[arminiusreturns]

Not only do I think thats a strawman (I don't see that base level argument given that often on hn), but even if it wasn't, the truth is there is a lot, and I mean a fuckton, of money waste at the government level on IT projects. Trying to act like just because they aren't all a scam doesn't mean there isn't a systemic problem of waste that still needs to be addressed, and there are plenty of examples in even recent history that prove this point. More than just waste, the intention to fill good ol boy pockets in priority over getting the job done has significantly weakened the function of the projects, for example, the national security implications of abandoning thinthread that William Binney and Thomas Drake talk about... as just one in a myriad of examples. Virginia didn't have multiple counties become the new primary growth centers of millionares because of fair and balanced bids... and anyone pretending otherwise doesn't know how DC works.

[matthewdgreen]

The story of Healthcare.gov is pretty much the poster for this. They didn’t need to bring in a bunch of clever people to figure out requirements, that was already done and the site just didn’t work. To fix it they had to bring in a team of tech experts, who largely just did tech things —- competently and at a lower cost than the contractors who did the first iteration. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...

[pjmlp]

While true, the team that was chosen also did not had the experience with public facing sites.

The contract was given to a team used to do intranet websites in classical JEE format and the letting them lose in such a project, designing as they knew.

https://changelog.com/gotime/154

[eaton]

> Trying to act like just because they aren't all a scam doesn't mean there isn't a systemic problem of waste that still needs to be addressed

No, of course not. But it's undeniable that these threads on HN (and other engineering-dominated forums) always include a healthy dollop of "I'd have done that better, because I'm a good software engineer" disdain. It's often paired with ignorance of how large-scale enterprise and government contracts and procurement work, what roles are necessary for large-scale projects with a significant discovery component, and what the planning process looks like when a team can't afford to launch-and-get-feedback or fail-fast-and-learn their way to a full specification.

I mean, this Deloitte project and the rollout are clearly a shitshow on a million levels. They got a no-bid contract for an eye-popping sum, then more than doubled it before the building even started! But the approaches boldly prescribed in most of the comments here wouldn't have produced a working system at the scale needed, either — only a cheaper broken one. A cheaper failure is still a failure.