Return to Article: Report: Navy intranet program fails to meet goals
-
20452
Taxpayer,
You are wrong again. In the Defense Department, our customers are the people on the front line protecting your right to spout off anything you choose to. In serving our customers, we have an obligation to be fiscally responsible to the taxpayer. But the front line -- those on the pointing end of the spear -- is our customer!
As for NMCI, with all the emphasis on Lean 6 Sigma, when is the Navy going to apply L6S to NMCI? One of the traits of a good leader is knowing when to cut your losses and change direction. Now that the original sponsors have left, the new ones need to step up and provide a rudder correction.
-
20256
I think the "Siftware engineer" needs to redefine his customers. His customers are not the Navy, but the taxpayers. We provided the money for him to develop a system to do certain things. He should assure the system does those things or resist implementation of the system. Stop wasting our money to develop ridiculous systems because you have the wrong customer in your mind!
-
20133
RADM Godwin is working for Athena Corp., a technology firm. VADM Munns works with Center for Creative Leadership.
All I have to say is ugh. The revolving door is alive and well. We are heading back to the times of $900 hammers. We need another reformer in the ranks.
-
20117
Go figure. After years of deception under Godwin and Munns, who constantly tried to hide the truth about the performance of NMCI, the cost overruns, and the lack of leadership, the truth comes out. NMCI is a failure, of course. It's five years and billions too late to salvage a workable system. It's like the Navy A-12, billions over budget and nothing to show for it. When will the military leadership learn that every dollar wasted will affect future procurement. The Navy is still paying for the A-12 and this limits the ability of the Navy to build new ships, acquire new aircraft, and properly fund operations.
-
20099
The NMCI network is a very slow system that costs the taxpayers several man-hours a day. The support for NMCI is also lacking in response time and it is very difficult to get job related software/hardware added due to the process. NMCI also overcharges for its services.
-
20090
I have yet to figure out why the Navy signed on to NMCI. In the organization where I work, the loss of legacy software that I used in my job has relegated me to less capability than I had in 1996. It appears that the people who are in charge of this system need only minimal computational capability to do their jobs and for that reason those of us who could make use of such things as programming languages and software that is far more powerful and flexible than Excel are being handicapped by the decisions that are being made. There seems to be a virtual paranoia about possible intrusion into the network-Why you would choose to establish a network based on the most hacked operating system on the planet is beyond me.
But to compensate for this they are now removing capabilities that were built into Microsoft office software to preclude being hacked. Not only that, but in the meantime the Navy is busy implementing a Web-based financial management system for their programs. It seems to me that we are busy making it easier for those who would do us harm to gather the data about the direction that our military programs and direction (I seriously doubt that you can keep a determined adversary out of such a site). I think that with some thought and some listening to users, NMCI could have been a useful tool. But as implemented, it appears to be a disaster and ultimately the Navy will have to pull the plug on it as it is presently implemented.
-
20085
When I first heard that the Navy was planning to deploy a new system, I went to the dog and pony that was presented locally to introduce the users to the new system. Well, I knew we were in trouble when I asked when the local users were to be polled to define our needs when I was told "... the work stations' hardware and software were already defined." $3,500 a year and they couldn't be bothered to talk to us? There are still horror stories about it taking months to obtain peripheral devices (forget about changing internals). We were to get new work stations every three years. Well, five-plus years on I'm still using the original system and the project is still being charged the $3,500/year for the work station. It's adequate for my purposes, but the deal was a new station every three years, not a new station as required. The only user satisfaction poll I'm aware of (certainly the only time my opinion has been asked) is after contacting the NMCI trouble desk. To vent my opinion about NMCI as a whole by giving the trouble desk techs a bad review is unfair and inaccurate (they are to an individual in my experience knowledgeable, motivated folks). When are we going to quit being viewed as sources of revenue instead of customers? If I treated my customers in the fleet like NMCI treats its users, I would be on the street in hours.
-
20083
NMCI has cost the taxpayers about $2.6 million a day for 10 years and has done little good. A disgrace.
Congress should investigate this farce. Follow the money trail.
-
20082
Wonder why the Navy/Marine Corps have not considered having NMCI customers track their amount of lost work time due to NMCI service related problems? My guess is the amount of working hours lost would be embarrassing to the folks who keep saying that NMCI is not doing that badly and we should keep pumping taxpayer funds into the project. Maybe the GAO should add the dollar amount of lost working time to the project cost.
-
20080
And this is surprising in what way? I'd be amazed if you had a satisfaction rate of anywhere above 50 percent - even with the data manipulation that is obviously taking place. I've never spoken to another user that has anything better than "it's working but I have to make many adjustments in order to do my job." This system is a rip off to the American taxpayer and an added burden to the civilian and military workforce. I wonder what retired admiral lined his pockets on this. To say I'm disgusted with this system is being kind. JAC
-
20077
Is the cup half empty or half full? NMCI is fairly reliable in the Washington, D.C., arena. When you get to the hinterlands there appears to be a bandwidth problem. Also they do not seem to understand the line between access and security. We now are on common access cards with pin numbers for positive identification and non-repudiation, yet the system is not mature enough for simple and streamlined access. Also, the global is Navy only. NMCI needs to be integrated with other parts of the Defense Department and world class systems.
-
20065
The report indicates that NMCI is failing for the Navy. As an L-user on the NMCI network in the Marine Corps, NMCI is way less than satisfactory for the Marine Corps, too. I am almost pleased to deploy to Iraq just so I do not have to deal with NMCI. All of my informal polling indicates that 98 percent of NMCI users are dissatisfied with the service provided. The bottom line is that NMCI is a failure. Semper Fidelis!
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.