From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 21 Dec 92 19:56:46 GMT From: world!srctran@uunet.uu.net (Gregory Aharonian) Subject: Re: DoE software reuse as bad as DoD Message-ID: List-Id: >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