There isn’t much to study - it didn’t succeed or fail on the merits - someone didn’t like it because he didn’t create it so it got axed.
ronbenton [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I disagree wholeheartedly that there isn’t much to study. Direct File was actually a resounding success, especially when you consider how much difficulty governments tend to have shipping good software products. There is a lot of good information in here that government entities can learn from.
mixdup [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Including how and why it died. That is an important lesson for the entire governmental enterprise, including all decision-makers, to learn: that government CAN deliver something good and one single person should not be in totalitarian control
firesteelrain [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It had talented software engineers involved including with the marketplace. It succumbed to political forces
Defenestresque [3 hidden]5 mins ago
A fascinating , yet sad, post-mortem.
Anyone wheeling and dealing along in the shadows between "politics" and "deliverable, functioning product" should read it. Or, I guess, paste the link into Claude or ChatGPT and ask it to summarize for them, lessons learned in bullet points and how it could apply to $their_job.
But I'm generally a weirdo who finds these kinds of reports fascinating, so don't purely go on my recommendation.
gradus_ad [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Eh, government should not be in the business of maintaining digital infrastructure, regardless of how capable it might be. As much of it as possible should be contracted out to 3rd parties.
compiler-guy [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Explain your reasoning at least.
The government has to maintain some infrastructure to get this sort of thing done. Whether digital or analog. And if it contracts it out, it needs to oversee it. So no matter how it is done, the government has to pay.
NoDodgeQuestion [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Don't you care about the actual outcome at all? Even if the government does a better job, you still prefer a third-party organization?
timcobb [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> As much of it as possible should be contracted out to 3rd parties.
This is the case pretty much.
shepardrtc [3 hidden]5 mins ago
At exorbitant costs or lackluster execution, with plenty of campaign donations along the way
denkmoon [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You could just light the money on fire instead and get the same result. Contractors routinely screw the tax payer. I once had a job in one of these third parties where the entire operation was effectively defrauding the tax payer by claiming 1hr jobs would take 40.
HN.zip
Anyone wheeling and dealing along in the shadows between "politics" and "deliverable, functioning product" should read it. Or, I guess, paste the link into Claude or ChatGPT and ask it to summarize for them, lessons learned in bullet points and how it could apply to $their_job.
But I'm generally a weirdo who finds these kinds of reports fascinating, so don't purely go on my recommendation.
The government has to maintain some infrastructure to get this sort of thing done. Whether digital or analog. And if it contracts it out, it needs to oversee it. So no matter how it is done, the government has to pay.
This is the case pretty much.