
The Pentagon’s procurement system is so broken they are calling on Watson - mcamaj
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-pentagons-procurement-system-is-so-broken-they-are-calling-on-watson/2016/03/18/a6891158-ec6a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
======
hvindin
Every time I see an article which talks about "Watson" as an individual
solution to a problem I find myself wondering what the people paying for it
all think that "Watson" is?

Realistically its like 10+ racks filled with POWER systems loaded up with
terabytes of RAM running SUSE Linux using Apache Hadoop for distributed
computing, then some IBM Proprietary software solutions + a few other open
bits and pieces (ie Apache UIMA) cobbled together to get something which
behaves as though it understands natural language.

Honestly if you put most data-centric systems on a platform with dozens, if
not hundreds, of POWER CPUs with 8-16 cores a piece and 4 threads/core and
then put the entire data store into RAM so you could get at it quickly, I
suspect that you could fool most people into thinking there was intelligence
behind it, not just raw computing power.

~~~
ProAm
NLP is perfect for understanding purchasing requirements, rules, laws, etc....
You right, watson is just a task specific tuned supercomputer, but I see this
as a good fit.

~~~
rspeer
NLP pretty much has to be task-specific, but the task-specific NLP that will
solve the Pentagon's particular problem almost certainly doesn't exist until
someone writes it.

When you describe "Watson" as a task-specific supercomputer, if you mean the
Watson that played Jeopardy, that's certainly not what they're going to be
using. "Watson" here means hiring IBM consultants to write them some software
that runs on IBM hardware.

------
dzdt
My understanding is procurement is and remains broken because there are
entrenched powers who benefit greatly from that situation. It is working as
designed by the people who wrote the rules, bringing great profit to the
intended recipients. No change of the system will be allowed that threatens
this property.

~~~
yompers888
Could you elaborate on who benefits from a poor procurement system? Does it
benefit them in that in conforms to their ideology, or does it do so tangibly?
I'm familiar with people being in favor of government being cumbersome, but I
can't picture how someone within government who has the power to effect this
change would support this.

Edit: 'this' in the last sentence ambiguously refers to the nauseatingly
lengthy and tedious process currently in place.

~~~
dzdt
The complexity of the current procurement system means that only giant
contractors with an office of red tape experts can effectively bid on the big
contracts. These giant contractors get giant and hugely profitable contracts
which would have required more competitive bids with a less broken procurement
system. In turn the giant contractors reward the politicians that keep the
system working in their favor with campaign contributions, hefty speaking
fees, cushy positions after leaving elected office, and so on.

~~~
secabeen
Mostly yes. They also don't actually do much of the real work, they
subcontract that out to smaller firms after taking their rent.

------
brightball
Here's something fun to digest.

> “While our acquisition system is very complex, it is document based. . .It’s
> unreasonable to expect that a single individual or even a group of
> individuals to be able to fully understand all of the relevant documents to
> answer a specific question.”

Total pages: 1,897 pages

Total pages in tax code: 16,845 pages

Total pages in Obamacare: 11,000 pages

~~~
HillRat
The key difference is that the tax code and the ACA cover very large surface
areas of which only a subset applies to any one player. FAR is largely
applicable to _any_ vendor, regardless of contract size, and requires onerous
documentation at every step.

------
pakled_engineer
Machines making decisions due to our own man made complexity, wonder when this
will become the norm for all facets of government, until the machines create
their own massive complexity making it even more difficult for humans thus we
end up completely relying on them.

~~~
beeboop
It's interesting, or perhaps sad, how ripe for abuse this is. Funnel billions
of dollars into a black box that then results in some amount of "stuff" being
delivered to various places. The fact that they are using a system so complex
that humans can't individually understand it means there's not really any
accountability.

Maybe a few years from now, we'll be seeing the developers working on Watson
deciding to retire to private islands at the age of 40.

------
noxin
Looks like the saying that nobody gets fired for buying IBM is still valid.

~~~
geodel
However, working for IBM may get one fired.

------
thom
On a slightly tangentially related note, I was astonished to hear a couple of
years back that the UK has legislation written in the proprietary dialect of
some patented Oracle software:

[http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/public-
sector/058991.htm...](http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/public-
sector/058991.html)

------
Dwolb
Why are they throwing even more complex solutions at the complicated
procurement procedure?

Couldn't the solution be to simplify the procedure itself?

~~~
jonathankoren
No one wants a simple process.

The craptastic [1-4] F-35 has ties to 42 states plus Puerto Rico if I counted
correctly [0]. That's one of the reasons why it can't be canceled.

The defense contractors want the systems confusing so they can spread out
production across as many congressional districts as possible in order to
maintain clout. (A vote to cancel the Radioactive Ferret Launcher, is a vote
kill 50 jobs in your hometown!). Also confusion allows for ample padding.

Another problem that isn't talked about is that since World War II, and
especially since the end of the draft, the number of people that have seen how
the military actually works, is pretty small, yet at the same time it's
standing as an institution has increased. Arguably this is because people only
see the recruiting videos, and not the political bureaucracy that the military
(and all large organizations) actually is. Congress doesn't push back when the
military and their contractors do... well asinine stuff. Say try to make a
one-size-fits all fighter that, that has never worked. Or makes a carrier
without testing it.[5]

[0] [https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-
map](https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map) [1]
[https://medium.com/war-is-boring/everything-wrong-with-
the-f...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/everything-wrong-with-
the-f-35-3b62e8b3b432#.xkod70lko) [2]
[http://warisboring.com/articles/the-f-35-is-still-
horribly-b...](http://warisboring.com/articles/the-f-35-is-still-horribly-
broken/) [3] [http://warisboring.com/articles/we-have-proof-the-u-s-air-
fo...](http://warisboring.com/articles/we-have-proof-the-u-s-air-force-
watered-down-the-f-35-to-avoid-embarrassment/) [4] [https://medium.com/war-is-
boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-
pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.hux6rjj08) [5]
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-11/navy-
order...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-11/navy-ordered-to-
put-costliest-carrier-through-at-sea-shock-tests)

------
kafkaesq
Something tells me this can't possibly end well.

