Seems like as good of a time as any to bring up Zed Shaw's "Programming, Motherfucker": http://programming-motherfucker.com/ We are a community of motherfucking programmers who have been humiliated by software development methodologies for years. We are tired of XP, Scrum, Kanban, Waterfall, Software Craftsmanship (aka XP-Lite) and anything else getting in the way of...Programming, Motherfucker. We are tired of being…
He's very annoying to read. EDIT: To clarify, his style is incredibly annoying.
Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
51–60 of 85 posts
Re: Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
#52So I won't critique ACA/Obamacae, the website or the development process. That's pointless. There are people who, just as in the case of various religions, will stick to their belief system no matter what anyone says. It is only when something external and utterly impossible to argue against presents itself that some of these people are willing to reason. So, none of that talk. It's pointless.
In thinking about this whole healthcare/website issue while kayaking (great way to unplug and just think) I came to the conclusion that what we are seeing unfold in front of us is of incredible value. In many ways, up until this ACA fiasco became front page news everywhere most US citizens dealt with government incompetence by simply ignoring it. It's one of those out-of-sight-out-of-mind deals. And, while most probably knew that ugly things have been happening behind closed doors and underneath each and every bill passed (regardless of party affiliation) most voters had better things to do than to stop their busy lives to go kayaking and critically think about these matters. Having solitude to just think is a rare commodity these days.
What the ACA has done in a major way is open the doors so we can all see the sausage being made. Plain and simple. We can see government incompetence in action. You don't have to be a programmer to recoil a the idea that a bad website that does not work cost taxpayers $600+ million dollars. And, you don't need a degree in computer science to probably guess that the final cost might reach double or triple that. And you don't need to even look at the code or know how it was written to start to understand that it is probably a complete mess and that three hundred million people are going to be forced to provide their most intimate data to this ill-conceived and ill-executed monster.
Let's not even discuss the tens of millions who are predicted to suffer significant collateral damage due to the the letter of the law and the intended or unintended consequences. I don't care who you are. Write a law consisting of 30,000 pages and an ever-expanding set of rules. Don't take years to debate, analyze, simulate and evolve it. Then go and try to implement it. Well, there's an absolute certainty of having huge problems.
Again, there's no partisan bend here. I am not arguing for or against the contents of the ACA. I am simply stating that something so massive that was created as the ACA ultimately was is almost guaranteed to be a minefield (or have one hidden inside somewhere).
Imagine writing 30,000 pages of code in your favorite language and not testing it until you release it to your customers. I know, I know, this isn't a perfect analogy. I am just using it to stress the point that something that large, without suitable testing and "quality control" is bound to be a mess.
Yet government operates this way. And we are the ones who get to eat what they cook-up. They certainly don't. Virtually nobody in the very top layers of this country's government has to live by a lot of the laws they pass. The Supreme Court certainly does not. Neither does congress or the office of the President. That should tell you something. They like to talk about the 1%, yet nobody talks about the 0.003%: The top 1,000 people in government who, to some extent, get to live above the law. The easiest way to have people not focus on you is to create focus elsewhere.
The ACA, from my admittedly Libertarian, perspective is great in that here we have something that irrefutably exposes how bad it is to put almost anything in the hands of government. This is not what you probably heard in school. This is not what you probably heard your professors proselytize to the captive audience of a classroom. To those who have never lived outside the security of government jobs or jobs where real-world consequences are, well, not real, their view of reality is vastly distorted from "real" reality. And that's what they spew out to our youngsters. And, because they are young and impressionable, they take it in and believe it. Very soon they are repeating the mantra without every having set foot in the real world.
Take this as an opportunity to watch and learn what reality looks like. If you are a reasonably accomplished coder you know, without a shred of a doubt, that $600 million dollars to implement the ACA portal --brilliantly or dismally-- is nothing else than obscene, if not criminal. A number in the range of one to, at worst, ten million (still sounds ridiculous) is what I hope most of you would think, no, would know, this should cost to do it right and to do it better.
Leave the details of the 30,000 pages and all of the collateral damage they will surely cause out of the equation. Just look at the sausage being made and form an opinion. Now realize this:
Everything. Absolutely everything in government. Is done. JUST. LIKE. THIS. You simply don't get to see it every day. Nobody reports on it. And it becomes water under the bridge. Now you can see it. Learn from it. Does this seem sensible to you?
Re: Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
#53Right now working on "sprint zero" which exists to 'determine deliveries'. I mean they still operate it as they have always done. They just stole another buzz word that sounds cool. Yes Mr. President we do agile. And because Mr. President doesn't know what agile is, the agency doesn't know what it is, so we can continue business as usual, just make sure that our contractors speak sprints instead of iterations. Stupid.
Re: Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
#54Re: Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
#55I would love to know what version control software was implemented throughout the project. I suspect that the answer is none. But if I'm wrong, it'd be interesting to know what tools they tried to use and where there processes worked, if they ever worked at all.
Why would you suspect that version control wasn't in use? Is there an aspect of this project that would be resolved with a specific version control system? These aren't rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely curious why you're asking.
a symptom of a more systemic problem.
Re: Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
#56I am trying to not get sucked into political discussions on HN because, well, they are bad for you. There are a wide range of people on HN with different ideas. From the demographics derived from occasional polls quite a few of you are younger and less experienced in life and business. That's not a put-down, just a fact. There's also a layer of HN participant with obvious college-originated indoctrination that is har…
Now, you tell me why this is such a great system because obviously I must be missing something. Because US as the only country from the list above has free-makret system while the others are 100% taxation sponsored, a.k.a. free. Tell me. Dying to find out.
Re: Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> figure out some way to qualify what makes good software engineering I doubt we'll ever be able to distill it to a formula. People ran successful software projects decades ago, long before any methodologies were formally described. And they have failing projects now, even when they use a supposedly good formal methodology. Instead of another alternative to waterfall, scrum, or agile, I'd propose the following ingred…
But what about the technical/professional side of things? I know there's no silver bullet but those of us who have been through a few projects have a pretty good idea of what's going to work and what isn't. We can tell, well in advance, what's going to work and what isn't both in terms of the technical approach and the management process. Agree? If that is the case how do we convert that intuition into something that…
Of course not everyone wants to be pushed this hard, wants to be part of something like this, and is paid enough to take the obvious abuse. It's just something nice to fantasize about.
Re: Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
#58I am trying to not get sucked into political discussions on HN because, well, they are bad for you. There are a wide range of people on HN with different ideas. From the demographics derived from occasional polls quite a few of you are younger and less experienced in life and business. That's not a put-down, just a fact. There's also a layer of HN participant with obvious college-originated indoctrination that is har…
US has lower life expectancy than Poland. It has lower life expectancy than any of the 19 developed nations. It has life expectancy at the level of developing Eastern European nations like Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, etc. At the same time US spends the biggest percentage of its GDP on healthcare. More than Germany does, more than France doesm more than UK does, more than Japan does. And people in France and Japan live…
What I am highlighting here is that, due to the ACA, for the first time our nation is seeing in all it's splendor how things are done in government and how ugly all of it is. Add to this the horrible NSA stuff and other issues and, well, I just can't see how anyone with a true and solid moral and ethical compass could be for more government control of our lives rather than less.
I want younger HN'ers to realize that this, exactly this, is how EVERYTHING, in government is done. It is wasteful. Incompetent. Inefficient. Intrusive. And it should scare all of you.
Take the US budget and imagine that nearly every program and every line item is executed in exactly this fashion or worst.
What do you think we could have done with six hundred million dollars. I am not talking about the ACA. I give you six hundred million dollars to spend --efficiently-- in anything you want. Would you burn it this way? Would you spend it on a pointless war? I would hope not. Only government can pull off something like this and then go on TV and make it sound like they are doing a good job. In the real world people would get fired and a number of them would face fraud and other charges.
Again, I don't care about what you want to discuss. For all I know you are absolutely right. I am simply using the parade of insanity marching before us --all sides, all political corners-- to illustrate that for the first time we all get to really see how things work.
That's it. It's the only take-away.
Re: Healthcare.gov failed despite agile practices
#59First, agile principles don't imply that an agile approach will always succeed where a waterfall approach will fail. It merely asserts that agile increases (not guarantees) the likelihood of success.
Second, the article's three sources didn't "proclaim that HealthCare.gov would not have failed if it had just used “modern” software practices, called agile development". The closest that comes is the third source that says, "None of these missteps would have occurred if the contractors had taken a gradual, agile approach." But in general, the articles were arguing that an agile approach would have improved matters, not guaranteed success.
Third, agile is a spectrum. People attempt agile within larger waterfall restrictions all the time. It doesn't work very well, but it still might work better than being 100% waterfall. But it doesn't change the fact that this was a project with guaranteed high traffic on launch day and a hard deadline, and a prohibition to deliver a smaller MVP early. That right there is incompatible with the purest forms of agile.