[preinheimer]

They spent money on a lot of things:

- Trying to figure out how the heck to enroll people (vanguard study)

- Decide which variables are worth tracking, and actually trackable. Every variable they track will cost a tonne, if they don't track a variable and decide they need later it's too late.

- Figure out how long they will successfully be able to track people, will they lose 5% a year? 10%? Is there a huge cliff when kids turn 12 where they all move? WHO KNOWS?

- Actually enrolling people and tracking the variables that seemed worthwhile

- Revising surveys based on stuff they're learning.

It was to be a huge study, to be honest if completed I think it would have been the landmark medical advancements of our time.

(I briefly worked on one small piece of software supporting one small aspect of the study)

[earljwagner]

Thanks for the insights. OK, that makes more sense and I can see the utility of the published results.

Now it sounds to me like when a corporation or large federal agency fails in implementing a new or upgraded software system because the process has become unmanageable. From your perspective in both worlds (setting aside the results published so far) does that analogy capture it?

[Fomite]

I don't think it quite captures it, because the NCS might not be "unmanageable", but simply too expensive for what people think its budget will be, or not be able to achieve some of its goals (good followup, a nationally representative sample, etc.).

It would be more like...if you rolled out an upgraded software system in a couple departments, collected some feedback, and decided not to go with the company wide rollout.

[saryant]

In terms of enrolling and tracking children, didn't the Early Childhood Longitudinal Program tackle a lot of those same issues? They managed to track my brother between kindergarten and eight grade which for my family spanned three states over five moves.

http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/