I firmly believe the solution lies in leasing the hardware, it is too
expensive and too soon obsolete to purchase every time a new chip comes out
or a new speed is detected. If information is to be available only on a
given hardware, we increase the have - have not dicotomy for information.
Unfortunatly, this is a difficult concept for hardware vendors to understand
and our recent RFP for CD-ROM towers with dial in capability had a limited
response.
The concept is also alien to lots of government folks who process paper but
we will continue to try.
If you do not lease or make some other temporary arrangement in regard to
hardware, it quickly becomes an all encompassing expense. It is
particularly important when titles are not available on paper or there are
different versions on paper.
At 11:18 AM 2/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
> Mary Brandt Jensen's response to Ken Sills included the comment that she
>is putting together a long range technology plan.
> This is one of those "INI" (impossible but necessary but impossible)
>tasks we all sometimes face. CD's, in their current form, probably will be
>replaced by CD's of a different size (just as floppy disks made the
>transition from 8" to 5" to 3"). The new size probably will not run on much
>of the current equipment (just as the big floppies don't run on new
>machines.).
> Unfortunately, I've met no one (especially me) who knows when and how
>the CD's will change, or when CD's will be replaced altogether (By on line?
> By chips?, etc?) I'm sure of only one thing: Any long range planning based
>on current technology must be wrong, because current technology will be
>obsolete in the long range. That's definite.
> Ms. Brandt further notes that "large CD setups are not cheap or easy to
>acquire or run." That makes the problem even more difficult.
> So what's a person to do? My first thought is: Do the long range
>planning but build in as many "what if's" as you can think of -- especially
>"what-if's" regarding hardware and software obsolescence. This is extremely
>hard, because it means predicting tomorrow's technology. But what's the
>alternative?
> Do no planning? That seems wrong. Assume today's technology will be
>viable tomorrow? We *know* that's wrong.
> My other thought is: Think cheap. Don't do anything expensive that can
>be obsolete in three years (I've heard three years is the latest
>rule-of-thumb for technological obsolescence -- although even that estimate
>may now be obsolete!).
> Each organization must decide what it feels is "expensive." For a big,
>well-funded organization, perhaps even $50K or more, isn't too much to risk
>losing in three years. For a small or less well-funded group, even $5K might
>constitute an unaccepable risk.
> Ms. Brandt isn't the only one facing the problem: "how to deal with
>future obsolescence." We all do. In fact, it may be the most important
>question we'll face from now on. So I'd be interested to learn how others
>deal with it.
> Anyone else?
>
>Rodger Mitchell
>
>
Ruth A. Fraley
Special Administrator for Resources and Planning
New York State Unified Court System
Agcy 4 suite 2001 ESP
Albany, NY 12223-1450
(518) 473-1196 (518) 473-6860
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:10 PST