FBI hijacked by IT

In yet another egregious example of an organization being hijacked by the IT folks, the FBI may have to scrap a brand new $170 million computer system because, get this, it doesn't work.

When these things happen, there is plenty of blame to go around. There are always at least three guilty parties.

• FBI upper management failed because they did not properly manage and oversee theie own internal IT staff, who had to have a major role in designing and specifying this system. Too many managers simply avoid tech issues because they feel they don't know enough about it and/or allow themselves to be intimidated by jargon-talking IT managers who deliberately obscure and complicate IT issues to keep upper management in the dark.
• The FBI's own IT department failed utterly. It certainly had the primary responsibility for oversight of the contractor-based project, and should have kept a close eye on the progress of the project. What happens, though, is that the internal IT folks become too cozy with the contract developer, and become vested in ensuring a "good" outcome--because they selected the vendor. If a project starts to go bad, it's very difficult to go back to your boss and say, "We picked the wrong guys to do this," or to say, "We did a lousy job of specifying what we needed." That's what has to happen, though. Because senior management avoids getting their hands dirty on IT projects, everyone looks the other way. In this case, the article describes it as a "slow motion train wreck," meaning everyone knew it was going to crash, but no one had the maturity to stand up and say so.
• The vendor failed. SAIC, a huge government contractor, will walk away with $170 million in taxpayer funds, and rest assured, they are already signing similar contracts with other Federal agencies. SAIC will claim, with some justification, that they were given inadequate specifications. But that's no excuse for failure to deliver, or to stop the process and say, "We need better specifications to complete this successfully."

If you find yourself talking to an IT person in your organization is using incomprehensible jargon, show them the door and tell them not to come back until they can talk in plain English. Ditto if you are talking to a vendor. There is absolutely no reason to let vendors confuse you with a lot of hard to understand buzz phrases. Disclaimer: Design Nine helps organizations spend their IT dollars wisely by providing indpendent advice and oversight on IT expenditures. If you are planning a sizable IT expenditure, get some advice from someone who does not stand to profit from running up the bill. And don't forget that internal IT departments too often gravitate toward complex, hard to maintain systems because it justifies a higher IT budget. Inexpensive, easy to maintain systems reduce IT costs. Why are so many IT departments so opposed to using Macs? Maybe it's because Macs need many fewer IT staffers to keep them up and running (documented in study after study).