As a Graduate Assistant, I had the
unique opportunity to go through Healthcare.gov articles and categorize
them based on the article’s point.
Through doing this, I think I was able to learn a thing or two related
to many people’s perspectives about what happened with Healthcare.gov and how
it could be improved. Here seems to be
some of the main ideas of how the project could have been improved from the different articles
I looked at:
-
LEGISLATION
o
Tech specifications should not be included in
legislation as it makes it harder to manage the project
-
CONTRACTORS
o
The chosen contractors were
mismanaged/insufficient private organizations for the job
-
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
o
Difficult for companies without experience to
bid for projects
o
Procurements can be protested by companies
leading to delay and costs
o
Federal Acquisition Regulation requires small
businesses to be involved and other rules
o
Shouldn’t establish requirements for IT at
certain points in the procurement cycle
-
MANAGEMENT FROM CMS
o
CMS did not test it enough before launching,
even though contractors raised concerns
o
Needed to have a specific person in charge of
the project rather than many people
-
HUMAN RESOURCES
o
Need more in-house strategy, design, and tech
personnel within government.
o
Need more outside skilled leadership in
business, insurance, and technology to be involved
-
STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
o
Need a new way of delivering tech services such
as forming a Government Digital Service team as they have done in the UK
-
CONTRACT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
o
Would be good to use agile software development,
open source, and cloud computing project management principles
o
IT projects should start small and there should
be demos
So, in conclusion, it seems that all of these factors
contributed to a botched roll out and expensive Healthcare.gov . There are definitely more factors so please feel
free to add to the list in the comments. Hopefully, through Healthcare.gov’s
publicity, improvements on these different aspects can be made in the future.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment