The Affordable Care Web Site

I think some of you don't understand - politicians are NOT managers, they're politicians.  In their own businesses, they usually hire managers.  They're idea people.  They're publicity people.

So, apparently, the PPACA (the Affordable Healthcare Act) web site, is a mess.  I don't know because I just applied for Medicare so it doesn't really apply to me.

However, yelling and pawning off the mess to the President and his party doesn't solve the problem.  Yes, ultimately, he's responsible; he's at the helm, so to speak.  But, I'm guessing he knows little about production and this is a production problem.

Somebody was delegated the responsibility of drawing up the specifications for the web site.  If not, well, somebody was delegated the responsibility of figuring out how the system has to work.  In one way or another, someone or a team of people are responsible for how the system is supposed to work and how the web site makes that possible.  They failed.  Apparently they more than failed, they didn't even work out rational procedures to be translated into the web site.

This is, unfortunately, not all that uncommon.  I recently wrote a rather nasty to our state (New Jersey) pension fund about their web site which kept taking me in circles; never to arrive at the page I needed to get to.  Somebody was paid to create that web site and somebody was hired to create the PPACA web site.  Unless the procedures have been laid out, in detail, before the web site design is designed, the web site will NOT and CANNOT work properly.

Sit down.  Think of the steps necessary to boil an egg - from getting the pan out of the cupboard and the egg out of the refrigerator.  Unless you start from the beginning, step by step, if you write down those steps and give them to someone who's unfamiliar with a kitchen or a stove, they won't be able to complete the task.  Then translate those step-by-step instructions to forms and online instructions and programmed computer routines and you have a tiny idea of why the PPACA web site isn't working.

Someone was responsible for ensuring that all necessary steps in applying for Affordable Care was translated into the web site.  If the specifications that were given to the web designers were insufficient, the contractors are not necessarily responsible.

I just sent messages to the White House, to my House rep, to my Senator and Senator Elect about this matter.  There are 2 questions that need to be asked and answered first:

Who was responsible for writing the RFP for the project?  

(RFP - request for proposal, generally the specifications required and desired in any project, written and distributed to interested contractors who then write a proposal to meet those requirements and specifications and their proposed charges to provide those specifications.)

Whoever was responsible for writing the specs, is the first individual(s) to call on the carpet for the mess the web site seems to be.

We've heard reports that the site is supposed to handle 50,000 applications a day.  That is clearly insufficient for the demand and SOMEBODY should have known that.

You can be sure the President didn't write the specs.  I'm guessing he wouldn't begin to know how.  He delegated that responsibility to SOMEBODY. Who was it?  That person, after thorough debriefing and hearing, HAS TO BE FIRED.

I've been fired for, more or less, nothing.  I always did my job, I never didn't do my job, I wasn't perfect but I did my job pretty well.  Whoever was responsible for writing the specs for the web site didn't.

Second, has the contractor been paid?  They had better not have been.  You never, Never, NEVER pay a contractor unless and until the project has been completed satisfactorily.  There is always an upfront payment for time, materials, etc. that is part of the contract.  The contract must state that final payment depends on satisfactory completion of the project.

However, if the contractor has, in fact complete the project as specked out by whoever wrote the specs, WE are accountable to pay the contractor.  If the specs said the site has to be capable of taking 50,000 applications a day, and that's what it can do, then the contractor has fulfilled their end of the contract, even though the specifications are crap.  

Generally, a good contractor, who knows the business of what the project is for, will see such idiotic specifications and alert the client who will then rewrite the specifications.

I've written RFPs.  Generally, I solicit the advice of colleagues who have completed similar projects.  I read articles and books on completing similar projects.  I talk to contractors who have completed similar projects.  I attend workshops about related projects.  I take notes and draw charts along the way.  I send my notes out to many I've already talked to for their feedback.   

There are many reasons why large projects like this go wrong:

• The person who delegated the project has failed to monitor those to whom the project was delegated.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated is incompetent.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated doesn't care if the project is satisfactorily or not.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated didn't write an RFP but just called familiar contractors to discuss the particulars of the project, then hired one or more of them, leaving there no way to hold them accountable.
• The project specs didn't include procedures for monitoring and evaluating the completion of steps and features.
• The contract didn't include a punch list for completion.
• The contract didn't include procedures in the event of contingencies.
• The contractor had nothing to work with to guide his/their work except their own experience which may or may not have been relevant to the project needs.
• The contractor didn't follow specs, cut corners, etc., etc.

In this case, I suspect that last is NOT the case.  I suspect that the project was managed by someone who either didn't care enough or didn't now how to manage such a project.  A project like this really needs a team of experts to draw up the various aspects of the system, procedures, criteria, etc.  I suspect that the 3 years of the project were mostly filled with phone calls and that whomever was responsible for carrying out the project and others involved did NOT have dedicated responsibility for it.  A project like this, required ALL the time of everyone working on it until it's complete.

Unhappily, it's my observation that public contracts are paid, regardless of whether or not the project is completed satisfactorily.  It happens because the specifications for the project were not written clearly enough and the contractor has a case for completion.  It happens because the contract doesn't have sufficient legal language to protect the public from incompetent or unethical contractors.  

Each payment, other than an initial start-up payment, the % of which should be specified in the contract, must be tied to satisfactorily completion of a piece of the project and the evaluative criteria and process clearly specified for each step.

I've been out of work for 2 1/2 years and the dummies working on the PPACA project were all, undoubtedly, paid very well for giving us this mess, for which WE paid a great deal.  Go figure.