The Brits and their former colonies tend to use "scheme" as a perfectly neutral synonym for plan. To American ears it rings false, because the word carries a connotation of deviousness and "plan" is preferred.
The Brits and their former colonies tend to use "bureaucrat" as a neutral descriptor for office worker. To American ears bureaucrat is an epithet, and civil servant is the more neutral term.
Both differences show the American propensity for cynicism and populism.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Friday, July 19, 2013
Data Hubs
A couple days ago I mused about the pros and cons of data sharing versus centralized data. Today my reading reintroduces me to the idea of "data hubs", not in the context of commercial software as in the Wikipedia article but in the context of ACA (Obamacare) implementation. I imagine a video showing a circus performer/juggler, who juggles maybe 3 items, plus catching another, adding it to the juggling, then tossing out an item and catching another.
I think it still fits into my "sharing" category.
I think it still fits into my "sharing" category.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
The People Who Do the Work
Too often the big shots and big talkers monopolize attention, leaving the people who do the work in the shadows.
That's a lead-in to this interesting article. I owe a hat tip to the American Historical Association for the link. Now I never was a full-time sanitation worker, but I did do some similar work during a summer job at Chenango Valley State Park.
That's a lead-in to this interesting article. I owe a hat tip to the American Historical Association for the link. Now I never was a full-time sanitation worker, but I did do some similar work during a summer job at Chenango Valley State Park.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Sharing Versus Centralized Data
The VA and DOD have been working off and on to setup one centralized healthcare record for military personnel. It makes sense: someone starts as a GI under DOD's control and, after retirement or separation, moves to be under VA's control.
In the hearing I linked to it seems that Congress still wants that one record to rule them all, while DOD and VA are leaning more to sharing data. I assume the idea is that if the VA can pull data from DOD records and display them to VA personnel, that's good enough.
During my government career, I was involved in both "sharing" and "centralizing" efforts. We worked for some years on trying to transfer files of ASCS data to SCS computers, basically to enable policing of the sod/swamp provisions of the 86 farm bill. And the effort which eventually became SCIMS was based on the idea of a central customer/client record serving all the service center agencies.
Neither effort worked out, at least not during my career. I'm not sure what lessons to derive from that fact. I mention this history because doing such things as implementing Obamacare or immigration reform (E-Verify) raise similar issues of system design.
If you can design the interfaces, it's probably easier and faster to do the sharing, perhaps particularly these days with the availability of syncing software. The biggest advantage of centralized data is not just avoiding redundant data load; it's avoiding the problem of stale data. For example, a death gets reported in system A, but never propagated to systems B...Z. The problem with sharing/communication is that the unspoken and unidentified assumptions in system A may trip you up in the other systems. The problem with centralized systems is you have to understand a whole lot more about all the business rules. And it's difficult to have modular development.
In the hearing I linked to it seems that Congress still wants that one record to rule them all, while DOD and VA are leaning more to sharing data. I assume the idea is that if the VA can pull data from DOD records and display them to VA personnel, that's good enough.
During my government career, I was involved in both "sharing" and "centralizing" efforts. We worked for some years on trying to transfer files of ASCS data to SCS computers, basically to enable policing of the sod/swamp provisions of the 86 farm bill. And the effort which eventually became SCIMS was based on the idea of a central customer/client record serving all the service center agencies.
Neither effort worked out, at least not during my career. I'm not sure what lessons to derive from that fact. I mention this history because doing such things as implementing Obamacare or immigration reform (E-Verify) raise similar issues of system design.
If you can design the interfaces, it's probably easier and faster to do the sharing, perhaps particularly these days with the availability of syncing software. The biggest advantage of centralized data is not just avoiding redundant data load; it's avoiding the problem of stale data. For example, a death gets reported in system A, but never propagated to systems B...Z. The problem with sharing/communication is that the unspoken and unidentified assumptions in system A may trip you up in the other systems. The problem with centralized systems is you have to understand a whole lot more about all the business rules. And it's difficult to have modular development.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Acreage Reports and Performance (27 Years Ago and MIDAS)
I noticed in recent NASCOE documents a brief discussion of "performance" problems, apparently due to MIDAS. Today I see ND FSA quoted in this article on problems with acreage reporting due to MIDAS performance problems.
I'm not a good person, so there's a smirk on my face, for which I apologize to everyone involved--I'm sure they are doing their best.
As some consolation I'd recall our problems with the ASCS-578 process when we first automated on the System-36. The initial program design had one entry screen for each parameter for a field or subdivision (i.e., "corn" would be on one screen, "grain" or "silage" would be on another). Do I need to add that with the first 36's we didn't move from one screen to the next very quickly? The net result was something which was unusable, though with the combination of ignorance and rigidity too often found in the South Building we (I) earnestly explained to the state specialists that counties had to use the software.
Here my memory fades--I think we officially used the initial design for 1985, backed off to a data load process for 1986, and perhaps came up with a revised process for 1987, though maybe it was 1988. The new process was an improvement, if I say so myself, but many counties still found it unusable for realtime applications.
Bottomline: progress is made slowly, often 2 steps forward and one back. And learn from mistakes, because as my example shows, they'll stick in your memory for the rest of your life.
I'm not a good person, so there's a smirk on my face, for which I apologize to everyone involved--I'm sure they are doing their best.
As some consolation I'd recall our problems with the ASCS-578 process when we first automated on the System-36. The initial program design had one entry screen for each parameter for a field or subdivision (i.e., "corn" would be on one screen, "grain" or "silage" would be on another). Do I need to add that with the first 36's we didn't move from one screen to the next very quickly? The net result was something which was unusable, though with the combination of ignorance and rigidity too often found in the South Building we (I) earnestly explained to the state specialists that counties had to use the software.
Here my memory fades--I think we officially used the initial design for 1985, backed off to a data load process for 1986, and perhaps came up with a revised process for 1987, though maybe it was 1988. The new process was an improvement, if I say so myself, but many counties still found it unusable for realtime applications.
Bottomline: progress is made slowly, often 2 steps forward and one back. And learn from mistakes, because as my example shows, they'll stick in your memory for the rest of your life.
Monday, July 15, 2013
The Innovators' Dilemma and Quinoa
When I read the recent pieces on quinoa I was reminded of Clayton Christensen's book, The Innovator's Dilemma.
The idea is what really happens with successful enterprises (he wrote about companies but I'm expanding to include farming) is that a web of linkages and expectations and fulfilled needs builds up which becomes hard to change. Big companies like Eastman Kodak or Xerox focus more on everyday problems within that web and don't have the time or attention to give to innovations which might prove disruptive (as with Kodak's invention of the digital camera).
The flip side of that is that an innovator, like a quinoa farmer, is out there on his own and is missing the web of supporting structures, in this cases marketing chains, transportation and warehousing etc. Usually in technology the innovation is sort of peripheral, crude and not very efficient, so it's easy to disrespect. What successful innovations have is some advantage in a niche market, and the potential to be refined and developed. The money from niche sales enables the development up the ladder and into new markets. (Think how Toyota started with a crude car, only to develop over the years into making luxury cars.)
The problem with quinoa may, as the blog post says, be the likelihood of volatile prices, because the market and government don't supply the things which stabilize prices, supply and demand in developed markets.
The idea is what really happens with successful enterprises (he wrote about companies but I'm expanding to include farming) is that a web of linkages and expectations and fulfilled needs builds up which becomes hard to change. Big companies like Eastman Kodak or Xerox focus more on everyday problems within that web and don't have the time or attention to give to innovations which might prove disruptive (as with Kodak's invention of the digital camera).
The flip side of that is that an innovator, like a quinoa farmer, is out there on his own and is missing the web of supporting structures, in this cases marketing chains, transportation and warehousing etc. Usually in technology the innovation is sort of peripheral, crude and not very efficient, so it's easy to disrespect. What successful innovations have is some advantage in a niche market, and the potential to be refined and developed. The money from niche sales enables the development up the ladder and into new markets. (Think how Toyota started with a crude car, only to develop over the years into making luxury cars.)
The problem with quinoa may, as the blog post says, be the likelihood of volatile prices, because the market and government don't supply the things which stabilize prices, supply and demand in developed markets.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The Difference a Few Miles Makes
Really, though, it's not where you live, it's the composition of the neighbors in the hood; it's the difference of a bunch of dollars and/or education. I'm talking about the latest health stats, as presented in this county by county map. Here's a post on Herndon Patch about the study.
Fairfax County, where I live, had a male life expectancy of 75.6 in 1985. Prince William, just south of here, had 71.3. DC had a life expectancy of 64.3. Over 25 years things changed. DC improved by 9.4, Fairfax 6.1, Prince William 7.4. Loudoun county, just to the west of Fairfax, and DC were the two jurisdictions which stand out as having the greatest increase. Why--Loudoun has gone from mostly rural to rich suburbia in the 25 years; DC has changed its demographics almost as drastically--picking up a lot of yuppies and dinks (as we used to call them) and seeing lower income blacks move out. DC has also cut its homicide rate drastically.
It's an interesting map to play with. What's happening in Kentucky? The bluegrass state has seen a statewide increase in physical activity in the last 10 years, it really stands out on the national map. I don't think Mrs. Obama has been there more than other states. More seriously, there doesn't seem to be a correlation, at least by eyeball, between changes in physical activity and changes in hypertension or obesity, and Kentucky was very low on activity in 2001, so there may be something odd with the data, not reality. And using just eyeballs, it looks as if the crime wave documented in the TV series "Justified" has some basis in reality?
Fairfax County, where I live, had a male life expectancy of 75.6 in 1985. Prince William, just south of here, had 71.3. DC had a life expectancy of 64.3. Over 25 years things changed. DC improved by 9.4, Fairfax 6.1, Prince William 7.4. Loudoun county, just to the west of Fairfax, and DC were the two jurisdictions which stand out as having the greatest increase. Why--Loudoun has gone from mostly rural to rich suburbia in the 25 years; DC has changed its demographics almost as drastically--picking up a lot of yuppies and dinks (as we used to call them) and seeing lower income blacks move out. DC has also cut its homicide rate drastically.
It's an interesting map to play with. What's happening in Kentucky? The bluegrass state has seen a statewide increase in physical activity in the last 10 years, it really stands out on the national map. I don't think Mrs. Obama has been there more than other states. More seriously, there doesn't seem to be a correlation, at least by eyeball, between changes in physical activity and changes in hypertension or obesity, and Kentucky was very low on activity in 2001, so there may be something odd with the data, not reality. And using just eyeballs, it looks as if the crime wave documented in the TV series "Justified" has some basis in reality?
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Enlightenment in AnteBellum Georgia?
The Internet makes a lot of stuff available, much of it not valuable but some quite interesting. One of the interesting bits I just stumbled on is the fact that Georgia distributed land to its citizens through a series of lotteries. Here's a list of the people entitled to "draw" in one of the lotteries:
Anyhow, it strikes me as surprisingly liberated for 1820, at least gender-wise. Of course the land being distributed was that taken from the Native Americans, so it wasn't really enlightened.
- Bachelor, 18 years or over, 3-year residence in Georgia, citizen United States – 1 draw
- Soldier of Indian War, residence in Georgia during or since military service – 1 draw
- Invalid or indigent veteran of Revolutionary War or War of 1812 – 2 draws
- Invalid or indigent veteran of Revolutionary War or War of 1812 who was a fortunate drawer in either previous land lottery – 1 draw
- Married man with wife or minor son under 18 years or unmarried daughter, 3-year residence in Georgia, citizen United States – 2 draws
- Widow, 3-year residence in Georgia – 1 draw
- Widow, husband killed in Revolutionary War, War of 1812 or Indian War, 3-year residence in Georgia – 2 draws
- Family of one or two orphans under 21 years, father dead, mother living, 3-year residence in Georgia – 1 draw
- Family of three or more orphans under 21 years, father and mother both dead, 3-year residence in Georgia – 2 draws
- Family of one or two orphans under 21 years, father and mother both dead, 3-year residence in Georgia, 1 draw
- Orphan under 21 years, father killed in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, or Indian War, 3-year residence in Georgia – 2 draws
- Invalid or indigent officer or soldier in the Revolutionary Army who had been fortunate drawer in either previous lottery – 1 draw
Anyhow, it strikes me as surprisingly liberated for 1820, at least gender-wise. Of course the land being distributed was that taken from the Native Americans, so it wasn't really enlightened.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Paragraph of the Day
From a NYTimes article pegged to Russian circuses offering patrons a chance to have pictures of their kids sitting by carnivores, for a fee:
In the 19th century, the author Mikhail Lermontov was so amazed by this quality of fatalism [in Russian society] he created a character in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” who played Russian roulette with a single-shot pistol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)