Author Topic: Reuters: IT experts decidely not impressed with HealthCare.gov’s architecture  (Read 333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/06/reuters-it-experts-decidely-not-impressed-with-healthcare-govs-architecture/

Reuters: IT experts decidely not impressed with HealthCare.gov’s architecture
posted at 2:01 pm on October 6, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The Obama administration put on a happy face this week in response to the almost universally unsuccessful grand opening of ObamaCare on Tuesday; hey, all of these errors just mean that so many people are interested in ObamaCare, our servers can’t even handle it all! Isn’t that awesome?

As I mentioned earlier this week, however, the apparent level of interest in ObamaCare is only a good thing for them if enough of the right people are interested in signing up for the program, and anyhow, it doesn’t sound like the IT community is all that convinced that the high volume of traffic is really the problem here. Reuters interviewed five IT experts about the architecture of HealthCare.gov, and it sounds like they’re leaning a lot more toward poor programming choices than they are too much traffic as the explanation for the anticlimactic commencement:
Quote

    For instance, when a user tries to create an account on HealthCare.gov, which serves insurance exchanges in 36 states, it prompts the computer to load an unusually large amount of files and software, overwhelming the browser, experts said. …

    “Adding capacity sounds great until you realize that if you didn’t design it right that won’t help,” said Bill Curtis, chief scientist at CAST, a software quality analysis firm, and director of the Consortium for IT Software Quality. “The architecture of the software may limit how much you can add on to it. I suspect they’ll have to reconfigure a lot of it.” …

    One possible cause of the problems is that hitting “apply” on HealthCare.gov causes 92 separate files, plug-ins and other mammoth swarms of data to stream between the user’s computer and the servers powering the government website, said Matthew Hancock, an independent expert in website design. …

    He said because so much traffic was going back and forth between the users’ computers and the server hosting the government website, it was as if the system was attacking itself. …

    The government official blamed the glitch on massive traffic, but outside experts said it likely reflected programming choices as well.


And etcetera. The administration announced on Friday that they were taking portions of HealthCare.gov offline over the weekend for site maintenance, and it sounds like they have some serious redesign work to do — but the fact that this was a poorly executed rush job could not be more apparent.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
It seems to me, as one who has worked in the IT industry, that the architecture of the insurance company systems should have served as models.  In other words, United Healthcare, which processes massive amounts of data and information for healthcare providers.....why didn't the government simply buy their application designs, data flows, and utilize their technologies in the Obamacare system?  I've read accounts from several insurance firms which are redirecting applicants to their own websites where users are able to look at their health plans and decide if those are acceptable. 

The Federal Government suffers from the American Airlines syndrome prevalent in the 90s:  if it aint designed here, we don't want it.  I was on the IBM sales team that served AA then, and their Sabre division insisted on designs from scratch, as if there were no other working models similar that they could adopt and tweak.  Sabre was the first, and the best, and they wouldn't look at any others.

There's nothing new under the sun.  The healthcare insurance industry operates massive systems that work, and work well.  Buying and adopting proven technology is ALWAYS less expensive and easier to change and test than designing and coding from scratch.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

famousdayandyear

  • Guest
It seems to me, as one who has worked in the IT industry, that the architecture of the insurance company systems should have served as models.  In other words, United Healthcare, which processes massive amounts of data and information for healthcare providers.....why didn't the government simply buy their application designs, data flows, and utilize their technologies in the Obamacare system?  I've read accounts from several insurance firms which are redirecting applicants to their own websites where users are able to look at their health plans and decide if those are acceptable. 

The Federal Government suffers from the American Airlines syndrome prevalent in the 90s:  if it aint designed here, we don't want it.  I was on the IBM sales team that served AA then, and their Sabre division insisted on designs from scratch, as if there were no other working models similar that they could adopt and tweak.  Sabre was the first, and the best, and they wouldn't look at any others.

There's nothing new under the sun.  The healthcare insurance industry operates massive systems that work, and work well.  Buying and adopting proven technology is ALWAYS less expensive and easier to change and test than designing and coding from scratch.

This is not the way government works. From your discourses, am surprised you are not
aware of the non-productive nature of such things.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf