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

Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

breakingdefense.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 279 posts

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#241

Post by Spooky23 »

uticus wrote: post #44
MrMetlHed wrote: post #38

Worked with a guy ten years ago that would obsessively read these reports from the Pentagon. Here's a couple of his stories about the matter: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/pentagon/ and https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-mari... (very old and I apologize for my horrific javascript at the time.) It sounds like nothing has changed. Relevant to this crowd, maybe: "Most of the Cobol code the P…

Of course, devil's advocate would point out COBOL in 60s was written with a lot more focus on lasting in general. They didn't largely have the same general attitude of 'we iterate quickly with our script kiddies' as is prevalent today. Not that all software from then was wonderful. Or that COBOL magically guarantees great code. But, on the flip side, you can't say the code base isn't battle-hardened (to various liter…

If my experience with an unemployment system is a guide, the COBOL is fine. The scaffolding around it, different story.

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#242

Post by Spooky23 »

ebiester wrote: post #183
docandrew wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder though whether the up-front costs incurred by your team would eventually be outweighed by the long-term costs of the quick team.

I am not convinced that it would. The quick team will get to learn three times as much and adapt to the actual customer need. The cost of change in a system built with stability as a quality attribute will be higher. (As you can see from a system like the old mainframes!)

The advantage that the original cobol people had is that they had functional manual processes to model.

Today, the payroll supervisor has no idea how many processes work.

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#243

Post by [deleted] »

mschuster91 wrote: post #142
curiousllama wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cobol cowboys are a thing. They make substantially more than 250k. They’re competing with Wall St though, so hard to just pay more. Fed govt migrations are ALWAYS shitshows. The army alone has like 20 individual email services. The pentagon is to org complexity what big tech is to technical complexity. It’s turtles all the way down. This is literally one of the largest bureaucratic challenges on earth. There’s no sim…

The solution is simple: you need someone with absolute authority over everyone including the generals to lead the effort. There's a time and place for democracy - but large IT projects are not. Do a thorough need analysis, compare with what's reasonably possible using COTS software, and adapt or discard what is not possible.

[deleted]

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#244

Post by bogota »

whatshisface wrote: post #97
thelastgallon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incentives only work on low-skilled labor that is quantifiable. Eg. more money for flipping more burgers. It is not a settled science paying people a lot more will automagically solve problems. People crave Autonomy, Mastery & Purpose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbR2V1UeB_A What is definitely going to happen is you will attract the cowboys who have convinced themselves and can convince you to pay top dollar. The…

250k is not top dollar, it is average for experienced engineers.

250k with government perks and retirement is pretty nice. Also for 250k cash you will find lots of people willing to learn cobal.

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#245

Post by vajrabum »

mschuster91 wrote: post #142
curiousllama wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cobol cowboys are a thing. They make substantially more than 250k. They’re competing with Wall St though, so hard to just pay more. Fed govt migrations are ALWAYS shitshows. The army alone has like 20 individual email services. The pentagon is to org complexity what big tech is to technical complexity. It’s turtles all the way down. This is literally one of the largest bureaucratic challenges on earth. There’s no sim…

The solution is simple: you need someone with absolute authority over everyone including the generals to lead the effort. There's a time and place for democracy - but large IT projects are not. Do a thorough need analysis, compare with what's reasonably possible using COTS software, and adapt or discard what is not possible.

That's exactly why DoD kept bringing Grace Hopper out of retirement first in 1967. They eventually gave her a star in the 80s, and along the way she was as responsible as anyone for the standardization efforts for COBOL and Fortran including the design of standardized compiler validation suites. Testing and interoperability before testing or interoperability were a thing! One of the later major projects she worked on was modernizing the Navy payroll system. Even junior sailors at the time knew that she and her team had made sure they got their paychecks. She retired from the Navy at age 79 in 1986. Nobody messed with Grace Hopper.

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#247

Post by count »

wolverine876 wrote: post #196
count wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, most of the DoD is. But DoD also has non Title10/PPBE-programmed funding (foreign military sales, contingency and humanitarian operations funds, MWR funds and incomes, support-to-other-agency (e.g. the US Navy NAVWAR organization provides SUBSTANTIAL IT and cyber expertise to non-DoD entities and other federal agencies such as the FBI and DHS). The DoD is like the End Game Boss on legal and financial edge cases.

As someone who seems to know a bit about it, do you take the job? :)

I, uh, tilt at other windmills in that morass (although my windmills caused me to learn about the financial stuff - turns out certain kinds of money can't be used on certain kinds of contracts, etc.). It's space in my brain I wish I could fill with useful info like song lyrics or something.

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#248

Post by count »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #229
count wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, most of the DoD is. But DoD also has non Title10/PPBE-programmed funding (foreign military sales, contingency and humanitarian operations funds, MWR funds and incomes, support-to-other-agency (e.g. the US Navy NAVWAR organization provides SUBSTANTIAL IT and cyber expertise to non-DoD entities and other federal agencies such as the FBI and DHS). The DoD is like the End Game Boss on legal and financial edge cases.

Where can I read more about this non Title 10 funding?

DoD Instruction 7000.14-R (https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Vol... is a good start)

Overseas Contingency Operations - https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-10/54219-oco_spen...

Nonappropriated funds (MWR, etc.) - https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/arc...

Foreign military sales / FMS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Military_Sales.

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#249

Post by [deleted] »

zer00eyz wrote: post #233
vore wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how authority works. Whatever you would choose to implement, you will need to have enough buy in from those middle managers and fiefdoms otherwise you will end up with heel-dragging or, worse, malicious compliance. If you've been in any kind of organization that's tried to impose completely top-down edicts, you should have seen the kind of destruction of morale it leaves in its wake.

> any kind of organization that's tried to impose completely top-down edicts, you should have seen the kind of destruction of morale it leaves in its wake. https://chrislaing.net/blog/the-memo/ And now no one remembers what it was like without AWS...

[deleted]

Re: Pentagon fails audit for sixth year in a row

#250

Post by neurotech1 »

vajrabum wrote: post #245
mschuster91 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is simple: you need someone with absolute authority over everyone including the generals to lead the effort. There's a time and place for democracy - but large IT projects are not. Do a thorough need analysis, compare with what's reasonably possible using COTS software, and adapt or discard what is not possible.

That's exactly why DoD kept bringing Grace Hopper out of retirement first in 1967. They eventually gave her a star in the 80s, and along the way she was as responsible as anyone for the standardization efforts for COBOL and Fortran including the design of standardized compiler validation suites. Testing and interoperability before testing or interoperability were a thing! One of the later major projects she worked on…

Adm. Grace Hopper wasn't the only senior officer who was recalled because of their expertise. One is a retired JAG lawyer (a friend actually) who continues to advise at the Pentagon on several areas of expertise. She actually learned COBOL from Adm. Hopper herself, and always had high amount of respect for Adm. Hopper and how she disliked bureaucracy. There is a lesson there.

Ironically, my friend has programmed COBOL on DoD mainframes, and still does as a consultant, having interacted with them for decades. Back in the 1970s she had a surplus IBM minicomputer that her father brought home for business use, and learned COBOL on that, and used the computer for furthering her legal research.

Post reply on HN