[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [CAP] NOAA Undermining International Standards?
Friends - Apparently I've failed to sensitize NOAA to the impact of their choices beyond their own organizational and national borders. Much more is as stake here than just "visibility." On Jun 2, 2006, at 6/2/06 7:33 AM, Herbert White wrote: > The planned HazCollect Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is just > the first step in the process. NOAA's intent is to fully support > the CAP "Instruction" element. The problem is that these terms... "operational acceptance test" and "initial operating capacity"... mean precisely what they say. The "OAT" isn't just some mid-point correction in an ongoing development process. It marks the acceptance of an operational product. It is, for all intents and purposes, a functional nationwide rollout of an "operating capacity" that even Herb admits is incomplete. For most of a year now I've been asking Herb and others to specify when those flaws would be fixed, if not prior to the initial rollout. He's been unable to do so, and rightly so, because there's no guarantee he'll ever get the funds to make changes once an "initial operating capacity" is accepted. (I think we all know that there's nothing as permanent in government as a "temporary" structure.) So... with all respect to Herb personally... I think we need to recognize that such general statements of intent are well- meaning but ultimately empty, and to focus on what's actually about to be deployed. What will be some of the predictable effects if HazCollect is deployed and accepted in its current form? 1) Existing and developing providers of warning and emergency information systems will be shut out of the system for lack of an open interface in the foreseeable future. 2) Emergency managers will be pressured to install the DMIS toolkit on their already cluttered desktops as the only way to get access to NWS warning assets. 3) The market for non-NWS warning systems and products will be chilled, since nobody with a full CAP implementation will be able to guarantee compatibility with HazCollect. 4) Many system developers in the U.S. and abroad will feel pressure to "dumb down" their CAP implementations to match the HazCollect model rather than try to support both. 5) Ironically, other system developers (as we've seen in this discussion) will take NOAA's intransigence and go-it-alone approach as a reason not to bother implementing standards at all. 6) Ultimately, the credibility of the standards process will be eroded by the example of a huge U.S. federal agency overriding the standard for their own internal convenience. Let's be clear here... it would be entirely possible for NOAA to accommodate its internal back-compatibility issues internally, without projecting them out to the user interface. And both NOAA and Battelle have had plenty of time to make the necessary changes, during a development schedule that's already slipped numerous deadlines and waived a number of original specifications. The only reason these problems persist is that NOAA and Battelle have chosen not to fix them. We must not stand for NOAA putting a flawed HazCollect "initial operating capacity" online until they are. - Art