Sit back, relax, the Obamacare website will soon be running well -- the delay is commonly expected, the new normal for introducing complex technology.
While there has been virtually universal “piling on” criticizing the ACA (Obamacare) website, there are a number of circumstances which should be considered before the failure of the website is dismissed as an abject failure.
Let’s start first with a macro view of the intrusion of exploding technology into our daily lives. All technical projects, including the ACA site has to be viewed in that context, because its failings are not all that uncommon. The reality is all modern connectivity advancements in virtually every field are now in a digitally-based paradigm. When Social Security was presented, it was joined by using snail mail with a $.03 stamp. Slow, but it worked. When Medicare was introduced, there were no “websites” to deliver it – paper was the name of the game. Not so today, or with ACA. Today we demand that we get instant results and perfect performance, through digital technology, regardless of complexity; and anything less is considered failure. But those expectations are not only inaccurate, but creating aggravation if not anger.
Recently Wal-Mart, a paragon of retailing, had a glitch in which loads of merchandise was accidentally sold for pennies on the dollar. Microsoft – leader of the world in software development – regularly has severe glitches in its new Windows. This after the biggest name in computer software has tested and vetted each new program endlessly, yet fixes after delivery are the norm. Examples of defective websites are endless, so why are we surprised? It is mindful of the Inspector in Casablanca: “I am shocked there is gambling going on in here”, as he leaves, “…don’t forget your winnings Inspector.” Further, hackers have gone into virtually every kind of website on the internet, and once defeated, they create new mischief. That is the world we live in today, that is reality, that is not uncommon, and that too is the Obamacare website.
In the Tuesday Dec 3 LA Times Jonah Goldberg comments on the “fix” to date with strong comparisons to private sector website efficiencies by deriding the website’s new speed and effectiveness by saying “that’s adorable”, then going on to compare the site’s operation to that of an ATM machine. A ridiculous comparison considering the ATM is simpler and mature technology. But the greater irony of Goldberg’s comparison with the private sector is that the site was created and built solely by the private sector. Moreover, the site was built with huge payments, ample time, and clear expectations by the contractor who won the bid, no doubt with great assurances, and strong promises. CGI Federal’s website states they have had 36 years experience serving the government sector, and: “These partnerships fuel our deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing our clients and inform the development of solutions to help them improve outcomes and maximize results.” That didn’t happen. CGI Federal did not perform. Period. The excuses they have given were to some degree blessed by the Congressional Committee who was more concerned with tagging the administration for the failure than the vendor who was hired to make sure it was done a) on time; b) on budget; c) operating effectively. Excuses that “changes were made” and other vendors were involved should not fly – these factors are universally common on private or public contracts.
Which brings us to how the government lets such contracts; what is the government’s role after the contract is let; and the possible future of government enhancing its technology skills? Starting with the later, Joseph Tanfani wrote in the Dec. 3 LA Times that government technology website failures are “the rule not the exception.” That is not accurate, because extensive successful technology is embedded in the government in so many ways now that some deficient websites are hardly an accurate indicator of the government’s ability to manage technology. It is true that it would be desirable in these times to have stronger technology expertise at the GSA level; or even at cabinet level (Secretary of Technology); but the thought of another Cabinet, and larger government along with budget constraints is not going to happen. Thus, we are pretty much left with the oversight we presently have.
There is the false assumption that is few big players in the government information technology market. Actually, the government has hundreds of tech contracts with special “set asides” for small business and even service disabled-owned companies. That is a worthy social objective, but again back to Goldberg’s comparison with the private sector, it is a compromise the government wants, and the private sector does not – with the effect that sometimes such contracts may limit highly qualified vendors.
At any rate, the analogy that government’s technical needs are the same as the private sector is false. Further, it is the private sector that builds and delivers technology for the government, and their failure is the one that should be called out. Finally, if there has been frustration with the Obamacare website, it is only part of what technology has brought us in today’s world. It is a common malady and is here to stay. Welcome to the wonderful world of Windows.