
The full complaint against Oracle by the state of Oregon [pdf] - mountaineer
http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/pdf/FINAL_Complaint_8_22_14.pdf
======
ddingus
Man, I'm wondering how Oregon didn't take advantage of it's excellent software
culture and have them build this thing.

Oh, I know why. Oregon actually had a bill presented in the early '00's to
accomplish that kind of thing. I was part of it, and it was all about making
sure the State could evaluate Open Source type solutions right alongside
proprietary ones.

It failed to see a vote, despite broad bi-partisan support, due to some
expensive suits lobbying the speaker Minnis.

One case in point used then was the Portland Water billing system. That one
cost a ton of money, and was released as a failure, costing more money, and in
the end, is likely still costing money.

For this kind of change, Oregon could very easily have setup a foundation, or
working group of some sort, and had this thing built out of many, if not all
OSS components. Oregon would own it, and have more control over it, and would
be able to exercise a lot more options managing it too.

Once that group saw success, they keep the jobs, Oregon saves cash, and they
then start knocking out municipal solutions of all kinds, exporting that as
needed for funding and or just cash for the public interest.

Oracle really screwed the pooch on this one. It's going to be painful for all
involved, but I sure wouldn't want that document out there floating around.
Enterprise sales will get just a notch tougher real quick.

~~~
joshAg
In the requirements, OR seems pretty adamant that they want a COTS solution
with no or very little custom code.

I'm sure they could do this project with OSS products and custom code
integrating everything, but those don't come with support contracts. If
there's no support contract that means OR has to support it itself, which
means hiring people with deep knowledge of the system to quite possibly do
nothing for long periods of time until a bug is found for their particular use
case, because no one else is using the product.

That's not cost effective compared to an off the shelf solution from a vendor
that can use 1 support staff to help multiple customers, especially when you
realize this means requiring at least a security expert, a db expert, and a
frontend UI/UX.

It's exactly the same reason why tech companies don't write everything
themselves from OSS projects. Sure, they do that for certain things that they
deem critical, but not for things like salesforce or the direct deposit and
accounting software and sometimes not even for stuff as important and tech-ey
as a vcs, like perforce.

I'll totally agree that OR should keep IT in house for this stuff, but I don't
think it's a great idea for a state or business to suddenly get NIH syndrome
and want to write custom software themselves for anything their agencies might
need. Can you imagine if this had happened because OR did this project in
house and had the same results? Or if the whitehouse had said they weren't
outsourcing healthcare.gov and released the same PoS that was actually
released? It'd be even worse than the current fallout because they aren't
subject matter experts.

At least OR appeared to try and be competent by having an in-depth sales cycle
_and_ outside consultants to vet the proposals.

~~~
ddingus
Yeah, that's due to a strong bias away from anything else. Lots of lobby
dollars in play reinforcing that, and there is the strong perception that
Oregon can't actually afford to make any kind of investment.

But this shows Oregon can, did, and it was botched horribly. Doing the same
while providing local jobs, some great skills to be used all over the place,
and build something that has a very likely lower overall ownership cost
profile makes a ton of sense!

It just won't get proposed in the current political climate, which was the
point of my reply.

Of course Oregon wants COTS. Everybody does, because they think the vendor
will own it, saving them money through economies of scale. Quite frequently,
COTS can do that, but for something like this, something new, that needs to
communicate with a lot of varied systems?

No way in hell it was ever gonna be COTS, and that right there should have
triggered a much different, "how does Oregon do this?" kind of discussion.

Oracle has a good sales team, and they sold it right to this dynamic, which is
what they were supposed to do. Problem is the value really wasn't there. No
matter what, it was going to take some real work to build out the exchange and
have it function well.

As for the support contracts, those come with an annual cost. It's very highly
likely that cost could simply provide a job for the people who built the
thing. Additionally, having seen success on a project like that, the same team
would be well positioned to build out more and or get funded by other
municipalities seeking similar solutions.

I don't have the basic numbers a few of us ran back then, but they were
compelling.

This works the same for States as it does companies or anyone else. Make the
in-house investments and own the tools. From there, buying help is always an
option. Avoiding it is another option. Relying on a vendor, who will very
frequently oversell their support staff, counting on their product to be a
winner, often results in that support contract merely funding the trouble
shooting. More dollars are required to buy, implement, test, etc... fixes.

Fixes, which by the way, will be called custom patches for major customers due
to the size and non COTS nature.

~~~
ddingus
It could go badly either way.

However, I find it very hard to believe a competent group would actually fail
in this spectacular of a way.

Vendors often know just a little more than the client does, and they do
oversell, and "cost effective" gets calculated to a point where the purchase
price and services costs are much closer to building something than not.

And some of my career is in selling just that kind of enterprise solution, and
that's exactly how it goes a lot of the time. There is value there for sure,
and the vendor will need to capture as much of it as it can in revenue, while
delivering as little service as possible to keep margin.

Those expensive people, who likely would have built the system, wouldn't be
doing nothing. Not at all. Once that system is up and successful, they
continue to build lots of things OSS style. Boring, simple, cost effective
things and anybody anywhere can pick them up and use them too.

Lots of synergies here for States and municipalities looking to create jobs
and manage costs.

Having been on the ugly end of these things, it's worth a look. Perhaps it
wasn't the right call for this project, but it really wasn't evaluated. And
there are few entities able to answer an RFP to make that evaluation, who
don't also sell very expensive software licenses.

Should have been evaluated, and Oregon should have some basic competency in
State IT to do that. The savings potential is significant, and Oregon needs to
own it's IT anyway.

For a lot of things, vendor supplied software will win out. No question. But
for those things where it won't, or cost of ownership over long periods of
time do not make sense for the public, having a means to explore that was what
the legislation was all about.

Keeps vendors a bit more honest too.

------
YokoZar
The state is not just suing for breach of contract to recover some money here
-- the Attorney General is seeking a permanent ban on Oracle selling anything
to the state.

 _" On page 119: (c) A permanent injunction prohibiting Oracle from marketing
to or entering into a contract with any public corporation of or agency of the
State of Oregon from the date of judgment forward. "_

~~~
Mister_Snuggles
Wow.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a "public corporation of or agency of the
State of Oregon" that currently uses some piece of Oracle software. I'm sure
current contracts wouldn't be affected, but what about when they come up for
renewal?

~~~
jrapdx3
You could well be correct, but in that case it's an opportunity to take a hard
look at how adequately the "system" used by that agency is actually working,
and possibly make revisions where indicated or necessary.

Trust me, I know there are Oregon state agencies that have suboptimal software
systems. Even though Oregon is a low population state, it still runs a large
number of systems, and among them are others that are bound to be marginal.

It's silly to be idealistic, nonetheless it's denying the obvious to miss the
chance to "do it right", to develop and apply the rigorous process alluded to
in several comments above.

A plan for the long haul, integrating and unifying systems, and reducing
"reinvention of wheels" where appropriate, and organizing truly knowledgeable
oversight of the state's data management would go a long way to prevent
recurrence of recent mistakes, have systems that work better, and cost the
public less.

No one has to tell me it isn't going to happen, Oregon is where I live, and
logic doesn't stop me from wishing that it would.

------
joshAg
my favorite bit so far:

> He added that “they broke every single best practice that Oracle themselves
> have defined. It is one of the worst assessments I have performed * * _.”
> The same developer wrote to Oracle, “You are Oracle people, working on an
> Oracle hardware platform, with Oracle technology products, on an Oracle
> solution._ * * Oracle should be delivering these environments and products
> as a solution, like they actually understood the products and owned the
> solution which has not been the case by a long shot.”

~~~
kyllo
Makes sense in theory, problem is the software (Fatwire) was acquired, and the
talent was "body shop" quality subcontractors. Oracle's database product is
really the only thing they've built themselves and understand, everything else
has been purchased.

------
revelation
Where's the case of the taxpayers of Oregon against the state that due to
sheer negligence and ignorance managed to deliver nothing?

They did not oversee the work, they allowed Oracle to oversee itself, and they
hired outside consultants at every single fucking point along the way to do
what was their job.

------
planetjones
_A former Oracle employee was more direct saying Oracle’s products were
seemingly configured “by a kindergartner.”_

&

 _An internal assessment estimated that the “Oracle Solution” was 40% custom
code_

Anyone know who the kindergartners were ? I believe Oracle are now in the
business of sending their software development to far away sweatshops.

I'm pleased that action is being taken here - software now seems to be seen as
a commodity by far too many - the craftsmanships is gone and the salesman have
taken over.

------
zenogais
Fascinating view of yet another high-profile software project failure. Also a
demonstration of the consequences of not making getting software development
right a priority.

------
fasteo
I guess it is easier to blame Oracle than to fire the truly incompetent
managers of this project.

------
scresswell
A fool and his money are easily parted

