# Another "DCGS-A vs. Palantir" article



## Marauder06 (Apr 21, 2014)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-so-why-did-the-army-stop-it-from-being-used/

The Marine Corps, Air Force and special forces, through their own procurement process, had implemented Palantir as an additional war-fighting tool to be utilized with their own DCGS platform. U.S. special forces, including the Navy SEALs and other elite teams, along with the Marine Corps noted in a June 2013 U.S. Government Accountability Office report that their troops thought Palantir was “easy to use” and “effective” on their recent missions in Afghanistan.

But for the Army ,”Palantir was like a thorn in their side — they didn’t want to cut into their own research and funding — if they added the software program to their DCGS platform, it would eliminate their ability to keep lining their own pockets,” a military intelligence analyst with knowledge of the program told TheBlaze.

In 2010, Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was then the top military intelligence officer in Afghanistan, made it clear that Army personnel were lacking the right tools to do their job.

In Flynn’s Joint Urgent Operations Needs Statement report, he asserted that the Army lacked the right intelligence tools to track bomb-makers. Flynn, who now heads the Defense Intelligence Agency, wrote that “intelligence analysts in theater currently do not have the tools required to fully analyze the tremendous amounts of information currently available.”

The major general went on to warn that lack of sufficient intelligence tools translated into “operational opportunities missed and lives lost.”


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Apr 22, 2014)

I have talked to a few analysts that have used easier, more intuitive, and effective systems than what they currently utilize.  I believe Palantir was one that was specifically named, and they were disappointed it didn't get disseminated throughout the Army.

Not knowing the reasons behind the decision making (if the ones listed were legit or not), the best military in the world should be using the best technology available.  Period.  There is no reason we need to be handcuffing ourselves.


----------



## AWP (Apr 22, 2014)

I once worked for a small company that made the billing software found in many communities for things like water, power, and sewer. They also integrated several models of receipt printers into the mix.

It was a nightmare.

They had some really smart guys and gals, but that was the problem. They were software engineers, programmers with 4 year degrees, writing software for people in Lower Butt Crack, MS or wherever. The GUI was garbage, unnecessarily complicated, with little intuitive structure. At the time they were one of the few games in town for this service, so business was steady.

If you build a crap product then your economic survival depends on filling a niche or less legal means. I can't speak to the software mentioned, but I'll bet some of the above applies because bad software is bad software.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 22, 2014)

Marauder06 said:


> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-so-why-did-the-army-stop-it-from-being-used/
> 
> The Marine Corps, Air Force and Special Forces, through their own procurement process, had implemented Palantir as an additional war-fighting tool to be utilized with their own DCGS platform. U.S. Special Forces, including the Navy SEALs and other elite teams, along with the Marine Corps noted in a June 2013 U.S. Government Accountability Office report that their troops thought Palantir was “easy to use” and “effective” on their recent missions in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


I saw this more then once when I was on AD.  You start developing a program, and 3 years later a vendor shows up trying to sell you their stuff (which may actually work).

Only once did I see a program closed and getting replaced with COTS stuff. 

Part of the problem is our Acquisition Corps/Rules.  Buying COTS suddenly reduces the program load for a number of GS-types, and the Acquisition Corps (of all services) is not prone to putting themselves out of business (or making it seem like their workload has decreased).


----------



## Brill (Apr 22, 2014)

Is this the same brain trust working on the Army uniform problem?

Which national agency uses DCGS?


----------

