2:08 am, April 24, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 5
       

  • DoD ERP efforts still risky
    JohnWeiler
    Until DOD fundamentally changes their approach for acquiring and manage ERP's, it will be insanity to expect different results. Having documented common failure patterns over the last 2 1/2 years, the IT Acquisition Advisory Council has produced a Roadmap to help agency PMs embrace proven methods designed for COTS integration vs design to spec approach driven by the DODAF, JCIDS and DOD5000. This is why congress mandated DOD to move away from these weapon systems style approaches in the 2010 NDAA, Section 804. What is worrisome, is that these agencies continue to give contract for PMO support to vendors vested in the old model, as it produces the most revenue. Einstein would note that you cannot solve today's problems with the same thinking that got you there in the first place. Time to throw out the old processes and the contractors who depend on them as well.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • 4 Comments by only 1 is visible?
    Spanky
    Perhaps federalnews needs to shake a leg at their own system? 4 comments, but only 1 is viewable? As for the subject of the article... ERP. Blah! Having worked in the federal govt financial mgmt and IT for over 25 years I can say that it is now ALL about the contractor. What gets them the big contracts. The brass follow suit cause they want their backs scratched. Just read what their reason for a different system between Marines and Army. Did it make sense to you? It's the top Pentagon brass typical political response. I current work Navy and we've been pouring millions, perhaps billions into a ERP since before 2000. It still is a stifled, bloated waste of a broken system. It's always the same losers in charge, most contractors getting paid big bucks. When they implement (turn the system on), the contractors sneak to the background and hold ALL the pertinent process and access to themselves, calling it job security. They refuse to share the most important information. Today (2011) we have the same losers in charge of the ERP and the same management plying tweedle-dee-Dee as the bucks roll out to the contractors. Perhaps the lady Senator should be speaking with the ground troops in the federal govt (accountants)... and observing the daily failures... but the contracts keep shoving through the contract offices! She is right about one thing... there MUST be a "one solution" for all and the depts should be mandated to do it. Otherwise it will continue to stove-pipe, induce the industrial contractor complex and keep the sweetness flowing for the generals, admirals and SES. They first should be held accountable to failures. Most are now VP for Deloitte, KPMG or some other contractor. Unbelievable how the Pentagon blows the smoke in the mirrors over our Congress!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }