Katrina and On Demand e-Government

[MCWebsite.Staff]

** This thread discusses the article: Katrina and On Demand e-Government **
** This thread discusses the Content article: Katrina and On Demand e-Government **
0

[Guest.Visitor]

Katrina and On Demand e-Government

** This thread discusses the article: Katrina and On Demand e-Government **
What you are describing is not new. Sales people sell the newest idea. Decision making managers buy into it; not because it is better, but because it is new and, therefore, a distraction. Or, to put it another way, "sell the sizzle - not the steak". To be honest, I'm not sure what 'On Demand computing' is. When I first heard of it, I just wrote it off as another sales ploy to sell soap (metaphorically speaking) in a new way. Perhaps I am wrong by being so cynical and shamefully ignorant. But whenever I hear someone hyping a vague buzzword that is closely associated with a concept that REQUIRES a salesman to explain, then I naturally get a little suspicious. This partially explains why China and Bangalore are geting so much work from the US. Lazy US managers hope the next great thing will save the company and produce profits. Smart managers are aware of this and look for comparative advantage overseas, knowing that the US manager will chase fads whenever possible. In well run companies, the profits over the long run go to the ones who think, hustle, and do, and not the empty suits. By the way, I heard on CNN that it is ok to buy ANYTHING with the red cross and FEMA debit cards. Someone bought an $800 purse with one. I wonder if you can get a hooker with a red cross debit card? Or instant lottery tickets?

[bharder@nlrha.ab.ca]

Katrina and On Demand e-Government

** This thread discusses the article: Katrina and On Demand e-Government **
From my perspective, the emergency plans look like they catered to and had a prerequisite of, communication with centralized command structures. This is often a pet idea of strongly hierarchical organizations. "If only we have good enough information, everything will be all right." It's a bit self serving, because it presumes that the top of the organization must be effective in order for ANY part of the organization to be effective. I must disagree. The best disaster planning materials I have seen not only rate services in terms of their importance, but also rate them along a continuum of tactical versus strategic importance. Important tactical services can tolerate only very brief interruptions (these might include potable water, electrical, medical, and food). Important strategic services can handle longer interruptions. Emergency planning should anticipate that communications will often be difficult, impossible, or simply impractical. Therefore a certain amount of local stockpiling might be called for. Most importantly, first responders should have the authority to act in their professional capacity, even if they cannot reach a central command. Give up the idea that continuous communication is essential. Note that I'm not saying that communications is bad. It's certainly good, and a robust emergency communications system is even better. But no matter what you do, your communications links are vulnerable. It only takes a big enough disaster to prove that.

[mmurphy@starbaseinc.com]

Katrina and On Demand e-Government

** This thread discusses the article: Katrina and On Demand e-Government **
The problem isn't On-Demand computing. That's just a moniker for being able to turn on the extra computing power you need the one time you need it, and not having to pay for it for normal operations. Blaming On-Demand Computing for the command and control problems of the government is a bit like blaming a boat for turning left when you want to turn right, despite the fact that the rudder was thrown over to the left the whole time. If interfaces between the government and relief agencies didn't exist it's because the programs weren't written and tested. If contingency plans were scrapped, it is because of short sighted administrators who failed in thier duties. If infrastructure failed, it is because it wasn't properly designed. All of this stuff is independent of On-Demand Computing, and can work either with it or against it.

[T.Stockwell]

Katrina and On Demand e-Government

** This thread discusses the article: Katrina and On Demand e-Government **
Indeed, On Demand as a technology debuted on the iSeries as a capacity enhancement, allowing customers to add disk up front, and only pay for it when they began to use it. However, On Demand as an services delivery mechanism stretches far beyond simple capacity planning, especially in delivering services through e-Government initiatives. In that environment, On Demand delivers when Gvt wants to contract it. This includes capacity, but also includes services many different sorts. Halliburton could be seen as an On Demand Services organization. Certainly, IBM Services is also such an entity. The lure for Gvt to use these kind of services is that they don't have to pay for them unless they actually use them. This is also considered a "Utility" mode of service delivery. You said "If interfaces between gvt and relief agencies didn't exist, it's because the programs weren't written and tested...." But the current mode of supplying services to local govt from federal govt is "When they buy the service, they'll have it." Secondly, funding sources for such services no longer exists for local gvts. The failure of the levee system -- which spanned multiple municipalities -- was gutted. If we continue to believe that the mode by which services are delivered is a case of "programs not written and tested..." we're sort of stuck with never getting them written and tested until someone "demands" that they exist. But an On Demand mode says "when we have a customer, then we'll deliver..." How do you plan for natural disasters in an On Demand delivery modality? Mock disasters? Clearly, that's how the current fiasco came into being. Money to plan for the disasters failed to materialize. The mock disaster plans were not kept up to date. The technology to interface between govt agencies eroded and disapated. The infrastructure failed as a "result" of this kind of services delivery modality. No one "Demanded" and therefore, no one wrote the code or tested the programs. If that isn't a failure of the service delivery mechanism, what would you call it?