MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] CAP and Signatures/Encryption
I agree completely. We work with locals every day. That is
99.9999 per cent of the public safety business. Agencies
vary within themselves, states vary by agency and so on. Some
things result:
1. The cost of a public safety system is much higher than
it should be.
2. Snake oil systems sell cheaper and then they get to spend
the money again.
3. RFPs are growing more complex and more expensive to bid
every year (about three times as dense as the first ones I
processed nine years ago).
4. Interoperability is based almost entirely on loosely
coupled exchange of files dumped into common directories.
5. The file types are largely system dependent with some
local customization possible through adding non-semantic
fields to the data schemas (ie, you can name it but you
can't check a cooccurrence constraint).
We'd like to sell to the smaller agencies. Really. Who
can afford to as long as the RFPs they issue are the precise
same RFPs the big agencies issue because the consultants
see to that with their lazy boilerplated RFPs or trendy
but too early in the cycle requirements?
I really do understand that problem, Paul, and as a standards
vet, I know standards don't fix the problems, but complex
standards that enter the procurement cycles are the worst
of all and do the economics substantial damage. It scares
the hell out of me that for UBL, the naming standard alone
is 112 pages long. Interlocking liaisons will amplify that
bigger than Mick Jagger's PA system.
So once again: if the system is to be part of the NIMS/NPS
doctrines, protocols and structures, pare *That Part* down to the
absolute basics because that is all we have a hope of getting
to run at that scale in that timeframe. Make sure what shows
up in the RFPs for those requirements are implementable because
the public safety industry, not the consultants and not the
local agencies, are the implementors.
Also again: this particular working group is actually a good
exemplar of that approach so far.
len
From: Paul Embley [mailto:pembley@mstar.net]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:34 PM
Let's just say that at one time I shared your perspective until I started
working with locals. I don't share that perspective any longer. Their
reality is very different. I know many are putting GJXDM in their RFPs, but
most have no clue what that means, how to measure if a vendor meets the
criteria and so on. I believe we will encounter the same with CAP, EDXL,
etc. I've found some success in working with vendors who in turn educate
their users, but this typically will permeate only to your large and most
medium size agencies/departments. The smaller ones who make up the bulk of
emergency response have a tough time hearing about these things,
understanding them, measuring compliance, implementing, etc.
Just trying to point out there is a lot more to be done than coming up with
a good standard.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]