US Government Data Center Consolidation Behind Schedule, Cost Savings Uncertain 95
itwbennett writes "The goal of saving $3 billion by closing 1253 data centers is 'very realistic,' says David Powner, director of IT management issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office — except that agencies haven't been able to track cost savings for the initiative. Eighteen months from the 2015 deadline, 'we have no idea how much we've saved the taxpayers,' said Steve O'Keeffe, founder of MeriTalk, an online community for government IT issues. This isn't the first snag in the project. Almost a year ago, Slashdot reported that the project was woefully behind schedule."
The government released a summary of what data they do have (PDF), and at least the DoD expects to save $575 million next fiscal year. Also see the full GAO report.
Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Save now vs. over time (Score:5, Insightful)
How much have they saved now? Probably not much, and probably spent more.
It costs money to find the location, arrange the contracts, hire new people/lay off or move staff, and move equipment between rooms. Even then, many organizations may say it's cheaper to buy new hardware than it is to move 5+ year old servers.
However, the efficiency once many of those data centers is closed will become apparent. Space/power/cooling/networking/staff isn't cheap. Consolidating will give you some amazing savings a few years in.
A Sign of the Times (Score:5, Insightful)
You know you're in trouble when they speak of how much money they're saving instead of how much they spent to acquire a feature or benefit. What about the data center that stores every digital interaction in America? I bet that costs a pretty penny to operate, let's shut it down, it's not doing us any good. Didn't stop the Boston Bombing... Hell, zoning laws could have prevented the recent explosion in West, TX (which was more harmful than the Boston bombs), but I don't see them trying to save anything at all anywhere -- Not even lives.
"Honey, look what I got, you wouldn't believe how much money I saved today!" -- No. She spent money, didn't "save" a dime. I'll evaluate cost to benefit ratio to determine if the purchases were wise.
Want to save money? Why not get rid of the DHS? They're not needed. We have FBI and cops already. We don't need a huge cumbersome annoying workforce of security guards who don't actually provide security. You Can't Provide Security for others -- They can only protect themselves, and should be aware of surroundings and cautious of dangers if need be; That saves money and lives.
How much of the money they're spending on 3rd party contractors is wasted by inflating the costs to turn a profit? I'm not stupid. They haven't saved a dime one.
Re:surprise surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
I swear someone is going out of their way to down mod my posts recently. how is this troll??
If I had to guess:
Because it dramatically simplifies a situation, represents a sarcastically presented political position rather than a cogent point, and fails to delivery an adequate punchline for its overly politicized setup.
Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (Score:2, Insightful)
we ought to be shrinking [the government], rather than continue its expansion to the new domains (like, uh, healthcare)...
Right, because it's impossible for government to handle health insurance well. Ignore Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and virtually every other developed country in the world whose governments handle than it better than our system, because they must be outliers, and it defies your version of "common sense" (which trumps real world data) and uh, oh yeah, you're ideologically indisposed to face reality. While you're at it, ignore our own limited socialized health insurance (aka Medicare) because it, uh, has problems! Yeah, that's it, it isn't perfect! Never mind that it's cheaper, more effective and has a lower inflation rate than the mess of a system for people under 65.
The problem with Obamacare isn't that it involves government, but that it doesn't involve government enough. Obama and the Dems, in the great "third way" tradition, didn't go for a simple and efficient universal public health insurer (ok, that approach has destroyed what was once our Northern neighbor) or even allow a public option. Instead it involves the always efficient "private sector" to guarantee profits and bloated salaries for worthless middle men.
Re:Whatever the government does, it does poorly... (Score:2, Insightful)
And it isn't like we don't have thousands of examples of the gov't successful management either.
Um. Ok. So list 50.