Re: DoE software reuse as bad as DoD

Re: DoE software reuse as bad as DoD

[Tim Sparks]

In article <BzGoCF.ECM@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
 writes:
>    I often note how ineffectual and wasteful are DoD software reuse policies,
>especially from a private supplier point of view.  To be fair, the DoD
>does no better or worse than other government agencies when it comes to
>creating rational policies for effective reuse of government software and
>its transfer to the private sector.
>
> [ remainder of lengthy article deleted ]

Greg,
  I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you said, but you should
have also included that your statements are based on the premise that all
government agencies live to re-invent the wheel or worse, suffer from the 
Not Invented Here Syndrome(NIHS). In many if not all cases it would be 
economically sound to buy the more expensive version if that is what is 
required because it is cheaper than spending the time and therefore money
to port the "cheaper" code up to the appropriate platform. This is not a
problem that endemic to the government and their contractors. That is a 
problem that the country as a whole is suffering from.

  Or was the premise a given?   8-{)
 
===============================================================================
Ignorance can be tolerated because it  + Tim Sparks 
can be Overcome!                       + Email: jadpc!sparks@trout.nosc.mil
Stupidity on the other hand should     +        sparks@satsys.san.mrms.navy.mil
crushed whenever and wherever          +
encountered.....                  Me   + I may be easy...but I'm not cheap!
===============================================================================
Logical
Intelligent         And Uncle Sam Doesn't want to hear about any LIES!!!
Efficient
Supportable                                                  Also Me  8-{)
===============================================================================
-- 
===============================================================================
Ignorance can be tolerated because it  + Tim Sparks 
can be Overcome!                       + Email: jadpc!sparks@trout.nosc.mil
Stupidity on the other hand should     +        sparks@satsys.san.mrms.navy.mil

Re: DoE software reuse as bad as DoD

[Gregory Aharonian]

>Greg,
>  I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you said, but you should
>have also included that your statements are based on the premise that all
>government agencies live to re-invent the wheel or worse, suffer from the 
>Not Invented Here Syndrome(NIHS). In many if not all cases it would be 
>economically sound to buy the more expensive version if that is what is 
>required because it is cheaper than spending the time and therefore money
>to port the "cheaper" code up to the appropriate platform. This is not a
>problem that endemic to the government and their contractors. That is a 
>problem that the country as a whole is suffering from.
>  Or was the premise a given?   8-{)
>=============================================================================
>Ignorance can be tolerated because it  + Tim Sparks 
>can be Overcome!                       + Email: jadpc!sparks@trout.nosc.mil

   The problem is in general that it is impossible to assess whether or not
it is more economically sound to buy a more expensive version for what is
required than porting the "cheaper" code.  None of the agencies, though the
DoD is more guilty of fraud than the others, have any valid microeconomic or
accounting methodologies, or systematic collections of existing cost data,
to make such assessments.
   It's incredible that people can make claims like ten-fold increases in
productivity (STARS) or tens of billions of dollars in savings (Strassman)
without there be anyway to verify these statements.  I always hear that
STARS is finally getting its act together - fine, but this is after years
of wasting millions of dollars on programs that at the time people were
pointing out the flaws in.  A few years ago the GAO complained the DoD wasn't
properly collecting the data it needed to determine the cost/benefit analysis
of Ada policies, with which the DoD agreed.  Since then, nothing has changed.
    A few years ago the Institute for Defense Analysis came out with a
1-2-3 spreadsheet for assessing the costs of adopting Ada.  Now I am not
sure how meaningful the number and equations on their spreadsheet are,
but at least it is something.  You would have figure someone, the IDA, DoD,
SEI, STARS, or Ada Vendors would have made thousands of copies of this public
domain report and passed it out all over the place to help encourage companies
to consider and adopt Ada - a good example of reuse, with main gains at little
cost.
     But NOTHING.  The report gathers dust (along with two others of a similar
nature).  In fact, I have seen new proposals to fund efforts to create such
reports by program managers not knowing that these report exist.  If you
don't know how to reuse what you already have, how can you hope to reuse what
you are going to have?
     Incompetence or fraud - take your pick when it comes to many DoD software
policies, especially reuse.  They make claims that can't be substantiated,
they developed software, tools and reports, and then ignore them, and they
see the light years after others had pointed out what the light is.  About the
only nimbleness they show is in traversing revolving doors.  The socioeconomics
of Ada have been completely ignored by the DoD over the years,to the detriment
of Ada's general acceptance, thereby undermining the cost savings assumptions
made for the Ada Mandate.

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

DoE software reuse as bad as DoD

[usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!d]

On 12-21-92, GREGORY AHARONIAN wrote to ALL:

GA> Why is this a bad pricing structure?  First, most DoE codes are in
GA> Fortran, and most scientists and engineers are used to porting such
GA> codes across platforms with ease, which for supercomputers is helped by
GA> tools from the manufacturer.  Thus to save money, I would buy the
GA> personal computer version and port it myself, given the very high
GA> markups for the non-personal computer versions.  Thus if there is any
GA> economic need by the DoE center to charge high prices to recoup or
GA> cover some support cost, it is undermined by the market.

I believe that DOE is merely aping what every vendor in the country does
already: base the cost of the software on the perceived cost of the hard
ware on which it is to be run.  Note the difference in cost of compilers
for PCs, workstations, minis and mainframes.  I've heard justifications
ad nauseum from vendors for this structuring and they all sound equally
foolish.

Regards, Mikey (michael.hagerty@nitelog.com)

 * JABBER v1.3B1 #B042 * Include this in your CONFIG.SYS File: SET BUGS=OFF