Tapping Top-Shelf Innovators
Most of the IT items the government needs are already in the private sector, where they are less expensive, more capable and generally of better quality. The problem with federal IT is it is run by federal bureaucrats, not top-shelf IT innovators. I suggest that the feds get out of the IT business and let agencies subcontract that back office function to a more robust and adaptable IT private sector.
My only concern is that given the way our federal contract officers write these contracts there will never be any savings and a few choice IT firms will become extremely wealthy.
Chasseur1814
More on IT innovation
Private sector contractors are not cheaper by any metric, nor better quality. You think Healthcare.gov was a success? And that only got attention due to the high visibility. What about internal system developments that we don’t know about? Very few new private sector companies will miraculously appear. The cost to enter is too high and margins too low due to the realistic issues and challenges of any regulated industry. It’s more realistic to go into other industries/new markets.
Yes, contractors are still needed, but they need to be overseen by a federal architect, not one of their own.
Accepting that federal IT and contracting bureaucrats are the problem and saying that’s how it is and how it always will be, well, if that’s the attitude, then no, it will never change.
Adopt lean and mean agile methodologies, in which projects are done as if each new one is a startup (as they are). Attract startup-caliber resources to be the federal architects, and streamline the hiring process. You’d be surprised by the altruistic value the Silicon folks will put in—helping to change government and making all this happen, versus pure money grabbers.
godwinsfriend
Equipping future fighters
The idea of using robots for battle tech is no more scary than what individual soldiers could perhaps do. We must also remember that the U.S. is not the sole proprietor of advanced technology anymore; what we’re contemplating doing and developing is being done in China and Russia and other countries, so we’re going to have to face those kinds of battlefield enhancements in the forces of other countries, going forward.
Tom Kelting
As a Marine veteran I’m going to call BS on this. We had the M16A2 when I joined. It was an OK rifle, but it had its problems. Then the military spent a bazillion dollars researching a new rifle. In the end, they went with the M16A4. It had all of the problems of the A2, except with a heavier barrel and a rail system. Nothing changed.
The old flak jacket was useless. The new one could at least stop bullets, but then they kept adding to it until the average Joe looked like Ralphie’s brother going out in the snow.
Our packs used to be the tried and true ALICE pack. It wasn’t the best but it worked. Then they went with the MOLLE, then MOLLE II, then ILBE. All of which were impractical and terrible for their intended purpose. Most guys would just buy old used ALICE packs and keep using them.
We rode in flat-bottom amphibious tracks around a desert littered with IEDs. We had to buy our own GPS because the military ones were huge, impractical and rarely ever seen. Our new cammies would rip at the mere sight of rocks. Etc., etc., etc.
Red 2
What a load of horse hockey. This is the same rhetoric that the military has been spewing (from 1775 on). The infantry and ground soldier carries too much gear, and we will get it down to some ridiculously low weight. It hasn’t happened yet and it never will! Just ask any grunt in the Army or Marines. Monkeys will fly before this ever occurs. Hey, maybe that’s what we need, flying monkeys.
John Roe
Nice try. In the late ’90s, they were promoting the Land Warrior [integrated fighting system] nonsense and planning for soldiers to look and operate like this. Then the Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened and that fantasy disappeared. This is never going to happen, get real.
technoreaper
Managing federal assets
Efficiency is not for government. Efficiency is for profit-making businesses. Government first must complete its mission and then, if possible, it should be effective with resources. No room for profit in that calculation.
JackChanse
NEXT STORY: The Forum