[IP] Re: Billion-dollar IT failure at Census Bureau

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: DV Henkel-Wallace [david@abscott.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 9:31 PM
To: eekid@aol.com
Cc: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Billion-dollar IT failure at Census Bureau

Let's assume all had gone well (and let's assume there had been no
overruns).  They put out a $600MM  contract, meaning the total project
costs would be over 1.1 Bn (the contract would be only part of the
project).

Can anyone imagine a computerization project that would improve
efficiency by 10%??  Forget the execution problem: what were they
thinking?

Or were they stoned on all that "magic computerization dust?"  It
seems to be sprinkled liberally around anyone who thinks of elections
(and around many businesses); why not the census too?

-d


On Mar 24, 2008, at 17:50 , David Farber wrote:

> Why is anyone surprised. I spent many years on NRC (National
> Research Council) study groups looking at Social Securit , IRS, FAA
> and various DoD software procurements. They were all in serious
> troubles usally due to very poor procurement processes; endlessly
> changing requirments; poor software management etc etc etc. BUT it
> still goes on and on and on. Try reading some of the NRC
> reports,They are informative and sad.
>
> Dave
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: eekid@aol.com [eekid@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 5:03 PM
> To: dfarber@cs.cmu.edu; David Farber
> Subject: Billion-dollar IT failure at Census Bureau
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=660
>
> Billion-dollar IT failure at Census Bureau
>
> Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 7:51 pm
>
> US Census Bureau faces cost overruns up to $2 billion on an IT
> initiative replacing paper-based data collection methods with
> specialized handheld devices for the upcoming 2010 census. The
> Bureau has not implemented longstanding Government Accountability
> Office (GAO) recommendations and may therefore be forced to scrap
> the program. Harris Corp., the contractor associated with this
> incompetently managed initiative, was awarded a $600 million
> contract to develop the handhelds and related software.
>
> In March 5, 2008 testimony before the Senate, Commerce Secretary
> Carlos M. Gutierrez said: “There is no question that both the Census
> Bureau and Harris could have done things differently and better over
> the past couple of years.”
>
> On the same date, Census Bureau Director, Steve H. Murdock, added:
>
>    I cannot over-emphasize the seriousness of this problem. My
> colleagues and I recognize that we must move quickly to address this
> problem, and implement solutions. While we still have an enormous
> challenge in front of us, I am confident that we are close to
> defining and implementing a strategy that will ensure a successful
> 2010 Census.
>
> The GAO characterized the handheld initiative, known as the Field
> Data Collection Automation (FDCA) program, as follows:
>
>    Of the $11 billion total estimated cost of the 2010 Census, the
> Census Bureau planned (as of 2007) to spend about $3 billion on
> automation and information technology in order to improve census
> coverage, accuracy, and efficiency. Among other things, the Bureau
> is planning to automate many of its planned field data collection
> activities as a way to reduce costs and improve data quality and
> operational efficiency.
>
> The GAO report, dated March 8, 2008, added:
>
>    In October 2007, GAO concluded that without effective management
> of key risks, the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) program
> responsible for the devices faced an increased probability that the
> system would not be delivered on schedule and within budget or
> perform as expected. The magnitude of these problems is not clear….
> [T]he Bureau has not performed recommended analysis or provided
> sufficient information to provide a level of confidence in its $11.5
> billion life-cycle cost estimate of the decennial census. The Bureau
> has not itemized the estimated costs of each component operation,
> conducted sensitivity analysis on cost drivers, or provided an
> explanation of significant changes in the assumptions on which these
> costs are based. Together, these weaknesses and actions raise
> serious questions about the Bureau’s preparations for conducting the
> 2010 Census.
>
> Computer World blogger, Frank Hayes, summarized the situation
> succinctly, “The fancy custom handhelds might work. But if they
> don’t, the Census Bureau will use paper instead.”
>
> THE IT PROJECT FAILURES ANALYSIS
>
> Managing an $11 billion initiative is a daunting task and unforeseen
> problems are inevitable. Nonetheless, the GAO, going back to
> January, 2005, repeatedly identified significant procurement,
> management, and operational risks associated with this project. For
> reasons unknown, the Census Bureau chose not to follow these
> recommendations.
>
> The following table summarizes significant project issues identified
> by the GAO:
>
> Billion dollar IT mismanagement at Census Bureau
>
> How does a failure of this magnitude arise? Clearly, Census Bureau
> management is ineffective at properly and efficiently executing the
> organization’s basic mandate. A detailed analysis would probably
> reveal hidden agendas; conflicts of interest; good intentions gone
> bad; inexperienced, lazy, and incompetent management; lack of
> controls; and plain old poor judgment. I believe these deeply
> ingrained issues are symptomatic of fundamental problems shared by
> both Bureau leadership and line management.
>
> My recommendation: The GAO must conduct a formal inquiry into two
> specific areas:
>
>   1. It should investigate and analyze the management policies and
> procedures that allowed this situation to develop and persist over
> the course of several years. We must understand why program controls
> didn’t prevent this huge waste of dollars.
>   2. It should perform a detailed (and I mean exhaustive)
> investigation of Harris Corp.’s role. Let an unbiased panel
> determine what percentage of the billion-dollar waste Harris caused
> and force the company to pay direct restitution for that amount.
>
> Until the government holds contractors and their agency sponsors
> accountable, massive failures will continue and more money will be
> flushed down the drain.
> ________________________________
> Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides<http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000015
> >.
>
> -------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------