backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by fredgiblet.. on Nov 17 at 7:07 PM

"[ERP] has not yielded any significant military capability" -- USAF spokesperson

Hot on the heels of an election where the two presidential candidates were deeply divided on the issue of military budget cuts comes word that one of the Armed Forces' most costly and ambitious data projects has been scrapped.

I. Money Down the Drain

Dubbed the "Expeditionary Combat Support System" (ECSS), the project involved enterprise resource planning" (ERP). ERP refers to efforts to merge external and internal data flows, such as expenses, manufacturing metrics, logistics, contractor relationships, and unified messaging into a single flow of data.

ERP is an ambitious challenge being tackled by International Business Machines, Inc. (IBM), Google Inc. (GOOG), and a handful of other top players in the data-mining sector.

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) looked to join that select crowd with ECSS and poured a lot of money into the effort -- $1.03B USD since 2005.  But five years later an cool billion out of the pocket, and a USAF spokesperson's diagnosis of the project's health is:

[ECSS] has not yielded any significant military capability.  We estimate it would require an additional $1.1B for about a quarter of the original scope to continue and fielding would not be until 2020. The Air Force has concluded the ECSS program is no longer a viable option for meeting the FY17 Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) statutory requirement. Therefore, we are cancelling the program and moving forward with other options in order to meet both requirements.

Money down the drain
USAF has terminated a $1B+ USD data project, and now may lose up to $15.5B USD in savings that the project would have realized by eliminating redundant parts. [Image Source: Unknown]

In other words, a project that was supposed to cost a relatively hefty $1B USD, ballooned in costs to a problem which USAF think would require at least $8B USD to solve and nearly two decades from the start of the project to deploy.

II. Contractors Offer Little Explanation, Reap New Contracts

In light of that dose of reality USAF has decided to scrap the entire project altogether and start over, writing to ComputerWorld in a statement, "[The funding] will be better served by developing an entirely new strategy versus revamping the ECSS system of record again."

The aforementioned 2017 audit will now have to be run with a slightly tweaked version of the USAF's legacy software set, which dates back to pre-2005 and pre-ECSS.  Comments USAF, "[We will use] existing and modified logistics systems for 2017 audit compliance."

CSC
Top contractors like the Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC) offered no explanation as to why the project failed. [Image Source: Interbrand]

The failed project may have been a big loss for USAF and U.S. taxpayers, but it was a big win for certain well-paid contractors.  Oracle Corp. (ORCL) scored $88.5M USD for the preliminary work on the project, which it promised would merge 200 partially redundant USAF systems.

Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC) then took over scoring, most of the remaining billion in funding to serve as lead systems integrator.  In a response after being fired last year a CSC spokeswoman was unapologetic, writing to Defense News, "CSC demonstrated success in meeting all the major milestones and commitments for the first four years."

In other words, things were going great (or so the contractor says) the first four years, but then on the fifth year something inexplicably went wrong which the contractor was not at liberty to discuss or did not feel was important to discuss.  

Perhaps it's understandable why CSC wouldn't feel overly obligated to give a big explanation of why it failed, given that USAF has shown little signs of punishing it for the failure.  In fact CSC's baffling 2011 report on ECSS didn't stop it from scoring at least one other major cybersecurity service contract from USAF that year.  That contract was worth another $30M USD.

III. 2017 Will Bring a Fresh Look at the Mess

The big issue is that the USAF now has to try to find ways to improve legacy software that have led to major waste.  The problem is somewhat exponential.  USAF has an inventory of $31B USD in parts, of which about half are thought to be redundant and unneeded.  In other words the $1B USD failure could in turn lead USAF to be unable to cut an additional $15.5B USD in waste, which it was expected to do during the 2017 audit.

Michael Krigsman, CEO of consulting firm Asuret and expert on big IT failures was stinging in his analysis.  He comments, "This situation raises more questions than answers.  Why did it take the [Air Force] $1 billion and almost 10 years to realize this project is a disaster? What kind of planning process accepts a billion dollars of waste?  How can they achieve such [an audit] goal when this program is cancelled?"

He expects "many excuses" come 2017 of why the audit failed, and the $15.5B USD in wasted parts linger around, continuing to accumulate.

Source: ComputerWorld



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What a bunch of TAKERS
By corduroygt on 11/15/2012 5:15:27 PM , Rating: 1
Military-industry complex welfare costs much more than regular welfare which some lazy people take advantage of...yet it's hardly mentioned.




RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By martyrant on 11/15/2012 5:36:38 PM , Rating: 1
Policing the world - $680 billion dollars at a time.

I'm glad we poke our noses into everyone else's problems on our citizen's budget. (You say we can't leave that problem alone because it's so bad now? Well, if we never got involved in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place!)

Problem is that the industrial war machine brings profits to too many people who already control most of the world's wealth.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By martyrant on 11/15/2012 5:39:23 PM , Rating: 3
On an IT side note, and as many people who read this site may have experience first hand, implementing an ERP system is a pain in the butt, but every company I've worked for has successfully implemented an ERP system fine, and have transitioned from old ones to new ones fine. Glad that our USAF isn't even capable of handling a civilian task. ;)


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By Jeffk464 on 11/15/2012 6:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize this was probably all done by civilian contractors right?


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/15/2012 6:33:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You do realize this was probably all done by civilian contractors right?
True, but zero accountability, zero results.

If the government operated like a business -- wrote strict contracts, and when something like this happened if it turned around and sued CSC for breach of contract, it would set an example, forcing future contractors to do deliver without excuses.

Instead the government is acting more like that buddy who everyone mooches off of, because they know he has no backbone and will never complain.

Kind of like the Offspring song "Self Esteem":
quote:
I wrote her off for the tenth time today
And practiced all the things I would say
But she came over, I lost my nerve
I took her back and made her dessert

Now I know I'm being used
That's okay man 'cause I like the abuse
Well, I know she's playing with me
That's okay 'cause I've got no self esteem

Oh wayo, yeah, yeah
Oh yeah, yeah
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah
Oh yeah, yeah

We make plans to go out at night
I wait till 2 then I turn out the light
This rejection's got me so low
If she keeps it up I just might tell her so
That's pretty much the story of the USAF, given their reaction to this -- no self esteem.

When you turn around and give millions to a company who just fleeced you for nearly a billion, that sets a pretty alarming precedent.

Not saying CSC should face a lifetime ban, but until it regains trust, the government should aggressively pursue getting a partial refund on its payments, and it should penalize CSC in terms of future contracts.

Are CSC and Oracle (well, most CSC) to blame for this mess? Sure, in a way. But the real person to blame is the USAF's IT leadership who allowed this to happen. Again, taxpayers should demand more of their government, and the government should demand more of its contractors, and then we wouldn't be in this mess (or have such a massive national debt).

I think the government has forgotten the root of the word "contractor" is "contract", as in someone you give something to, but have a legally binding agreement to get something BACK FROM. If the contractor does not deliver, the contractor thou must sue.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/15/2012 11:42:33 PM , Rating: 4
Most government/military projects of this scope have a revolving door of leadership that changes every 90-120 days. Everytime it happens a "whole new outlook" comes down and time/money is wasted.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2012 9:24:46 AM , Rating: 3
Yup. Or you get people from the military who have no concept of what you're doing put in charge of deciding whether something is good enough. They aren't engineers and don't always understand that changes to the way you were doing things can have large impacts on things you have already done or planned to do.

Saw it at my last job. See at it this job. Can't make up their minds how they want something but expect you to just fix things instantly, for free, and stay on schedule.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By 3minence on 11/16/2012 11:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
Around where I work, CSC is known as a "body shop". They hire people who have the required certifications but no experience, just to fill the billet. They charge the Feds for the person while paying the employee crappy wages. The good employees soon leave because their tired of doing everyone elses job, and the underpaid employees leave as they hate the pay. Its a revolving door on CSC projects.

Maybe the Air Force contract was different, but I doubt it.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By nafhan on 11/16/2012 10:01:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
zero accountability, zero results
Come on. You know it's not as simple as "CSC didn't do their job!". I'm sure the requirements were changing almost daily basis. Feature creep was probably insane. They may have been doing exactly what they were asked to do.

Basically, I'm not saying this situation was acceptable (or that CSC should have no blame), but I AM saying that laying all the blame on the contractors is probably not painting a realistic picture of what happened here. The contractors are not in charge of the projects.

In fact, I feel like it's pretty reasonable to lay the blame primarily on the Air Force. If nothing else, they hired these guys and kept paying them for 7ish years.

Good song, though!


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By martyrant on 11/15/2012 6:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Glad that our USAF isn't even capable of handling a civilian task. ;)


I know they are civ. contractors, my point being that this is a civilian ordeal (countless companies use an ERP system) and the USAF wasn't even able to execute a simple task that almost any company who isn't a start up (and even start ups use some form of logistics) has had experience with this...and yet our government can't execute a simple business plan.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By Spuke on 11/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By martyrant on 11/15/2012 10:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
The longest transition I've seen in a company personally for an ERP system was 2 years...so the fact it took them 10 years to get nothing done and then scrap it sounds like anyone involved in this should be fired, discharged, sued, etc...like Mick said, you do need to hold your contractors responsible, and if you look at many SLAs, if someone isn't holding up their end of the deal, you do have a right to sue.

The fact of this article is that we had a bunch of idiots who basically just flushed $1 billion dollars--into a few corporations, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if some of that money got lost in the ranks of certain "USAF" officials either. Just about anything is on the table these days when you start talking about government...


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By maveric7911 on 11/16/2012 10:44:26 AM , Rating: 2
CSC is a joke of a techie company, that's 90% of your issue right there.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By MechanicalTechie on 11/15/2012 5:40:04 PM , Rating: 1
CORRECT!!

Give this man a gold star!!


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By inperfectdarkness on 11/16/2012 4:57:36 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but no. That's a utopian view at best.

Even if we discount the warning of Thomas Paine that tyranny anywhere would always threaten those who try to guard their own freedoms...

Even if we assume that your hypothesis doesn't contradict Paine (which it does)...

Even if we assume that your hypothesis is correct and that "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone"....

And even if we assume all of this is possible in the 21st century where technology has virtually eliminated the possibility of isolationism...

...it still doesn't address where we are RIGHT NOW. And where we are right now is in a position where we're being threatened by EXPORTED terrorism. We can stand around and point fingers at who/what is responsible for us getting to this point--but assigning blame is NOT providing a solution.

P.S.

If intervention is a bad thing, I suppose you also wish the French had never aided us in the Revolutionary War or that the Saudis had a never helped the Allies in WWI.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By martyrant on 11/16/2012 5:29:42 AM , Rating: 1
Keep screaming the word 'terrorist' it makes you sound intelligent.

The fact that you still think terrorism is (or was) ever an issue shows the level of your ignorance on this issue--you can quote as many writers, politicians, economists, Thomas Paine's, Jefferson's, Washington's, and Peter Griffin's as you want, but the last thing I think about when I go to bed is terrorists or terrorism (pre 2001, post 2001, don't care, never crossed my mind as an 'issue').

Intervention is not a bad thing, but we are not intervening--we are policing. I suppose you would have rather had the French continue to 'intervene' after the revolutionary war and police (occupy) the United States of France, extorting us for our resources and land?

Picking up a book is a start, buddy, but free thought and forward thinking of your own volition--now there's the key. Stop gobbling up the fear mongering media and put 2+2 together.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2012 9:28:06 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah instead we should just sit around and wait for world wars to happen every 30 years.

The world needs a leader. I like the US being that leader. I should say liked since we are no longer a leader. All the things going on right now in Israel is because Muslim extremists don't believe that the US will back Israel if it gets in a conflict anymore. So they're being more ballsy.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By MechanicalTechie on 11/16/2012 10:06:16 AM , Rating: 1
Good God!!

quote:
All the things going on right now in Israel is because Muslim extremists don't believe that the US will back Israel if it gets in a conflict anymore. So they're being more ballsy.

Must be one of the most ignorant sentence I've ever read.

You do realise that Israel is an occupying force, a foreign invader and the only reason why they have not been called up for international war crimes is because of the US veto at the UN. I bet you don't even know why Israel is so afraid of Palestine becoming a UN observer... your that clueless

If I was you I would be more worried about the amount of influence and control Israel has within the US Political system.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By inperfectdarkness on 11/17/2012 2:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
Um...Jews had claims to the fertile crescent well before the Palestinians did. If we're going to start pointing fingers about "who occupied whom", let's at least be fair to history. The Arabs didn't even conquer the territory till well after the Common Era began.

That said, the Arabs can't have it both ways. Extremists still claim rights to Iberia--and in the same breath, state claims to Israel. Either you pick ownership based on who had it first, or you pick ownership on who had it last; you can't have it both ways.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By rvd2008 on 11/16/2012 12:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
More ballsy? Israel has these problems since its inception in 1948. Open your eyes.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By inperfectdarkness on 11/17/2012 2:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
1. The fact that you lump Peter Griffin with Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson says to me that you haven't a bloody clue about virtually anything.

2. "People sleep peacably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" -George Orwell

3. The era when wars had a distinct ending punctuated by a treaty are over. We no longer fighting against enemies whose downfall is immediately followed by a desire to reform and to atone for itself. Instead we face an undeveloped society with a fierce resistance to "playing ball" on the international level--even if "playing ball" means "just leaving everyone else alone and staying inside your own borders". We tried leaving Afghanistan alone after we helped them "free" themsleves from Soviet oppression. We were paid back with a gigantic thank-you on 9-11. You call it "continued intervention". I call it "the job sure as S**t isn't finished yet".

4. If my level of knowledge on this subject is--in your words--indiciative of someone who "doesn't read books", I shudder to think how you cobbled together your own views on the matter.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By Jim Vanus on 11/17/2012 10:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
The price of freedom is the loss of freedom. Peace is achieved by endless war. Doublethink.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By DennisB on 11/16/2012 6:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
But we get $27 trillion in oil access in return, albeit, most of it goes into the pocked of a some minor group of people.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By martyrant on 11/16/2012 8:28:13 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know anything about supply and demand?

We would have access to that oil anyway.

You have a good?
I have a good.
OK!
Let's trade!
Yours is worth more?
Okay, here's a blue bead to go along with my good.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By Jeffk464 on 11/15/2012 6:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
One billion here one billion there and pretty soon your talking about real money.


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By boeush on 11/15/2012 6:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
Though at the rate the Fed's been diluting the dollar, pretty soon you'll have to start saying "trillion" instead of "billion" (with the latter becoming insignificant chump change...)


RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By rvd2008 on 11/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: What a bunch of TAKERS
By correctofcourse on 11/16/2012 2:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that the price of gas and food are not calcuated in your rate of inflation it is all BS to start with!


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki