Performance Zone is brought to you in partnership with:

Jerry Orr is a software developer who currently spends most of his time on Java and Node.js web applications. He has worked in a variety of domains, including commercial software, higher education, state government, and federal government. Jeremiah is a DZone MVB and is not an employee of DZone and has posted 9 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

Cut the People Some Slack

  • submit to reddit

 On October 1, 2013, was opened to the nation. As one of the more tangible aspects of the Affordable Care Act (aka ACA, Obamacare), the glitches it has experienced are getting lots of negative attention. It's been described as an "inexcusable mess" and a "disaster". I'm not going to discuss the merits of the ACA here. But as someone who spends every day building software, I think the criticisms of the application have been unfair. Here are a few reasons why we should cut them some slack.

Most webapps aren't immediately released to millions of users

When Google or Facebook are releasing a new app, do you think they just flip a switch and release it to the world? Absolutely not! They slowly release it to beta testers, or add the feature to a subset of users. They encounter bugs, fix them, slowly scale up their infrastructure, and wait until they've seen it succeed before opening it up to the general public., on the other hand, launched to the entire nation at once. It didn't just have to deal with traffic from thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of people looking for health plans for themselves; I'm sure a lot of curious people (like myself) went there just to check it out. There was no chance to work out the bugs, and no chance to gradually scale the infrastructure. This was almost guaranteed to be a problem. Now, perhaps they should have slowly rolled out the site. I suspect, however, that the reasons were political. How do you decide who gets to sign up for healthcare first? By state? By last name? Random drawing? People who signed up ahead of time? And how do you explain to everyone else that they have to wait? People expect this from Google, but a highly charged political issue like the ACA makes it dicey.

Much of what happens in the exchange is out of their control is an extremely distributed application. John McDonough, a health policy professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, described it as:
"an enormously complex task. The number of systems that have to work together – federal, state, insurance companies, the Internal Revenue System – the number of systems that have to align here is pretty daunting."
If there's a bug in the IRS endpoints, there's going to be a problem. If one of the hundreds of private insurance companies' systems can't handle the increased workload, there's going to be a problem. And as someone who has built plenty of distributed systems, I know that end users don't say "oh, it must be a problem with system X that this app depends on". They think it's a problem with whatever webapp they're using, and don't care what's going on in the backend.

Nor should they care. But professional IT people should know better.

Most webapps aren't serving as a referendum on a heated national controversy

Frankly, there are a lot of people that want to fail primarily because they want the ACA to fail. And many people who oppose the ACA will still have a need to use New Google apps are not typically tied to such a heated political issue, and are generally not used by people who don't want to use them. 

So let's have some empathy for the people who build

This application was an enormous undertaking, with many challenges that few (if any) systems out there need to deal with. My expectation and hope is that the bugs will be worked out in the coming weeks, as happens with any new system. Whether the Affordable Care Act will be a success is yet to be seen; but the healthcare exchanges that support it were built by regular IT professionals that are just trying to do their jobs. Let's cut them some slack.

Published at DZone with permission of Jeremiah Orr, author and DZone MVB. (source)

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)


David M. replied on Thu, 2013/10/17 - 12:48pm

Sorry, but no pass given here.  3 years and $400M+ later, regardless of the ACA politics, the website should be behaved better.  Whether is was poor management, poor development, or both, you can't reward mediocrity.  They should have expected the traffic and the site deals with confidential data, no excuses.  Now if these well-paid IT Professionals want to go to the press with proof the Administration ignored reports the system was not ready, then they may earn my respect.

Lund Wolfe replied on Sun, 2013/10/20 - 6:04pm

I think most of us just assume that this was a software development failure due to using the lowest bidder govt contract with no adult supervision and they just skipped the intelligence and experience part.

I didn't hear any real specifics on the general news, but apparently there were serious functionality issues, which were probably inexcusable.  Some states did a pitiful job compared to others, so quality of development was a factor.

Scalability issues are somewhat excusable and there were external points of failure beyond any one system's control but did they fail gracefully and give informative messages to the users ?  Could some integration points have been done asynchronously to make them scalable ?  Maybe the requirements were fuzzy and interactions may have been nontrivial but they had three years and noone was stopping them from doing iterative development or integration testing.  Critical systems should have been completed first.  Was there a somewhat robust top level design or backup plan in case of failure of individual systems ? 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.