- Jackson man to cast electoral vote for Trump; others trying to dissuade him (11/29/16)51
- Man killed by vehicle had been charged with domestic assault (11/30/16)
- Former Cape council member dies, remembered as 'wonderful public servant' (11/29/16)1
- Hotel chain president: City should regulate short-term lodging (11/27/16)16
- Woman accused in three robberies disguised herself as man (11/29/16)5
- Post-election taunts reported at Jackson schools (12/2/16)24
- Officers: Delta man dies during domestic dispute (11/28/16)1
- Business notebook: New store shows faith in Scott City district (11/28/16)
- Missouri chamber to honor Cape's John Mehner (11/30/16)6
- Men who pulled father, son from burning car near Naylor honored by highway patrol (12/1/16)
Government computer goofs are common and expensive
WASHINGTON -- The FBI's failure to roll out an expanded computer system that would help agents investigate criminals and terrorists is the latest in a series of costly technology blunders by government over more than a decade.
Experts blame poor planning, rapid industry advances and the massive scope of some complex projects whose price tags can run into billions of dollars at U.S. agencies with tens of thousands of employees.
"There are very few success stories," said Paul Brubaker, former deputy chief information officer at the Pentagon. "Failures are very common, and they've been common for a long time."
The FBI's mess was the latest black eye among ambitious technology upgrades by the government since the 1990s.
While these are current examples, the problem has lingered for years.
"The government is just as inept in buying computers as it is in using them for accounting," declared a 1994 report, called "Computer Chaos," from a Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee. "The system is indeed broken and it is time to fix it."
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the FBI's computer overhaul "a train wreck in slow motion." Critics said the FBI's case illustrated government's propensity to build its software from scratch, which can dramatically increase a project's complexity and cost.
"They do have a tendency to reinvent the wheel," said James X. Dempsey, an expert on national security for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based civil liberties group.
Yet some industry experts praised the FBI for its decision, saying that its potential $170 million loss paled in comparison to other government technology blunders. They also noted that FBI Director Robert Mueller acted properly to pull the plug when he realized the system wouldn't work as envisioned.
"To the FBI's credit, it could have been worse," Brubaker said. "They should build off-ramps early in the process, so if they think things are going south, they can push the reset button."
Experts note some services, such as tracking terrorists, are unique to the federal government, making it unlikely that commercial products would work without extensive modification.
"If you're in the commercial sector, there is some possibility that a packaged application might serve your purpose," said Nancy Harvey, chief executive of TenFold Corp., a small Utah-based company that builds specialized computer systems. "But it's unlikely that Robert Mueller can find an off-the-shelf product called 'Find Terrorist.' He probably has to build the application he really needs."
Harvey and others said that while government technology blunders frequently make headlines, large-scale computer upgrades in the private industry fail almost as often. But these corporate blunders aren't publicized by congressional committees, federal investigators and inspectors general, they noted.
"Ever since there's been IT (information technology), there have been problems," said Allan Holmes, Washington bureau chief for CIO, a magazine published for information executives. "The private sector struggles with this as well. It's not just ... the federal government that ... can't get it right. This is difficult."