CDC website built by Deloitte at a cost of $44M is abandoned due to bugs

Post by ndiscussion » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 3:58 AM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #30

ndiscussion wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my money. Not a company's. To anyone who disagrees, how is this statement wrong?

It’s 0.00275% of the income tax paid annually ($44M/$1.6T)and an even smaller amount of the total tax. Assuming you’re an average taxpayer, it cost you about thirty one cents ($44M/143M people). If you’re a median taxpayer it’s even less. This is a giant fuck up, but way out of perspective. Even with all the other fuckups, the wasted portion of your taxes surely isn’t enough for heads to roll.

Post by damon_c » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:01 AM UTC

billions wrote: post #97

The last time the US government made something to be proud of was 50 years ago with the Apollo program. Counter examples welcome!

Post by freeone3000 » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:03 AM UTC

bbeesley wrote: post #85

NearAP wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a 'software engineering' thing. If you look at it from a software development POV, then the issue is more of not having 'product managers' whose job it is to - understand the requirements, write the specs, basically champion the POV of the end user (after actually identifying the correct end user). Examples a) The article talked about the software not working on Internet Explorer (IE). Older people still…

Internet Explorer has less than a 2% market share in the US, so under normal circumstances (given the sacrifices you’d have to make everywhere else) not bothering to support is is often a sensible decision. When it’s an access to healthcare issue though you can’t really exclude 2% of users. That said, building something that works well on mobile (re your point b) but also works on internet explorer is a pretty tough…

Post by zucker42 » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:04 AM UTC

tidepod12 wrote: post #46

didibus wrote: post #13

I just don't understand these software deals, the price is so high. At 44 million, you can hire 146 engineers each paid 300k for a full year. Trust me, you need much less to build something like this, and there's no excuse for it to suck so bad. I'm also curious, anyone know where the development actually happened? Did Deloitte further subcontracted out? Was it outsourced?

I've no love for Deloitte, but the one benefit they do have here is the ability to mobilize quickly on something like this. It's simply impossible to "hire 146 engineers" within any reasonable time frame, let alone get them all organized in a way that you can manage them effectively (and don't forget the project managers/scrum masters/etc that would need to be hired too). Deloitte, OTOH, has an entire existing busine…

Post by tyingq » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:06 AM UTC

didibus wrote: post #13

I just don't understand these software deals, the price is so high. At 44 million, you can hire 146 engineers each paid 300k for a full year. Trust me, you need much less to build something like this, and there's no excuse for it to suck so bad. I'm also curious, anyone know where the development actually happened? Did Deloitte further subcontracted out? Was it outsourced?