Corporate titles: No Head and long tails please!

The recent announcement by Zappos.com on doing away with corporate titles created quite a buzz among corporate watchers wondering if this is just a “fad” or shift like that to “open office” cube farms that other, larger corporations will follow. Washington Post reports

The Las Vegas-based retailer is now going even more radical, introducing a new approach to organizing the company. It will eliminate traditional managers, do away with the typical corporate hierarchy and get rid of job titles, at least internally. The company told employees of the change at a year-end meeting, Quartz first reported.

I have long believed in being a Free Agent (my blog), albeit with the safety net of a corporate world. Titles shouldn't mean much, especially as we consider ourselves as citizen of an increasingly flattening world (apologies Tom Friedman). But there again, we work in or work with peers in structured, complex organizations that aren’t really designed to be flat. Try imagining a Global 2000 company with 20,000+ employees being “self governed.”  A few arguments in favor retaining organizational titles:

• Who the hell am I talking to? We frequently receive email requests at work or invitation to meetings. If the invitation is from someone we haven’t worked with ranges from mild annoyance (what does s/he want from me) to curiosity (“who is this?”). The author’s title in the email signature (generally department, designation) should give an indication, but in many cases it doesn't! 
• Effective meetings and conference calls. Again a similar situation (who the hell is the obnoxious sounding guy/lady on the call?). It is not funny, but I have been to meetings where everyone introduces themselves as a “head” of “something,” leaving me to be the long tail; There again, introducing self as an Enterprise Architect may not mean much to the “head” of corporate marketing for south-eastern product-x US territory in that meeting. In calls, and meetings, it is worth noting the basic RACI of attendees, even if one doesn’t share all titles. This helps when it comes to a call to action and next steps: who “owns” the actions after the meeting?
• Dealing with customers and Vendors. While dealings with those outside an organization, knowing becomes important while trying to gauge the decision making authority of the person.

In organizations with a culture of obscuring titles, many of us resort to “cheats” :

• Where you don’t have access to an organization chart, you would have to use an educated guess based on an understanding of the organization. For example, if Bob is the “head” of the company’s Shared Business Services and I know that Information Services is in turn a key component of Shared Services, it is fair to assume Dave, the “head” of IS must (?) report to Bob. Wouldn't it be simpler for Dave to just introduce himself as the CIO? (Let us leave the hard question of whether Dave also reports to the CEO, COO or other corporate delegate.) 
• In my previous job, the HR and managers believed in fostering a culture of “flattening” by opting not to publish organization charts, and intentionally downplaying promotion announcements. Employees, being human, would routinely sign off as “head” of some obscure group. For example a Principal Technical Architect wouldn’t always sign off as PTA but as  “Practice Head, cloud and advanced technologies, North East, North America” ..... whatever this fuzzy sounding title means. S/he was either trying to sound more modest or pompous than the actual title would indicate. In this case, a simple trick - pulling up the Distribution lists of the person in outlook - would be indicative of job-banding and, leadership teams he was in, a clear giveaway on his actual role in the organization.

I find it amusing that the same (intentional?) fuzziness is now following us in social media. Looking at Linkedin profile updates, I sometimes for simpler times and titles: if all my friends and peers are really “head” of something, somewhere, in their company who is really in their organizational long tail? Paraphrasing the Orwellian classic, “all employees are equal, but some employees are more equal than others” Time for us to know the ones more equal?!

Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness: lessons to add to US naturalization test

As we look forward to yet another year, I was musing on the year gone by. During the past year, I had the privilege of “using” my acquired passport to make a business trip across the pond to Switzerland, sans a visa: a big deal for those born with third world passports but something westerners take for granted as a birth right.

A friend, the other day asked if I felt any different about living in America as a naturalized citizen this year, and I began reflecting on what really makes Americans Tick.

The naturalization test focuses on several aspects of civics and American history that most kids here would have learnt by rote in middle school. To prepare for the “test,” USCIS provides a handy “guide” with about 100 questions and suggested answers. The modern American society, however, is much more complex and dynamic than any test can prepare one for. The concept of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness that America’s founding fathers envisioned is being redefined, perhaps by every generation.

My two cents, shaped in part by the topics American mainstream media seems to focus on over and over

 

Middle class America

Americans like to believe they are a classless society, but like most other societies, there is a marked distinction between the rich and poor with a middle class sandwiched in between. If Americans believe their cities, unlike those in “third world” countries, aren’t bustling beggars in street corners, ask them about panhandlers with street signs. That’s one extreme end of the society; bottom of pyramid if you will. The other extreme is the mulit-million dollar mansions that dot Anytown USA.

The point at which the middle class begins at the bottom and ends towards upper class is a topic politicians love to bring up during elections (of course without providing answers)

Fascination with Economy: whatever the term means!

The term economy is used very loosely by media pundits, analysts and others fascinated by a number of “economic measures.” There is almost a constant focus on stock market, monthly labor market report, ISM manufacturing index, housing market, crude oil price  etc etc. ADP payroll report, and the monthly “Fed” FOMC meeting where they supposedly discuss heavy sounding fiscal topics like GDP, inflation, deflation, interest rates, Quantitative easing

There is enough in the news and media to entertain us but very little to help make educated decisions: if you listen to the “economic analysis” in the media, it is never the right time to invest in stocks, buy a house, Switch jobs, or have babies and start a family. But Americans do all this, all the time.

 

Politics: A nation deeply polarized by two parties (nothing new in any democracy!)

One is either a Republican or Democrat, with extremists and centrists on both sides sandwiching the Centrists. Generally speaking,

• Democrats have socialistic or leftist leanings and believe that the role of government includes social and “welfare” net – social security, medicare, medicade, and now “obamacare”. They generally oppose unregulated business and finance, and favors progressive income taxes.
• Republicans (a.ka GoP), on the other hand are rightist leaning, more socially conservative and economically libertarian and believe in minimalist government and governance. In a sense, the GoP believes capitalism is the panacea for all social problems.

Although Democrats are Left leaning, Americans can’t openly profess to being far left since any alignment to Communism or socialism is a big no no.  Interesting titbit: US naturalizationapplication still asks

“9. Have you ever been a member of or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with:

a.    The Communist Party?”

 
Even though both parties disagree on most aspects of governance, one thing that both Republicans and Democrats DO agree on is the larger role of America in global politics, including the military machine, which beats me: how can “big” government military be a sacred cow if Republicans dislike the idea of big government?  Is it because big military equals big spending equals big military contracts equals capitalism?  Of course, most Americans are unsure how we will pay for all this!

 

Gay marriage and right

Growing up in India in the eighties and early nineties, the term Gay wasn’t associated with sexuality, but rather used as a benign verb (as in “happy and gay”). Of course, Americans like most westerners continue to be deeply divided over their collective views on Gay, gay marriage and the role of LGBT community in the society.

This is a hot button topic if there was any. Just recently A&E media did a complete flip-flop after the Duck Commander Phil Robertson the hugely popular TV series “Duck Dynasty” made remarks on homosexuals. 

The catholic belt in America is certainly unwilling to come out in the open (pardon the pun) in support of Gays. And as of end of 2013, most states in the US still don’t recognize the union of two people who are not Man and Woman. This said, influential opinion makers in America – politicians, media and sports superstars and to a lesser extent corporate honchos – continue to “come out” and it is perhaps a matter of time before social opinion changes. And as if charity doesn’t just begin at home, Americans want to export their values on gay rights before they firm up at home: media loves highlighting suppression of gay rights in rest of the world – Russia, or Middle East and India (with the recent Supreme Court verdict)

Make no mistake; Gay rights are not just about freedom of sexuality. The real fight is for fiscal benefits and tax rights: are gay spouses entitled to the same benefits as that of heterosexual couple? Of course, there are several other angles here including Immigration rights: are gay spouses/ partners entitled to a visa to visit/immigrate?

Immigration reform

Immigration policy gets muddled when mixed with highly charged opinions on racial and economic protectionism. America that was much more whiter – Caucasian – even a generation ago, is finding itself browning and yellowing thanks to the legal and illegal migration of people of Hispanic and Asian origin. John or Jane Doe Americans, who take immense pride in their Italian, Irish or African heritage from several generations ago, are coming to terms with neighbors’ fresh of their boat, clinging to their Indian, Mexican and Chinese heritage and values. Not an easy situation to be in.

As of 2013, Even a “black” president in his second term, born to a black immigrant and Caucasian American native who takes prides in his himself on his  an international perspective has found it hard to change the perspectives (ref my review of Obama's Biography: Dreamsfrom My Father)

Bottomline: Most first-generation immigrants, self-included, have their favorite stories on immigration snafus or dealing with checkpoint Charlie at the border or embassy. The laws continue to be highly nebulous, and enforcement of policies more so. The only beneficiaries: immigration attorneys

 

This surely is not the last word on these hot-button topics shaping and influencing our views on life, liberty in our pursuit of happiness in 2014.

Happy New Year!

My two cents: Indian-American Diplomatic Row

To followers of news on India and American- Indians, the recent “diplomatic row” over the arrest of Devyani Khobragade, Indian diplomat from the consulate in New York is intriguing to say the least.

Most of us civilians hardly understand the role diplomats play in managing foreign relations other than the terms and titbits media occasionally throws at us during incidents like these. Perhaps the closest we come to personal interactions with diplomats is while applying for visas to travel overseas or in case of those acquiring foreign passports while relinquishing one’s citizenship or acquiring national id’s while overseas. And even those dealings are extremely cursory, hardly going beyond the few minutes it takes for the “diplomat” to scrutinize one’s paperwork if done in person. Terms like “diplomatic immunity,” “diplomatic bag,” “persona non grata,” “diplomatic passport,” “expelled diplomat” are buzzwords one reads about in spy thrillers, movies or occasionally during “diplomatic row”

Which is to say those in Foreign Service are generally unsung heroes toiling away with little fame or recognition, except during times of crisis, notoriety (current example) or when they achieve some laudable: remember Vikas Swarup, author of the bestseller and Oscar winner Slumdog Millionaire?  

Before we look at what’s the big deal about Devyani Khobragade being arrested and “strip searched” like a “common criminal,” a few recent incidents involving American government officials and diplomats abroad

• Missing Former Jewish FBI Agent Spied on Iran for CIA: After months and years of claiming "Former FBI agent Robert Levinson was not a U.S. government employee when he went missing in Iran during a trip in 2007,"  (link) The Associated Press stated in an investigative report that “Robert Levinson, a former Jewish FBI agent, was working directly for the CIA on a mission in Iran when he was last seen in 2007” (link)
• An American contractor working for CIA in Pakistan claims “diplomatic immunity” after he shot dead two Pakistanis in a street in Lahore.  Interestingly, the contractor, Raymond Davis, was set free and came home to the US after US government paid in the region of $700,000 (£436,000) as "blood money" to each of three families whose relatives were killed.

Which brings us back to the Devyani Khobragade. The case supposedly centers around underpaying her Domestic Help. According to media reports “The diplomat had allegedly submitted false documents to obtain a work visa for an Indian babysitter and housekeeper in her Manhattan home, the Associated Press reported. Court papers said Ms. Khobragade, 39, claimed in visa documents that she paid the worker $4,500 a month when the worker actually received less than $600 a month. The Indian diplomat, who pleaded not guilty in court the same day, was later freed on a $250,000 bond.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/12/17/what-they-said-indian-diplomat-charged-with-u-s-visa-fraud/?mod=WSJBlog

Wonder if the actions of Manhattan US attorney Preet Bharara – who, by the way just happens to be Indian American -  is an overzealous US official out to extract “blood money” (Political mileage) from Indian government or just someone out to ensure the rights of all foreign born housekeepers and maids are upheld?! Much as the socialist in me would like to root for uplifting the underprivileged diplomatic maids, I would hate for Mr. Bharara to claim any more political mileage from an international diplomatic row.

Musing on Passports, citizenship and Immigration and Book Reviews

An interesting article in Weekend WSJ made me reflect on Citizenship as a “flag of convenience.”  The front page article is titled “A Venture Capitalist Invests in His OlympicDream: Paul Bragiel Pauses Career to Ski For Colombia in 2014 Games” It features Paul Bragiel, an American citizen and entrepreneur who decides to pursue a dream: making it into the Olympics! For that to happen, the self-described "chunky, out-of-shape computer nerd" not only has to find a sport that he can learn to compete in but also find a nation that will host him. The article describes Bragiel’s quest: “A U.S. citizen, he found a way to become Colombian as well, although he doesn't speak Spanish.”

Paul Bragiel's story is a mirror to the aspiration of millions of Desis (South Asians), Chinese and others who try to pursue their dream: migrating to America and other western nations and eventually finding a footing by acquiring citizenship in their host nations. Citizenship, immigration and migration is also a topic Indian Americans, self-included, find fascinating.

A couple of recent books that I read capture a slice of the immigrant stories, albeit from different angles.

• One is The Billionaire's Apprentice,  a best seller by Anita Raghavan that received a lot of coverage from mainstream media. The book is primarily a chronicle of the rise and fall of three protagonists – Sri Lankan born billionaire, Raj Rajratnam, Indian born former head of McKenzie Rajat Gupta and former McKenzie partner Anil Kumar. The author attempts to build the initial narrative in the book by highlighting how South Asian immigrants to the US are a “twice blessed generation,” who benefited from educational system in post independent India and also the relaxed immigration rules in America.  (link to my review on Amazon)
• Another is “The Caretaker” a debut novel by A .X. Ahmad in which he throws in a lot of masala: story spanning continents, transnational characters, power and intrigue and a bit of melodrama. The author also weaves in bit of geo politics – a US senator trying to get brownie points by getting involved in Indo-Pak conflict and hostage negotiation in North Korea - and quirks in US immigration. A different slice of immigrant life and aspiration. (link to my review on Amazon)

It is interesting that while millions aspire to be economic migrants, a few prevelidged to be born with western passports also aspire to swim against the tide, acquire passports of developing nations to pursue their “dreams.”  Border controls, immigration and visas are modern constructs that human aspirations transcend. Passports, in that sense are just tools of convenience

Other links

Business Book review WSJ
Inside Men: NYT Book review

Book Review : Enterprise Architecture As Strategy

"Enterprise Architecture As Strategy" (Amazon) by Jeanne W. Ross, Peter Weill, David Robertson is perhaps the most quoted book. Online forums on the topic quote this as one of the few really good references on the topic and I agree.

The authors do a great job of introducing and packaging concepts in Enterprise Architecture – operating model, maturity model, core diagrams, IT engagement model  – that are referenced by EA practitioners, consultants and academics alike. The case studies based on academic research of over “200 companies” keeps the narrative grounded.

Who is this book for?

• Practicing Enterprise Architects and EA consultants will find the topics and case studies refreshing. It certainly got me reflecting on my employer’s target operating model  
• The book speaks to business executives as much as it does to EA practitioners.  Executives will also find it a handy reference that can equip them to “govern” IT strategies
• Those looking to get into EA (many IS/Technical Architects, business analysts and process consultants) will find the book a good introduction to EA “big picture” topics; and perhaps an introduction to some consulting jargon

The book is not an EA “cook book” or a “how to” guide. Unfortunately, learning how-to-do-EA will only come with experience and a few grey hair.

 

Tags: review / reviews

$35 million Immigration Fine for Infosys: powered by intellect, driven by values?

There has been a lot of commentary in the media on the announcement that “Indian Outsourcing firm expected to pay about $35 Million for Illegal Use of Visas” (wsj). As is to be expected, the settlement comes with a legalese statement “The Bangalore-based tech giant did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement, and said in a statement that it “denies and disputes any claims of systemic visa fraud, misuse of visas for competitive advantage, or immigration abuse. Those claims are untrue and are assertions that remain unproven.” (Time)

 

As an interested Infosys stakeholder – shareholder, tech observer and former employee – I find the case and settlement with DOJ intriguing, though not very surprising. Intriguing because one would typically not settle if there is no wrongdoing. Surely a case of smoke and mirrors. What is surprising, however, is the settlement amount. The amount in question, about $34 million, “the largest immigration fine ever” from United States Department of Justice, claims “the Indian outsourcing giant illegally placed workers on visitor, rather than work, visas at big corporate clients across the U.S.”

 

$35 million fine is not small change even for a multibillion dollar company with billions in cash reserves. For years, Infosys ran an ostensibly clean business operation with tagline “powered by intellect, driven by values,” a tagline that was replaced a couple of years ago by the more business friendly 'Building Tomorrow's Enterprise'. (ET) One wonders if the tagline change was recognition of reality: a culture shift from values to an attitude of “calculated risk-taking.”

 

In early 2000s, like many of my peers of Indian descent living in the west, I was observing the offshoring phenomena. Rather than be content to observe, I decided partake in the offshoring experience by relocating back to India, to join Infosys. This was back in 2003 when Infosys was a media darling, portrayed as squeaky clean Made-in-India multinational that could do no wrong. It was lead by the co-founder Mr. N. R. Narayana Murthy who was credited with coining the original tagline and driving much of the company's values. The Indian services troika of TCS, Wipro and Infosys continued to be viewed as tech darlings, even after the implosion of another large Indian giant, Satyam (Time)

 

During my stint at Infosys, I had the opportunity to observe, experience and participate in the Global Delivery Model (GDM) and lead offshoring initiatives both from offshore in India and onsite, consulting with clients in Europe (Switzerland), Canada and the US. Based on my observations, I wrote the book “Offshoring IT services” (Amazon) which also lead to a spinoff of a popular Infosys corporate blog Managing Offshore IT that I anchored successfully for years before leaving the company at the end of 2011.
 

At the time of joining Infosys in 2003, I was already a US permanent resident (green card holder) though I also continued to hold an Indian passport. This “legal status” provided me an opportunity to experience the process of applying for travel visas and work permits to several countries including Singapore, UK, Switzerland and Canada. My relocations also came with layers of fuzzy math in offshore and onsite salaries. There were times when I felt the “process” of relocations and onsite/offshore salaries was designed to shortchange India based employees traveling overseas. The fact is employees of offshoring firms operate in an environment where an onsite opportunity is a “privilege.” Visas and offshore-onsite travel and relocations are “costs” that are extremely well “managed” by IT service firms.

 

It was obvious that the visa challenge was a recurring issue that played out over and over when teams had to scramble to meet client requests onsite. Offshoring firms operate in a visa constrained business model that requires movement of people across national boundaries. On one hand clients need IT resources onsite, and there is an abundant supply of eager “resources” ready and willing to travel to meet this demand. On the other hand, the demand has to be tempered by the highly restrictive national immigration policies, especially in western countries that place quotas and restrictions on numbers of visas of certain types that can be issues.

 

To be fair, much of the operation at Infosys, including managing the visa process was done by the book. Planning and application of visas, especially for highly coveted H1 Visas operated like a well-oiled machine. However, there were times when it felt like middle managers were pushing the envelope, especially when it came to unplanned, “urgent” onsite requirements from clients. Managers were continually expected to balance dual pressures: clamor from eager-and-willing employees asking to be “visa enabled”, while also fielding queries from visa processing specialists to adhere to all applicable requirement. The average project managers or onsite engagement managers are neither qualified nor equipped to question the intricacies of ever changing visa regulations. However, they realize that they operate in an environment where bending over backwards for client requests is a prerequisite of hyper competitive services industry. 

 

Hyper competitive industry operating with restrictive immigration laws and changing regulations on guest workers keeps middle managers, employees and visa departments on their toes. Just a couple of examples:

• Years ago, a guest worker could travel to the US on an H1 visa and move across job locations as dictated by needs of their sponsoring employer. This law changed, requiring employers to file paperwork every time there was a change in location, even when the original H1 visa continued to be valid. Same is not true of a business visa where an employee on an onsite trip can travel to locations across the country for meetings with clients (but not “work” for the client)
• A green-card petition for permanent residency filed by an employer requires several stages of processing. A few years ago, employees who had a green card petition pending were indentured to their employer till they received their green cards, a process that could take several years or decade. This has changed and employees are free to switch employment while a green card is being processed.

 

Keeping track of changes in immigration laws and following the letter and spirit of law is no trivial task. Consulting firms like Infosys have teams of lawyers and specialists focused on tracking implications of visas for individual scenarios, which in some cases do lead to room for interpretation. Engagement managers, who are generally under the gun, facing clients, are perhaps inclined to push the envelope and explore potentially risky options unless counseled by lawyers.

 

The crux of the issue in DOJ investigation: “Department found that the Indian company used inexpensive, easy-to-obtain B-1 visas meant to cover short business visits—instead of harder-to-get H-1B work visas—to bring an unknown number of its employees for long-term stays, these people say.” (WSJ) Such misuse of business visas for work related travel is a gray area that only legal experts can decipher. For instance, A US passport holder can travel to Switzerland or Canada for temporary business purposes without a visa, but would require one if they intend to work there. Could a business meeting with a client or a billable consulting engagement lasting a couple of weeks be interpreted as “work?” Sure! But then, employees for multinationals routinely travel across Atlantic for such meetings and short consulting engagements, with border and immigration officials hardly raising an eyebrow. Therefore, such cross border short term travel for “work” without visas by those holding western passports may be kosher while such travel by those holding an Indian passport is improper. Law is blind goes the old adage, but is surely not logical.

 

If jumping through the visa hoops is such a big deal, why don’t offshore firms hire more locally in western markets, you may wonder. Two obvious reasons: 

• Cost: The nature of business being such, sending Indian employees (with a base salary in India) overseas is much cheaper than hiring an equivalent full-time employee onsite, even after accounting for costs of visa and travel. The deputees typically have much lower salary base in Indian rupees, while their counterparts hired in local markets (in US, Europe etc) receive salary, allowances and emoluments which can be substantially greater.  The onsite allowances and “salaries” for deputees are typically based on complex “formula” of city/country and duration of stay determined by the companies. Service firms justify this model to buffer themselves against unpredictable durations and frequent deputation/relocation of the employees. 
• Flexibility: Years ago, management guru Prof. CK Prahlad astutely observed how eager college graduates from India were more willing than their western born counterparts to relocate oversease. (Ref case study “From Tumkur to Toronto” in my book). It is not just one time relocation but a willingness to live out of a suitcase. For instance, when an offshore deputee is done with a project in Seattle, Washington, she may be more willing to relocate to Bentonville, Arkansas than to travel back to her base in Bangalore. Would a graduate hired in Atlanta be willing to frequently relocate and live in Bentonville or anytown, USA and work on projects for extended periods of time?  It is not just offshore firms that leverage this flexibility of Indian resources: Accenture, IBM and other “western” IT service firms have also been hiring hundreds of thousands in India, and sponsoring thousands of H1 visas.

Offshoring industry experts and government policy makers are sure to spend time analyzing the implications of Infosys DOJ saga

•  Lesson for Infosys is obvious: get your house in order, which I am sure is already underway. While you are at it, why not bring back the old tagline (at least the part about being driven by values) 
• Lesson for other technology service firms: make sure you get your house in order to. This settlement is not just about Infosys
• Lesson for companies hiring global IS services firms: while you can't ensure your consultants  dot all the I’s and cross the T’s, you should expect a statement from the consulting managers  to this effect. Make sure the formal statement is recorded in your MSA and contracts
• Lesson for lawmakers and parliaments: Globalization of services is a reality. Don’t fight it by introducing bureaucracy and ambiguity in laws. Streamline it where you can.

---

 

Links of interest

 

• Viewpoint on onsite hiring by Offshore firms
• Listing of top 100 H1B Visa Employers in the US in 2011-12
• Infosys Completes Civil Settlement with U.S. Government (Press release)

Business, Government and Technology : Observations of large IS stagey in execution

The US government continues to be in partial “shut down” this week. Most analysts and political pundits are unclear on what the negotiation between Republicans and Democrats is going to be about, or when it will happen. However, the focus on government shutdown has distracted media attention from two key technology enablers in the US government landscape that will have far reaching consequences, impacting lives of citizen here much after the current debate fades from memory.

The rollout of obamacare and meltdown of NSA’s super data center, both of which made the front pages of Wall Street Journal this week, only to give way to news of US government shutdown.

Affordable healthcare (aka Obamacare). While the focus of politicians and media is on the socialist angle, role of government in healthcare of citizen, it is really about use of modern Information Technology and tools of integration. The complex health exchange engines are designed to be powered by equally complex software and IT systems. There are always challenges when new systems are rolled out to the extent proposed. Timothy Lee blogs in Washington Post “Here’s why getting theObamacare exchanges to work was so difficult”

“This week, the new health-care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare, have come in for a lot of criticism. The sites cost millions — in some cases hundreds of millions — of dollars to create. And some of them weren't ready for the traffic they received on Oct. 1, the day Obamacare went into effect.”

The blog quotes a healthcare IT expert reflecting on the challenge: "It wasn't because of the complexity of building high-volume websites—that's their bread and butter—but because of the complexity of the contracting and project arrangements with all the prime contractor and subcontractor relationships. …… Everybody who's on the inside has really expected it to be pretty rocky at the start. It's a very large undertaking, and there are so many players involved. Such fixed deadlines. Everyone has expected it to be quite a challenge.”

Another interesting observation from the blog post: cost of corporate websites is a question I hear often. Why does a corporate website cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, when I could go to goddy and get a website hosted for a mere hundred plus dollars?  [California's exchange, for example, reportedly cost $313 million to build.]

“There are lots of different reasons. Part of it is these are large IT projects being conducted by government agencies, by large contractors with large teams. There are a lot of layers of project management, of requirements, design, coding. It looks very different than your small start-up where you've got 10 people in the room working closely together and rapidly developing things.

Even though in this type of setting the development teams are using what you might call agile methods, there's still a huge layer of requirements and review and sign-off. There's lots of policy decisions that have to be made that shape ever step of the way. There's much more overhead involved in this sort of thing than if you're trying to have a small set of people developing the Web site.”

US Government’s NSA and massive data crunching needs: This was another issue that made headlines this week “Meltdowns HobbleNSA Data Center” (WSJ) : The Utah facility, one of the Pentagon's biggest U.S. construction projects, has become a symbol of the spy agency's surveillance prowess, which gained broad attention in the wake of leaks from NSA contractor Edward Snowden. It spans more than one-million square feet, with construction costs pegged at $1.4 billion—not counting the Cray supercomputers that will reside there.

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines acknowledged problems but said "the failures that occurred during testing have been mitigated. A project of this magnitude requires stringent management, oversight, and testing before the government accepts any building."

The reason for reflecting on these problems is obvious: Though still early in the rollout, there are lessons for technology strategists and Enterprise Architects in both scenarios.