisition and DevOps practices.

It kind of sucks being on the bidding end, as their tech challenges cost a ton on top of the normal costs with a proposal. But I can understand why they do it and from an acquisition perspective, it makes total sense. I think they will need to strike a balance at some point though - some of their tech challenges are too complicated for the timelines provided.

In terms of development practices, it is pretty much all DevSecOps and they make heavy use of independent verification and validation/QA, and even more importantly, are pretty mature in their adoption of it.

So to answer your question, you guys are pretty far outside the norm in a good way :-).

Not sure the best way for you to be able to learn more other than to do some networking in the DC area (post COVID). If you get the opportunity, there’s a ton of great meetups in the DC area, although if you’re taking the MARC those can be a challenge to attend after work due to train schedule limitations. Other than that, move around to/visit different agencies and get exposure to their work. Work with your PM to see if you can do some site visits to other agencies/organizations as part of professional development and such.

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#42

Post by bladegash »

xeemzorz wrote: post #40
bladegash wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have certainly seen and experienced what you did, so I hear you. However, there are improvements slowly being made to be optimistic about. DevOps (or DevSecOps as they like to refer to it now...) is definitely becoming a more ingrained practice. If you’re interested, take a look at initiatives such as Cloud One, or some of the work being done by GSA (especially 18F) and USCIS (of all places). Interestingly, the 21st…

[deleted]

Have you tried reaching out to Nicolas Chaillan or anyone within the AF CSO about some of your observations regarding where Cloud One/Platform One are missing the Mark? Nicolas is pretty active on LinkedIn and he may be open to input that could lead to some positive changes.

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#43

Post by jolux »

Spooky23 wrote: post #29
jolux wrote: post #19

I think the biggest problem any US government agency has (federal or state) in producing services that leverage modern technology is that they cannot afford to pay people market rates. We have a mentality in the US that government cannot do anything right, but it seems of late (last 40 years or so) that we are kneecapping government's ability to execute and then complaining about it when it can't and making pronounce…

I think your assessment is flat out wrong... good people are everywhere and most companies don’t fire folks for cause. There are different problems in civil service government entities, but the number of “below average” employees is usually based in size of org, not type of org. A big bank isn’t much smarter internally than a big government agency. A small company lacks the controls and depth of skill just like a tow…

I don't see anything in your post that I disagree with so I find it interesting that you said I was flat out wrong in my assessment. I will say that below average competence is probably the wrong phrase, mostly what I meant is that it attracts some people who are not driven to execute and are fine with putting up with bureaucratic roadblocks to getting things done, when the kind of people you really want are those that are driven to removing certain roadblocks. Those are hard to find.

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#44

Post by jolux »

ryanianian wrote: post #28
bladegash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly what they do in 9.9/10 cases. As an example, Healthcare.gov was built via a contract with CGI.

Yes but this whole set of "playbooks" seems to be written for government agencies who are doing the work in-house. The playbooks aren't wrong, but it's silly to think they'll actually fix the issue of technology not being a government's core competency.

No, but setting up more agencies to do the work in-house and follow guidelines to this will fix it.

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#45

Post by [deleted] »

bladegash wrote: post #42
xeemzorz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Have you tried reaching out to Nicolas Chaillan or anyone within the AF CSO about some of your observations regarding where Cloud One/Platform One are missing the Mark? Nicolas is pretty active on LinkedIn and he may be open to input that could lead to some positive changes.

[deleted]

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#46

Post by texasbigdata »

shanear wrote: post #36
stevesycombacct wrote: post #17

I have a lot of heartburn reading something like this. I spent a decade in government consulting trying to implement anything resembling "data science" or "DevOps" and got repeatedly shut down by higher ups or by random bureaucrats that saw any modern practices, including any technology, as a threat. Excel macros working one day, then prohibited the next by new IT policies. Directors demanding that service line bosse…

These plays can work. Why? Because USDS employees are government employees with escalation paths all the way up to the very top which gives them a lot of power to break down bureaucratic barriers to modern software development that government contractors & consultants would have no chance of doing. They then can bring in contractors to work in the relatively modern shell that they've created. For example, here's a pr…

At market comp with market frustrations?

Most reasonable people might wanna work for their government for a 20% discount in either, but my fear is that it’s much much more and in both.

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#47

Post by dimmke »

jolux wrote: post #19

I think the biggest problem any US government agency has (federal or state) in producing services that leverage modern technology is that they cannot afford to pay people market rates. We have a mentality in the US that government cannot do anything right, but it seems of late (last 40 years or so) that we are kneecapping government's ability to execute and then complaining about it when it can't and making pronounce…

>they cannot afford to pay people market rates

This is not true! On average, the federal government is paying quite a bit of money for tech people. I'd seriously estimate they're paying almost FAANG rates in a lot of cases all told.

The problem is that a lot of it gets siphoned off in the contracting process. The contracting process needs to be fixed. There's a ton of huge established players doing really bad work. IT specifically gets treated differently in government contracting, and is almost always procured through something called a GWAC which is basically a moat that it's hard for new companies to get into (the goal is to streamline procurement by having "vetted" companies in this pool already but it usually means it's very difficult for new players to get involved.)

That is changing, just very slowly. The agency that created this playbook, GSA, is helping facilitate that with things like introducing good vendors to other agencies and smaller more limited engagements.

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#48

Post by dimmke »

ryanianian wrote: post #28
bladegash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly what they do in 9.9/10 cases. As an example, Healthcare.gov was built via a contract with CGI.

Yes but this whole set of "playbooks" seems to be written for government agencies who are doing the work in-house. The playbooks aren't wrong, but it's silly to think they'll actually fix the issue of technology not being a government's core competency.

This is wrong - This playbook actually came out of fixing Healthcare.gov. The original version of Healthcare.gov that failed and had all those issues WAS contracted out.

Your premise that the government should just contract out tech is bad because it already does contract out the vast majority of it. And the results are still bad in a lot of cases.

This playbook has become something that a lot of contracting companies that specifically focus on doing good dev work specifically call out in their websites and marketing. Ex: https://digitalservicescoalition.org/#/story

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#49

Post by shanear »

texasbigdata wrote: post #46
shanear wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These plays can work. Why? Because USDS employees are government employees with escalation paths all the way up to the very top which gives them a lot of power to break down bureaucratic barriers to modern software development that government contractors & consultants would have no chance of doing. They then can bring in contractors to work in the relatively modern shell that they've created. For example, here's a pr…

At market comp with market frustrations? Most reasonable people might wanna work for their government for a 20% discount in either, but my fear is that it’s much much more and in both.

It's both more difficult than any private company job I've had and it paid less, but knowing the impact my work had on veterans was well worth all of it. I'm extremely proud of the work that my teammates and I did there.

So many people complain about the government, so few are willing to fight to fix it.

Re: USDS Digital Services Playbook

#50

Post by jolux »

dimmke wrote: post #47
jolux wrote: post #19

I think the biggest problem any US government agency has (federal or state) in producing services that leverage modern technology is that they cannot afford to pay people market rates. We have a mentality in the US that government cannot do anything right, but it seems of late (last 40 years or so) that we are kneecapping government's ability to execute and then complaining about it when it can't and making pronounce…

>they cannot afford to pay people market rates This is not true! On average, the federal government is paying quite a bit of money for tech people. I'd seriously estimate they're paying almost FAANG rates in a lot of cases all told. The problem is that a lot of it gets siphoned off in the contracting process. The contracting process needs to be fixed. There's a ton of huge established players doing really bad work. I…

I'm aware of the problems with the contracting process. My experience with salary is at the state level where things are much more stark, but I also don't think that federal salaries are comparable with FAANG, particularly Google. Most at 18F are at GS-15, right?
Post reply on HN