Okay, maybe it doesn't interest you, but since I've had my eyeballs, sometimes firmly affixed, on the conduits of information ebbs and flows I often like to check in, if you will, and see how things are going. (That was alot of commas; wasn't it?) The takeaway you can have is, how much money does it take to get the armed forces on one sheet of music with regards to logistic enterprise resource planning? This is how much (at March 2012) that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports (all public information):
- Army systems = around $10 Billion
- NAVY systems = around $4 Billion
- Air Force systems = around $8.5 Billion
- USMC systems = around $1.1 Billion
- Defense Logisics Agency (DLA) = $209 Million
Could they (SAP) not have also accomplished this for the USMC? In 2020 allow the ability to perform data mining on the same systems too. Together. One team. One mission and purpose. There is my problem - being logical. Let's not get carried away--thats too big of a mission and purpose! (like healthcare.gov) If we build one system structure then it will be undermined by security nuances. Wait, why is it that there is so much information out there about how GCSS is being built (read: if you know how I built it; you can undermine it)? I heard someone once say that SAP, Oracle, whatever, they would all be interfaced to one another. Let's consider: Does a contracting company who has invested over 10+ years in building this solution - will they build in easy integration? I'm looking at you sideways, only you can't see me.
A thesis, public information, was written in September of 2010 by Mark Jones. This paper identified the struggles that GCSS was plagued with, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)'s identification of some issues (in 2010) and clear recommendations to continue. Thesis paper here I've extracted the meat (grain fed organic!):
But I don't think it is. I have experienced the lack of subject matter expertise in software and system development and I'm almost certain that years of drowning in legacy systems only inebriated value added development. One vision, multiple missions, and end product that is usable, repeatable, and has outputs that drive decisions. Magic. I heard somewhere that magic was expensive. It certainly is when division comes in play.