$18 Million - To re-design recovery.gov website? (claim, 2014, troops)

[sanrene]

The US Government is NOT the taxpayer. Apparently you have no idea of how the Government separates itself from the people. You really need to read up on your history.

Think about this .... if the government of the state I live in (California) goes bankrupt, does this mean I am personally bankrupt as well? This might help you to understand how government is a separate entity, and it is not the taxpayer.

The government is funded by the taxpayer and is given it's power by the people.

You do realize there is a debt sum for every man, woman and child that is alive today?

Who says it doesn't work too well? It does whatever was feasible given the short time it took to implement it.

And if Obama now wants significant enhancements to the website to make it even more useful for the taxpayer, and a complete rewrite would be easier than working from the existing website, then that is the correct approach to use. Companies do it all the time.

They are looking for a complete redesign of the system. $18 million is enough for 20 top-notch websites. The point really is the waste of taxpayer funds to create such a system/application that must then be scrapped and re-designed 2 months later.

If the client wanted a STARTER VERSION of the website available to the taxpayer ASAP, then it did EXACTLY what was required by the client.

And how do you know they weren't planning for a Phase 2 right from the start? That a Phase 1 would be a quick very basic implementation, and Phase 2 would have everything that the client actually wanted, but couldn't have in Phase 1 because of the time required to complete it.

I am really amazed that you work with computers, and you don't know that this is how businesses operate?

Yeah, I work with computers and know how a business operates. Creating a "starter version" (whatever they hell that is in DA&D) that totally and completely is unable to meet the needs of the client (taxpayers who will be seeing how their money is wasted) is a monumental waste of time, money and resources. You don't just slap crap together with no forethought, throw it up on a website and call it anything but shoddy design and planning.

If that's how you are used to doing things, I feel for your customers who must then endure an endless array of "upgrades" and "versions" to fix the mess you started with.

My guess is you have very little data processing experience, otherwise you would know that Obama IS the client.

Sorry, he is not.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Or you didn't understand it.

Quote:
Not at all. It's data will be loaded into the new database, into corresponding tables and columns, and serve as an initial version of the data for when Recovery 2.0 launches.

Yeah, like I said, in your scenario here, scrapping the original DB.

I understood you perfectly.

If Obama's main goal was to create a basic recovery.gov website quickly so the taxpayers would have something to see within a month after he took office ... then Obama achieved his goal. Because a website was created, and it is online for all taxpayers to use.

If the project is feasible (which I have my doubts due to the redundant website/system already in place), what should have happened, from the beginning, was a complete and thorough analysis of the specifications and requirements of such a project. This is the most important step - and if done right, there is little need to go back and "redesign", which is exactly what they are asking for.

The cost is still outrageous for the work.

[Missmoose]

Just butting in to ask if RAD is still considered fashionable?

[doc1]

These quotes are priceless

Therein lies a big part of America's problem re the number of citizens who thing it's the "Goverment who pays for and provides us with free stuff".

....Go back and read your history books for a lesson on how "government" differs from "the people".....

Wow. Is that what your teachers and school books taught you?

Were they public schools?

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by sanrene

The government is funded by the taxpayer and is given it's power by the people.

You do realize there is a debt sum for every man, woman and child that is alive today?

The government exists to serve the citizens. The government is not the citizens themselves. The citizens elect representatives to hold various positions within government. And it is these elected officials that make decisions concerning the day-to-day operations of government ... not the people who elected them.

If the government decides to create a website for use by its citizens, it is a member of government who hires a software developer to create it.

When the government has financial issues, the citizens are not directly affected. If the government of California is unable to meet it's debt obligations, my personal possessions are not affected.

I am not personally responsible for paying off the debts that my government incurred. The government may choose to tax me to raise money, but the debt still remains the government's responsibility, and not mine.

And maybe the value of my holdings will be indirectly affected by the strength of the U.S. dollar, but my holdings still remain mine.

They are looking for a complete redesign of the system. $18 million is enough for 20 top-notch websites. The point really is the waste of taxpayer funds to create such a system/application that must then be scrapped and re-designed 2 months later.

First ... how do you know it is a complete redesign? To me, it sounds more like they plan to have a computer services company rewrite it so it is capable of doing functions that aren't available in the current version. A lot of the requirements, analysis, and design has already been completed, so it just needs to be applied by the computer services company responsible for writing the new version.

Also, if the phase 1 version was put together in a short time period, it probably didn't cost much to create. And the phase 1 version IS providing a useful service for the taxpayers at the present time, so no money was wasted.

Yeah, I work with computers and know how a business operates. Creating a "starter version" (whatever they hell that is in DA&D) that totally and completely is unable to meet the needs of the client (taxpayers who will be seeing how their money is wasted) is a monumental waste of time, money and resources. You don't just slap crap together with no forethought, throw it up on a website and call it anything but shoddy design and planning.

If that's how you are used to doing things, I feel for your customers who must then endure an endless array of "upgrades" and "versions" to fix the mess you started with.

I feel for your customers (aka clients) who would be told that a "basic" version of a website can't be offered, because you feel as a developer that you should be the one deciding what they should and should not have. Just completely ignore what the client wants or needs (aka requirements), and the timeframe he needs it by.

If I were the CLIENT .... I would find someone OTHER than you to work on MY project.

I would choose a developer who is willing to meet MY needs .... not YOURS.

Sorry, he is not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/client

cli⋅ent <a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C05/C0551800&quot; (broken link) target=&quot;_blank&quot;><img src=&quot;http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif&quot; (broken link) border=&quot;0&quot; /></a> /ˈklaɪənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [klahy-uhnt] Show IPA Use client in a Sentence

–noun 1. a person or group that uses the professional advice or services of a lawyer, accountant, advertising agency, architect, etc.

The taxpayers are not the ones using the services of the software developer .... Obama (and the government worker he assigned to handle the project) is the CLIENT under this scenario.

The taxpayers are the "end-users" of the website. Nothing more. They have no interaction with the software developer whatsoever.

And that is all I have to say about this subject. If you believe otherwise, then THAT is a problem I can't help you with.

I understood you perfectly.

Apparently not. Because you believe the original database is being scrapped. I don't consider a database as being "scrapped" when the most important part of it ... THE DATA ... will likely be used to load the initial version of the recovery.gov 2.0 database.

And for all I know, the database (SQL definitions, etc) may be used by the new developer for building the recovery.gov 2.0 database. They may even start with the original SQL definitions, and simply modify them as needed.

So it is extremely unlikely that ANY of the original phase 1 database will be "scrapped" as you claim.

But since you seem to want to hate everything about Obama, you will even argue against "common sense" whenever it suits your needs.

If the project is feasible (which I have my doubts due to the redundant website/system already in place), what should have happened, from the beginning, was a complete and thorough analysis of the specifications and requirements of such a project. This is the most important step - and if done right, there is little need to go back and "redesign", which is exactly what they are asking for.

The cost is still outrageous for the work.

How would the existence of a similar website make the new recovery.gov 2.0 "not feasible"? Hmmm ....

Once again ... and for the very last time ... if the IMMEDIATE REQUIREMENTS that OBAMA had were for a "basic version" of the website to be developed and put in production within one month of his taking office ... then the task was completed SUCCESSFULLY ... since a website was created, and is currently being used by taxpayers.

If the EXTENDED REQUIREMENTS were for a more ADVANCED website, which has a much longer timeframe to complete, then that is EXACTLY what is taking place right now ... and Obama is ON TRACK to complete this as well, since he already chose a software developer to work on the project.

[sanrene]

The government may choose to tax me to raise money, but the debt still remains the government's responsibility, and not mine.

Bingo! Yes, you as a taxpayer are responsible for the governments bad decisions, deficit spending and wasteful, redundant efforts. Eventually, under the democrats, they will exact their pound of flesh from you.

The federal government would not exist, but for the taxpayer.

First ... how do you know it is a complete redesign?

See, if you would have read the solicitation for bids, you would know.

A lot of the requirements, analysis, and design has already been completed, so it just needs to be applied by the computer services company responsible for writing the new version.

Not possible in your scenario that it was just slapped up there within a couple of weeks - at least not good analysis and design. If that were the case, they wouldn't need a complete redesign. See, you don't start building the walls of your house before the foundation is poured - and there is nothing more critical or important than the underlying foundational database system that will support this project.

Also, if the phase 1 version was put together in a short time period, it probably didn't cost much to create. And the phase 1 version IS providing a useful service for the taxpayers at the present time, so no money was wasted.

Pure speculation and spin. You have no idea how much it has cost so far. It also appear there was nothing useful or adequate about it.

I feel for your customers (aka clients) who would be told that a "basic" version of a website can't be offered, because you feel as a developer that you should be the one deciding what they should and should not have. Just completely ignore what the client wants or needs (aka requirements), and the timeframe he needs it by.

My customers are not looking for half-a**ed, shoddy design that provides NO functionality or that does not meet the needs set out in the original requirements/specification stage. I can just see it - they'd be looking at me like I had three heads if I developed 1/3 of a project and paraded it out - never mind that they couldn't actually use it for anything at this stage. They don't want to see an unfinished project, when they have contracted for a complete, robust application that meets all their needs.

Like I said, I have seen shoddy work with endless, "updates", "revisions" and "patches" to fix inept, short-sighted and inadequate initial design that should have never made it into production. It appears this is the way you work.

And that is all I have to say about this subject. If you believe otherwise, then THAT is a problem I can't help you with.

You're still wrong. The taxpayers are the end-users and the client, since they are the ones who will be using the system and they also happened to pay for it.

Apparently not. Because you believe the original database is being scrapped. I don't consider a database as being "scrapped" when the most important part of it ... THE DATA ... will likely be used to load the initial version of the recovery.gov 2.0 database.

You said it. Importing/exporting data is not a big deal. The DATA is not the most important part - the Database is. Without a clean, elegant database structure that follows the rules of normalization and data integrity, your data will be suspect, redundant and virtually useless. GIGO.

And for all I know, the database (SQL definitions, etc) may be used by the new developer for building the recovery.gov 2.0 database. They may even start with the original SQL definitions, and simply modify them as needed.

I seriously doubt that. DDL is the term you are looking for. There is much more to database design than that.

But since you seem to want to hate everything about Obama, you will even argue against "common sense" whenever it suits your needs.

I see no common sense here.

How would the existence of a similar website make the new recovery.gov 2.0 "not feasible"? Hmmm ....

You know, there is a stage in the design process where you weigh the pros and cons of going forward with a project - called a feasibility study. You know, things like - do the costs outweigh the benefits, do we have another application that performs the same function as the one we're looking to build from scratch - stuff like that.

If they would have adhered to these processes, they would have said - "Why yes"! We already have a functioning, robust system that is doing exactly what we want to build from scratch! But let's just move forward with an $18 million dollar project anyway!

But you see, obama and his clowns are all about visuals, image and waste.

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Bingo! Yes, you as a taxpayer are responsible for the governments bad decisions, deficit spending and wasteful, redundant efforts. Eventually, under the democrats, they will exact their pound of flesh from you.

The federal government would not exist, but for the taxpayer.

I see you've chosen to ignore the ACTUAL point I was making, which is that THE GOVERNMENT is not THE PEOPLE. They are two separate entities ... but you chose to go off on your unrelated tangent, since you were unable to address my point directly.

See, if you would have read the solicitation for bids, you would know.

As I said earlier ... I don't need to read your articles to respond to this particular issue.

Not possible in your scenario that it was just slapped up there within a couple of weeks - at least not good analysis and design. If that were the case, they wouldn't need a complete redesign. See, you don't start building the walls of your house before the foundation is poured - and there is nothing more critical or important than the underlying foundational database system that will support this project.

If all the CLIENT (Obama) wanted was a quick basic version of the website to satisfy the immediate needs of the taxpayer, then it was done successfully.

Pure speculation and spin. You have no idea how much it has cost so far. It also appear there was nothing useful or adequate about it.

Speculation ... yes. Spin no. But educated speculation.

Phase 1 was useful, since it gave taxpayers immediate data to look at, rather than waiting 6 months for a more advanced version of the website.

My customers are not looking for half-a**ed, shoddy design that provides NO functionality or that does not meet the needs set out in the original requirements/specification stage. I can just see it - they'd be looking at me like I had three heads if I developed 1/3 of a project and paraded it out - never mind that they couldn't actually use it for anything at this stage. They don't want to see an unfinished project, when they have contracted for a complete, robust application that meets all their needs.

Once again ... it's the CLIENT who decides what they want ... not the DEVELOPER.

Which is why I would go to someone other than you.

You're still wrong. The taxpayers are the end-users and the client, since they are the ones who will be using the system and they also happened to pay for it.

Apparently you are unable to comprehend the dictionary definition of the word "client".

You said it. Importing/exporting data is not a big deal. The DATA is not the most important part - the Database is. Without a clean, elegant database structure that follows the rules of normalization and data integrity, your data will be suspect, redundant and virtually useless. GIGO.

If a database is being replaced by another database, the DATA is the only thing that is important.

Database structures can be created and re-created until the end of time.

But if a client loses their actual DATA, then THAT is a big deal.

And databases can always be "cleansed" after the fact, if they weren't created perfect from the start.

Duplicate rows can be always be eliminated. Columns containing redundant non-key data can be eliminated.

The entire database can be rebuilt and reloaded if needed. There is nothing magical about databases.

If something seems to be wrong, it can always be fixed by the Database Administrator, working in conjunction with a developer who understands the business needs of the data.

I seriously doubt that. DDL is the term you are looking for. There is much more to database design than that.

I am extremely familiar with database design ... and no, I'm not looking for any terms. I am not trying to "impress" anyone here with computer jargon. I would rather use simple terms that a non-computer person might be able to understand.

I see no common sense here.

That doesn't surprise me at all!

You know, there is a stage in the design process where you weigh the pros and cons of going forward with a project - called a feasibility study. You know, things like - do the costs outweigh the benefits, do we have another application that performs the same function as the one we're looking to build from scratch - stuff like that.

If they would have adhered to these processes, they would have said - "Why yes"! We already have a functioning, robust system that is doing exactly what we want to build from scratch! But let's just move forward with an $18 million dollar project anyway!

But you see, obama and his clowns are all about visuals, image and waste.

If you had actually READ your own article, you would have seen that the existing websites DO NOT keep track of WHERE the receivers of the stimulus are SPENDING their money (like paying large bonuses to top executives, company-paid vacations, private jets, etc).

Apparently THAT FEATURE plus any other enhancements is enough to justify the creation of a recovery.gov 2.0 website.

And I fully support Obama's decision !!!

[sanrene]

I see you've chosen to ignore the ACTUAL point I was making, which is that THE GOVERNMENT is not THE PEOPLE. They are two separate entities ... but you chose to go off on your unrelated tangent, since you were unable to address my point directly.

No, they are not. We'll just have to disagree.

As I said earlier ... I don't need to read your articles to respond to this particular issue.

Not my article. The requirements laid in the bid. Since you have no idea what it says, your response lack credibility.

If all the CLIENT (Obama) wanted was a quick basic version of the website to satisfy the immediate needs of the taxpayer, then it was done successfully.

It didn't and doesn't - hence the re-design.

Once again ... it's the CLIENT who decides what they want ... not the DEVELOPER.

Which is why I would go to someone other than you.

Where in my response do I claim that?

My customers are not looking for half-a**ed, shoddy design that provides NO functionality or that does not meet the needs set out in the original requirements/specification stage. I can just see it - they'd be looking at me like I had three heads if I developed 1/3 of a project and paraded it out - never mind that they couldn't actually use it for anything at this stage. They don't want to see an unfinished project, when they have contracted for a complete, robust application that meets all their needs.

If a database is being replaced by another database, the DATA is the only thing that is important.

That's not the point. You said the data was the most important thing, I said a robust, elegant, clean Database schema and all it's associated structures are.

But if a client loses their actual DATA, then THAT is a big deal.

Who's talking about losing data? That is a non-issue to this discussion.

And databases can always be "cleansed" after the fact, if they weren't created perfect from the start.

Duplicate rows can be always be eliminated. Columns containing redundant non-key data can be eliminated.

In your world, I can just envision the mess you might have. You see, grasshopper, in a properly designed logical model of a database, there would be NO duplicate rows or columns with redundant data. Those are the kinds of things you eliminate when you create the logical model - it's called normalization and there is a process to it. You don't just willy-nilly "eliminate" or "cleanse" data - those data have relationships and integrity restraints that must be respected. How do you know which duplicate or redundant data is invalid? You have no idea the mess a database full of redundancies and violations of integrity constraints can have on a business. Now, there are applications that call for some degree of redundancies as a trade-off to performance - but this isn't one of them.

Your 2 sentences above tells me all I need to know about your experience.

The entire database can be rebuilt and reloaded if needed. There is nothing magical about databases. If something seems to be wrong, it can always be fixed by the Database Administrator, working in conjunction with a developer who understands the business needs of the data.

What book are you reading from? What? Do you have a little Access Database you play around with? It is fairly obvious you have little experience in creating and implementing, not to mention maintaining a robust, fully functional database system.

I am extremely familiar with database design

I'm not so sure you are - your "type" of design is nothing that I would put my name to however.

Taxpayers are not "funding" this project. The U.S. Government is paying for the project. There is a big difference......

Yeah. I missed this one. This says it all, doesn't it?

[Jill61]

I'm laughing my ass off at all the Republicans/Conservatives in this thread, who are advocating for more government instead of utilizing private industry. Aren't you the same ones who constantly whine about how bad government-run departments are? But now all of a sudden you want the government to expand its IT department to handle a massive project of this size and scope? And that somehow it won't cost an extra penny to pay government employees for this project?

And aren't you the same ones who're constantly whining about President Obama's promise of transparency and alleged lack thereof? So when he implements the level of transparency you've been whining about not having, you whine about that, too.

Do none of you recognize how these positions are contradictory to each other?

You can't demand less government, then complain when the government contracts out to private firms.

You can't complain about a lack of transparency, then complain louder when said transparency is implemented.

Well, you can, I guess, but you'll look rather foolish doing so.

[sanrene]

who are advocating for more government instead of utilizing private industry.

It appears you have misread this whole thread. A few might have mentioned having current IT on this project, but the real point is the exorbitant cost of $18 million, the duplication effort when another website does basically the same thing and the inadequacies of the current recovery.gov, at who knows what cost.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by newtoli

I've seen 21-28 days, and October 1 as dates listed, either or is crazy. Maybe they want the initial plan in 21-28 days, still nuts! Also to be noted, the initial contract is 9.5M, with up to 18M through 2014.

As a contrast, Facebook just spent $100 Million on servers alone.

I wonder why it needs to be done in 21 days? Why don't they just save the expedited costs and use a cheaper, more realistic timeline?