USAF Concedes $1B USD Data Project Was Pretty Much Useless
November 15, 2012 4:55 PM
comment(s) - last by
"[ERP] has not yielded any significant military capability" -- USAF spokesperson
Hot on the heels of
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. (
), Google Inc. (
), 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.
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,
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."
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. (
) scored $88.5M USD for the preliminary work on the project, which it promised would merge 200 partially redundant USAF systems.
Computer Sciences Corp. (
) 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,
, "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.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Lots of comments from people who don't know anything about it!
11/16/2012 2:00:28 PM
I love the assumptions on this article. Well I've been in the AF PMO for this program for 3 years. CSC did a crap job, no quality, missing requirements and basically building a solution that would work at one location, the pilot. Did the AF know that and when? Yes but late after we fought to get the right access to the information.
Was the AF cuplable? Of course, requirements didn't really change as much as they were uncovered due to a pretty poor job of discovery and documenting them up front. Why is ERP so hard for the DOD? 16 ERPs are a combined 31 years behind schedule and $6bil over budget.(Congressional testimony last summer).
What I see is an organization that reminds me of commercial accounts 2 decades ago. Fractured disjointed leadership, no single authority leading and owning IT, inability to change the business occurs when you don't own it in a single organization. Until you fix that one any hope of deploying enterprise applications quickly and effectively is pretty much toaast to start with.
RE: Lots of comments from people who don't know anything about it!
11/17/2012 10:51:57 AM
I've witnessed the same thing in the Army's ERP efforts. The GAO has documented most of it. My experiences lead me to question man's ability to successfully employ technology in large organizations. One thing I do know: When there are no consequences for failure, more failure ensues.
"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes
Fairweather Friends "Unlike" Romney on Facebook
November 13, 2012, 9:13 AM
U.S. GOA: 40 Percent of Defense Supply Chain Damaged by Chinese Parts
June 17, 2011, 2:00 PM
Creationists are Mad About Google Doodle Depicting Evolution
November 24, 2015, 8:48 PM
DHS and TSA: Whoops, We Missed That 73 Airport Employees May be Terrorists
November 19, 2015, 2:16 PM
Star Wars Spinoff Film "Rogue One", Theme Park Attractions Announced
August 17, 2015, 12:20 PM
SpaceX Falcon 9's Seventh Supply Mission to ISS Ends w/ Fiery Stage 1 Explosion
June 28, 2015, 1:10 PM
Cool Science Video: Glowing Millipede Prowls the Nevada Desert
May 18, 2015, 12:00 PM
Newly Discovered Costa Rican Glass Frog is Kermit's Doppelgänger
April 22, 2015, 11:26 AM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information