On 08/31/2010 10:23 AM, Matt Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Gilbert Wilson wrote:
Article here:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/hp-holds-navy-network-hostage/
I'm curious to know what LOPSAers think of the Danger Room article
about the Navy's relationship with HP. While I don't think it's a
great idea for the military to outsource it's network operations
(certainly not to the degree that the Navy has) the article's evidence
is piss-poor. The costs that they quote for average workstations,
security incident response, and services for spam filtering appear
completely reason to me for a network the size and complexity of the
Navy's (the second biggest in the world.... right behind the INTERNET!).
That's how outsourcing works, particularly today. None of the big
outsourcing firms are in the business of providing good service, they are
in the business of doing the least work possible for the most money they
can bill.
another example of a failure:
http://www2.dir.state.tx.us/about/pressroom/Pages/NoticetoCureDCSContract.aspx
http://www2.dir.state.tx.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/AboutDIR/PressReleases/Data%20Center%20Services%20Notice%20to%20Cure_07162010.pdf
These projects are being run by business school graduates who have no
intention of actually doing the work. These are the same people who will
cut costs instead of improving efficiency.
As our business is all about government services, our corporate
head-office likes to send us daily news round-ups from various sources
to ensure we're up to date on whats going on around us. Possibly the
most ongoing shocking situation I've been aware of is Virginia and
Northrop Grumman, who's costs for services are spiraling ever upwards at
the same time as being accused of failing to meet their side of the
arrangement. Significant concerns are being raised that when the
contract reaches expiry date they'll have no option but to renew with
them too because their infrastructure is tied in too tightly.
It's the latter aspect that gives me most cause for concern with
outsourcing. Outsourcing IT is fine and valid (but then I would say
that, I work for a company that provides outsourced services to states),
but not when it means the state has no control or possession of what is
outsourced. All outsourced work like that should be carried out with
the provision that at any stage the outsourcing contract could be
terminated with out impacting it. Call it an exaggeration of the "Run
over by a bus" scenario if you will.
Government should never, ever be effectively held to ransom by
corporations (I know.. that's a politically naive statement, but
hopefully you get my gist)
Some of the links with background and details of what's going on:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/may/08/vita08_20100507-223006-ar-157272/
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/may/17/vitagat17_20100517-114001-ar-155435/
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/jun/22/vita22-ar-227892/
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/jul/15/vita15-ar-296495/
http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/768474
The recent (last week?) major outage:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/08/computer_problems_wreak_havoc.html#more
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
