HealthCare.gov’s head tech guy is out(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
HealthCare.gov’s head tech guy is out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/06/healthcare-govs-head-tech-guy-is-out/
11 comments
He's still going strong.
Purely cosmetic move. At that level, that "tech guy" is probably 3-5 levels above any real key decision makers and managers involved in the actual implementation. Blaming this on him is like blaming Sepp Blatter for Barcelona's under-13 team's shortcomings. Having worked on federal software projects not even half this large there's a lot of layers. A lot of buffers.
and btw, "head tech guy"? Really? Is the Washington Post a serious news organization?
and btw, "head tech guy"? Really? Is the Washington Post a serious news organization?
No, no they are not.
It's a blog, and this is a prime example of why I don't consider blogging on the same level as real journalism.
I'm not going to comment on the blogs vs. real journalism debate, but I'd say Wonkblog is probably one of the best American political blogs running today.
Politics is such a polarizing and passionate issue that these blogs easily gain readership among people who already agree with their political agenda. It's incredibly easy to start a political blog that is purely speculation, vitriol, or outright lies. A lot of political blogs even devote themselves to minutiae like dissecting every single word out of Senator John Doe's mouth to advance some ridiculous pre-formulated conclusion -- "Senator Doe ate French Fries! Clearly he hates America!"
Wonkblog does none of those things, often posting only about actual reports or expert's interviews. It's both rare and relieving to see a political blog that at least attempts to stick to non-partisanship.
Even here you can see that they aren't declaring this event to be any bigger than it is. The guy who oversaw healthcare.gov resigned, here's his resume, here's what he's doing, here's what the CMS said about it. The end.
Politics is such a polarizing and passionate issue that these blogs easily gain readership among people who already agree with their political agenda. It's incredibly easy to start a political blog that is purely speculation, vitriol, or outright lies. A lot of political blogs even devote themselves to minutiae like dissecting every single word out of Senator John Doe's mouth to advance some ridiculous pre-formulated conclusion -- "Senator Doe ate French Fries! Clearly he hates America!"
Wonkblog does none of those things, often posting only about actual reports or expert's interviews. It's both rare and relieving to see a political blog that at least attempts to stick to non-partisanship.
Even here you can see that they aren't declaring this event to be any bigger than it is. The guy who oversaw healthcare.gov resigned, here's his resume, here's what he's doing, here's what the CMS said about it. The end.
What this should read is he awarded huge bloated crazy contracts to the private sector and he now has a job at one of those companies.
Here is an interview with the guy, uninspiring stuff...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wghDZagJ_nM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wghDZagJ_nM
Now I know why I don't work for the government. Who would ever create or watch that crap?
"I've got an iPad that I've been testing... with our infrastructure."
He probably didn't leave by choice.
Jumping off what is perceived to be a sinking ship like that (by choice) before it was fixed would be career suicide. It is however very understandable that he would be found a job to get him out of the way for someone else to do damage control.
Jumping off what is perceived to be a sinking ship like that (by choice) before it was fixed would be career suicide. It is however very understandable that he would be found a job to get him out of the way for someone else to do damage control.
Do you guys have any link where the whole HealthCare.gov disaster is explained? When I first heard of it, I visited the website and saw no problem - actually found it quite nice.
Here's one source: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/the-se...
Anyone else look at that title and think that it's pretty hilariously unprofessional? Haha
EDIT: To print an article with that title, not job title.
EDIT: To print an article with that title, not job title.
"Our chief operating officer announced yesterday Tony has accepted a position in private sector,"
so long and thanks for all the rotting fish?
so long and thanks for all the rotting fish?
I suspect that the 'private sector' is one of the contracting companies that did the site to begin with. The guy is lobbiest gold since he knows who is and who isn't able to be influenced in the department.
yeah, he likely went into some private consultancy firm that'll be contracted to fix the issues with the abomination (Obamanation?) he knows best, because he built it! But all at private sector rates, still paid for by the taxpayers.
nothing pays like ongoing maintenance contracts :)
nothing pays like ongoing maintenance contracts :)
Seriously, he probably asked himself "why bother with all this nonsense, I'll just get another job?".
At least the private-contractors are finally facing the consequences, in the beginning the outrage would have let you to believe that it was the President himself who was the one programming away the exchanges!
Sacrificial lamb. Executing this SNAFU required layers upon layers of incompetent and unmotivated people completely detatched from the consequences of their lack of performance. Since this describes a vast majority of the people who work for government it is easy to imagine a one million dollar website turning into a six hundred million dollar website that does not work. In any other universe people would have been fired by the hundreds and some even brought up on charges. Not in government.
Until we have a system that makes them all fully accountable for their actions this will not change. Many of you are just waking up to the horrible reality that this is how nearly everything is done in government. Just. Like . This.
Until we have a system that makes them all fully accountable for their actions this will not change. Many of you are just waking up to the horrible reality that this is how nearly everything is done in government. Just. Like . This.
It's easy to blame one guy, but I'm sure his task was next to impossible.
It's not just some independent website where you have full control of your creation. It had to interact with a dozen of other systems, and I'm sure a bunch of APIs were created just for that, and I'm sure bugs in just some of them could render the whole system nonfunctioning.
And yes, maybe it is this guy's fault. We don't really know.
It's not just some independent website where you have full control of your creation. It had to interact with a dozen of other systems, and I'm sure a bunch of APIs were created just for that, and I'm sure bugs in just some of them could render the whole system nonfunctioning.
And yes, maybe it is this guy's fault. We don't really know.
But, but, his credentials on LinkedIn for running a huge IT project are impeccable! He once was a program manager of satellite stuff in the 1980s!! He even got a degree in Business and Finance from Loyola. Clearly the man could have started Google.
1984 to 1988: "Held several increasingly responsible project/program management positions for implementing large satellite telecommunications projects for Fortune 500 companies. Responsibilities included program and project administration,logistics management, financial management, and quality assurance for GTE Spacenet projects."
1988-1999:
"Held a variety of increasing responsible IT policy positions. Established the Office of Electronic Commerce which had governmentwide responsibilities for developing policies, coordinating initiatives, and monitoring Federal electronic commerce. Also co-chaired with DoD the Federal Electronic Commerce Program Office. "
1999-2005:
"As the Deputy AC, oversaw the development and implementation of all public (beneficiary) Internet applications (from a business and operations perspective) including the website business planning and development, identity management solutions, and analysis of website and on-line application use trends"
Wow. A real Nikola fucking Tesla this guy is. This is the kind of shit that turns people into Republicans. There is literally nothing in this guy's resume that would suggest he should be a CIO handling a $2 billion budget.
1984 to 1988: "Held several increasingly responsible project/program management positions for implementing large satellite telecommunications projects for Fortune 500 companies. Responsibilities included program and project administration,logistics management, financial management, and quality assurance for GTE Spacenet projects."
1988-1999:
"Held a variety of increasing responsible IT policy positions. Established the Office of Electronic Commerce which had governmentwide responsibilities for developing policies, coordinating initiatives, and monitoring Federal electronic commerce. Also co-chaired with DoD the Federal Electronic Commerce Program Office. "
1999-2005:
"As the Deputy AC, oversaw the development and implementation of all public (beneficiary) Internet applications (from a business and operations perspective) including the website business planning and development, identity management solutions, and analysis of website and on-line application use trends"
Wow. A real Nikola fucking Tesla this guy is. This is the kind of shit that turns people into Republicans. There is literally nothing in this guy's resume that would suggest he should be a CIO handling a $2 billion budget.
This reminds me. I once did work for this guy in Chicago. This guy was responsible for leading a team that converted all government computers in the city from Windows NT to 2000. The man does not know how to program, create websites, remove viruses, configure routers, build computers, or configure networks. I would not trust him with Ikea furniture! He was also a terrible manager, never knew what he wanted to see, mainly because he simply did not know what was possible. And yet, the city paid him a ton of money to do IT. In case you are wondering, the transition project took 5 times longer then budgeted for, surprise, surprise...
It gets worse - the UI team lead had an associate's degree in Art & Web Design from a community college, and a bachelor's in Zoology. [1] Normally, I would say credentials generally don't matter - but combined with the code quality, the argument writes itself.
I started looking him up after seeing this mention (and the awful code below). [2]
1. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkayan
2. https://github.com/STRML/Healthcare.gov-Marketplace/blob/mas...
I started looking him up after seeing this mention (and the awful code below). [2]
1. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkayan
2. https://github.com/STRML/Healthcare.gov-Marketplace/blob/mas...
Am I the only one that is impressed that we are actually allowed to see the backend code?
I need to raise my expectations...
I need to raise my expectations...
This is JavaScript frontend code, not the backend code.
[2] is terrifying.
What do you hope to achieve with this comment? What good could possibly come from it?
Instead of attempting to shame while pointing fingers, say something constructive or leave the issue alone.
I agree with 'danielna, your comment is in really poor taste.
Instead of attempting to shame while pointing fingers, say something constructive or leave the issue alone.
I agree with 'danielna, your comment is in really poor taste.
Oh god. Not only does [2] feature extremely creative uses of eval() (always a good sign), but also features the comment gem "create a new java date" in reference to a call to "new Date( ... )". Always nice to see nothing short of profound gulfs in understanding when it comes to our $9-digit technology initiatives...
man!!!!!!! Healthcare reform, now i see. Shhh... It will be our little secret. Jon Stewart will have a heart attack if he learns about it.
//determine if due date is valid
//based on 10-month pregnancy (sprint 9 requirements)
//determine if due date is valid
//based on 10-month pregnancy (sprint 9 requirements)
[deleted]
Really lame to attempt to name and shame someone by (ultimately) mocking their credentials and linking to code without context. Sure, some of that JS is bad, but I've seen much worse code that has been successfully deployed to solve problems.
Naming him wasn't the right approach and I apologize for that - however I cannot edit or delete the post. His involvement as the UI team lead is, however, public information. His credentials are not the main issue, of course.
There are serious quality issues along the entire codebase and a number of snippets that strongly suggest the team's primary skill is not JS. Given the cost and gravity of the project, I believe it is fair to say that the American public expects (and deserves) better. It speaks to the vast inefficiencies of the RFP process and gov IT contracting in general that code quality is so far down on the priority list.
It's not just aesthetic, either. There are serious functionality issues, as anybody who has used the site will attest to. And those bugs are not just limited to the backend. Backend bugs have seriously compromised the security of user accounts [1] and frontend bugs prevent major sections of the site from running at all [2].
It is one thing when ugly code is "successfully deployed to solve problems". It is quite another when ugly code on such a high-profile, expensive project is deployed to such disastrous effect.
The constructive part of the post is the repository I linked to (issues are being reported and fixed, for better or worse), and in bringing attention to the fact that government IT does not follow serious engineering practices. Serious attention needs to be brought to the problem so that it can be fixed. I am not happy about it, I am not pointing fingers with glee. I just hope that it has embarrassed HHS & the administration enough to make substantive change.
1. http://blog.isthereaproblemhere.com/2013/10/does-healthcareg...
2. http://blog.isthereaproblemhere.com/2013/11/stuck-in-middle-...
There are serious quality issues along the entire codebase and a number of snippets that strongly suggest the team's primary skill is not JS. Given the cost and gravity of the project, I believe it is fair to say that the American public expects (and deserves) better. It speaks to the vast inefficiencies of the RFP process and gov IT contracting in general that code quality is so far down on the priority list.
It's not just aesthetic, either. There are serious functionality issues, as anybody who has used the site will attest to. And those bugs are not just limited to the backend. Backend bugs have seriously compromised the security of user accounts [1] and frontend bugs prevent major sections of the site from running at all [2].
It is one thing when ugly code is "successfully deployed to solve problems". It is quite another when ugly code on such a high-profile, expensive project is deployed to such disastrous effect.
The constructive part of the post is the repository I linked to (issues are being reported and fixed, for better or worse), and in bringing attention to the fact that government IT does not follow serious engineering practices. Serious attention needs to be brought to the problem so that it can be fixed. I am not happy about it, I am not pointing fingers with glee. I just hope that it has embarrassed HHS & the administration enough to make substantive change.
1. http://blog.isthereaproblemhere.com/2013/10/does-healthcareg...
2. http://blog.isthereaproblemhere.com/2013/11/stuck-in-middle-...
It's even easier when you read the guy's biography :
http://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Leadership/ois/index.html
This guy is a typical management idiot. He has no qualifications except "leading" (not specified any further, of course), and making decisions about other people's money. While it's hard finding disastrous decisions in his CV, I'm not seeing anything that suggests he did more than show up.
As for leading, he has zero qualifications in either healthcare or IT.
I see this at a lot of companies, and someone really should explain it here, where I can ask the question anonymously : how the fuck do these guys get their positions ? Suppose I came in for a job interview about programming cars. First thing I say is that I have zero knowledge about either programming or cars. But I've got "executive awards" and I managed a few people in a completely unremarkable company in a project no-one's ever heard of, or ever will hear off, they were that important.
Would you hire me ? I hope not. Why the fuck did this guy get hired ?
I can't even fault the guy himself. Of course he's not the right person to lead anything, but he's responding to incentives put in place by the US government, and by companies more generally. Given what he gets paid, of course he's doing whatever his superiors want him to do, without question, and without taking reality into account. Of course he's extremely motivated to lie to everybody to keep that job for just a few more months. The guy who hired him to make responsible decisions about IT, or healthcare, that's the guy that needs firing.
Really, I'd love to understand. What, assuming it isn't flat-out corruption or nepotism, motivates someone to hire people like this into important positions they flat-out know nothing about ?
http://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Leadership/ois/index.html
This guy is a typical management idiot. He has no qualifications except "leading" (not specified any further, of course), and making decisions about other people's money. While it's hard finding disastrous decisions in his CV, I'm not seeing anything that suggests he did more than show up.
As for leading, he has zero qualifications in either healthcare or IT.
I see this at a lot of companies, and someone really should explain it here, where I can ask the question anonymously : how the fuck do these guys get their positions ? Suppose I came in for a job interview about programming cars. First thing I say is that I have zero knowledge about either programming or cars. But I've got "executive awards" and I managed a few people in a completely unremarkable company in a project no-one's ever heard of, or ever will hear off, they were that important.
Would you hire me ? I hope not. Why the fuck did this guy get hired ?
I can't even fault the guy himself. Of course he's not the right person to lead anything, but he's responding to incentives put in place by the US government, and by companies more generally. Given what he gets paid, of course he's doing whatever his superiors want him to do, without question, and without taking reality into account. Of course he's extremely motivated to lie to everybody to keep that job for just a few more months. The guy who hired him to make responsible decisions about IT, or healthcare, that's the guy that needs firing.
Really, I'd love to understand. What, assuming it isn't flat-out corruption or nepotism, motivates someone to hire people like this into important positions they flat-out know nothing about ?
Here's my theory.
There's domain skills, the actual skills and knowledge about programming or cars or whatever your business does.
Then there's skills at getting ahead itself. Politics. Skills at making the right people happy so you get a promotion.
You need the 'getting ahead' skills to get to top levels in a large organization, right? We know that domain skills alone aren't going to cut it, if you're not good at the office politics, you are never going to be a department head or CIO -- in a large corporation or government or a university or large nonprofit: in any large organization.
Well, there's only so much room for so many skills. To actually get to the top levels of a large organization you need to be so good at the political part, that there's no time or room left in your psyche for any actual domain skills at all. Or, really, any skills at all except for skills at making people higher up than you think you are good.
There's domain skills, the actual skills and knowledge about programming or cars or whatever your business does.
Then there's skills at getting ahead itself. Politics. Skills at making the right people happy so you get a promotion.
You need the 'getting ahead' skills to get to top levels in a large organization, right? We know that domain skills alone aren't going to cut it, if you're not good at the office politics, you are never going to be a department head or CIO -- in a large corporation or government or a university or large nonprofit: in any large organization.
Well, there's only so much room for so many skills. To actually get to the top levels of a large organization you need to be so good at the political part, that there's no time or room left in your psyche for any actual domain skills at all. Or, really, any skills at all except for skills at making people higher up than you think you are good.
> You need the 'getting ahead' skills to get to top levels in a large organization, right?
The problem isn't attaining these skills; it's using them. Sure, I can use people as a means to an end in all sorts of colorful fashions to climb the ladder, but could I go home and sleep at night? I've made that decision, and it's a firm "No."
Climbing the corporate ladder doesn't seem to be so difficult, as long as you can rationalize the soul selling required to do so. Perhaps my point of view will change later in life, but right now one of the most important ideologies I maintain is that I should only be evaluated based on work I can directly represent, not credit derived from others.
The problem isn't attaining these skills; it's using them. Sure, I can use people as a means to an end in all sorts of colorful fashions to climb the ladder, but could I go home and sleep at night? I've made that decision, and it's a firm "No."
Climbing the corporate ladder doesn't seem to be so difficult, as long as you can rationalize the soul selling required to do so. Perhaps my point of view will change later in life, but right now one of the most important ideologies I maintain is that I should only be evaluated based on work I can directly represent, not credit derived from others.
What, assuming it isn't flat-out corruption or nepotism, motivates someone to hire people like this into important positions they flat-out know nothing about
The people doing the hiring aren't experts at much of anything besides being bureaucrats or above them, elected officials. They aren't the best of the best in the healthcare or IT fields because of some kind of competition or consistent vetting process.
The really funny thing is that the only reason anyone notices the staggering magnitude of the incompetence is because it's a web site that obviously doesn't work. Meanwhile behind the scenes are all kinds of protocols that don't really work to implement a healthcare system that is extremely poorly designed and will likely be poorly implemented.
Unfortunately when the rest of it doesn't work, voters will operate in ignorance while politicians blame each other for the failures and inevitably more and more money will be thrown at the problem so that someone can try to look good and get re-elected.
The people doing the hiring aren't experts at much of anything besides being bureaucrats or above them, elected officials. They aren't the best of the best in the healthcare or IT fields because of some kind of competition or consistent vetting process.
The really funny thing is that the only reason anyone notices the staggering magnitude of the incompetence is because it's a web site that obviously doesn't work. Meanwhile behind the scenes are all kinds of protocols that don't really work to implement a healthcare system that is extremely poorly designed and will likely be poorly implemented.
Unfortunately when the rest of it doesn't work, voters will operate in ignorance while politicians blame each other for the failures and inevitably more and more money will be thrown at the problem so that someone can try to look good and get re-elected.
Someone at CIO level for a government agency or large corporation isn't going to be expected to have technical qualifications. They're going to be expected to manage the folks who do, which means a history of managing large teams and degrees more like an MBA than a Masters in CS.
> Suppose I came in for a job interview about programming cars.
You're not interviewing for an executive-level position, then.
> Suppose I came in for a job interview about programming cars.
You're not interviewing for an executive-level position, then.
Resource allocation and telling people what to do is a skill in itself (which of course requires a lot of attentive listening if it is to be done well). It's easy to dismiss managers as idiots, but that's not much better than dismissing individual tech people as short-sighted folks who can't see the big picture.
So what you're saying is that without domain knowledge you can make an accurate allocation decision ? I don't believe that.
Can you demonstrate ?
I'm making a device, it doesn't matter which kind, rocket or car, or what it does. Why don't you give me a plan to allocate production of this device. Of course, it has to apply to all possible devices, rockets, boats, cars (fisher-price and the regular kind), ... Since you say this decision can be made intelligently without domain knowledge, there must be a general solution.
As an AI aficionado, I am EXTREMELY interested in this solution and I can personally guarantee this to you : If you have even a basic (but non-trivial) beginning of a plan that actually works, I'll make sure you get the Fields medal at least 5 times, or 1000 billion dollars, because a discovery of that magnitude absolutely merits such a reward, and the money would be easy pickings with such an algorithm. Hell it'd be rather easy to become the leader of a robot empire that easily defeats the US and every other nation on earth if you have such a solution.
But frankly I expect that you're bullshitting. Out of the dozens of lunatic proposals I've received from various sources, from students to foul-smelling people I'd never seen before (or again), they at least mentioned the method they claimed would work. None were even remotely workable. You just claim that "some people have learned it". I disagree in the strongest possible manner. Please, please convince me wrong. If it can be learned, it can be taught : so teach us, right here in this thread if it does indeed exist.
I claim these people who have learned "allocation" have not learned a thing. If they did, capitalism (a learning algorithm itself) could never possibly win against communism or dictatorships (because one of them would have had a leader that got allocation right). Instead, manager success is attributable, exclusively, to either the skills of the people they "allocated" and got things done (usually by undoing at least some allocation decisions), some external factor (it is no great feat for a microsoft product manager to build a program used by 500 million people due to monopoly), or shear dumb luck. Oh right, there's also bribery and nepotism to account for management positions (as opposed to success).
This sort of arguments makes the ideas behind software development methodologies make much more sense. Especially scrum, but agile before it and others seem to be highly focused on taking allocation decisions out of the hands of people with this "allocation" "skillset", like managers and project managers and the like, and into engineer's hands by moving them into systems the engineers control.
I would also like to add that, in the business article/book way of saying things, "most" successful companies, from Ford, over Microsoft to Google, became successful and grew when "allocation" of resources was effectively not done at all in these companies. Especially human resources that brought these companies their big wins were often going against management decisions (or management was giving them 20% time. Except of course, they spent a lot more than 20% on it).
Can you demonstrate ?
I'm making a device, it doesn't matter which kind, rocket or car, or what it does. Why don't you give me a plan to allocate production of this device. Of course, it has to apply to all possible devices, rockets, boats, cars (fisher-price and the regular kind), ... Since you say this decision can be made intelligently without domain knowledge, there must be a general solution.
As an AI aficionado, I am EXTREMELY interested in this solution and I can personally guarantee this to you : If you have even a basic (but non-trivial) beginning of a plan that actually works, I'll make sure you get the Fields medal at least 5 times, or 1000 billion dollars, because a discovery of that magnitude absolutely merits such a reward, and the money would be easy pickings with such an algorithm. Hell it'd be rather easy to become the leader of a robot empire that easily defeats the US and every other nation on earth if you have such a solution.
But frankly I expect that you're bullshitting. Out of the dozens of lunatic proposals I've received from various sources, from students to foul-smelling people I'd never seen before (or again), they at least mentioned the method they claimed would work. None were even remotely workable. You just claim that "some people have learned it". I disagree in the strongest possible manner. Please, please convince me wrong. If it can be learned, it can be taught : so teach us, right here in this thread if it does indeed exist.
I claim these people who have learned "allocation" have not learned a thing. If they did, capitalism (a learning algorithm itself) could never possibly win against communism or dictatorships (because one of them would have had a leader that got allocation right). Instead, manager success is attributable, exclusively, to either the skills of the people they "allocated" and got things done (usually by undoing at least some allocation decisions), some external factor (it is no great feat for a microsoft product manager to build a program used by 500 million people due to monopoly), or shear dumb luck. Oh right, there's also bribery and nepotism to account for management positions (as opposed to success).
This sort of arguments makes the ideas behind software development methodologies make much more sense. Especially scrum, but agile before it and others seem to be highly focused on taking allocation decisions out of the hands of people with this "allocation" "skillset", like managers and project managers and the like, and into engineer's hands by moving them into systems the engineers control.
I would also like to add that, in the business article/book way of saying things, "most" successful companies, from Ford, over Microsoft to Google, became successful and grew when "allocation" of resources was effectively not done at all in these companies. Especially human resources that brought these companies their big wins were often going against management decisions (or management was giving them 20% time. Except of course, they spent a lot more than 20% on it).
So what you're saying is that without domain knowledge you can make an accurate allocation decision ?
No, that's not what I'm saying. Did you see the bit where I said attentive listening was also very important? I don't see any point in continuing this conversation since you seem more interested in ranting.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Did you see the bit where I said attentive listening was also very important? I don't see any point in continuing this conversation since you seem more interested in ranting.
And now employers would have to think twice before hiring him.
He is the highest ranking white male so he had to be the one to go.
A despicable and disgusting comment the likes of which I don't think I've ever seem on HN.
PLEASE DELETE IT.
PLEASE DELETE IT.
You could always just, you know, downvote it. Or flag it. The way the system is supposed to work.
Park has been running his part of the massive government agency "like a Silicon Valley company," according to the Atlantic. That approach was particularly relevant in the development of HealthCare.gov, the first government website that provides consumers with a searchable database of public and private health insurance plans available across the U.S. by zip code - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Park