In Pittsburg, I coordinated a program on long range computer planning. I
still maintain that long range computer planning is possible. But as
pointed out below, what ifs are important. Here are some of my rules of
thumb for long range planning in any rapidly changing environment.
1. Dream pie in the sky - You have to consider both the possible and the
seemingly impossible in long range planning
2. work in generalities as much as possible - For example, one stage of
my current plan is for an Internet Server - I did not even specify Web
server (which is what I think it will be) because that might change by
the time I get the money and I don't want to be tied to old technology
and software.
3. Fill you plan full of questions to be asked. Don't make decisions in
the plan unless you absolutely have to. If at all possible, decisions
should be delayed until the last possible time, preferrably just before you
place the orders
4. Sunset plan - plan to pass old servers down to workstations and to
toss things out or hand them down to the lowest tasks no later than every
three years. If possible, break your operation down into thirds. Assess
which needs the latest technology and if possible have it where one
part can use the other's hand me downs. If you plan to replace 1/3 every
year, you can upgrade everything every year, with one segment (hopefully
the most demanding one) getting new equipment every year, one getting year
old equipment every year and one getting 2 year old equipment every year.
The most important point is sticking to generalities whenever possible
and making your plan a list of options to guide you in last minute
decision making instead of a list of decisions made too soon that bind
you to old technology or wasting money.
Mary Brandt Jensen University of Mississippi
Director of the Law Library University, MS 38677
Assistant Professor of Law mjensen@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu
P.S. My last name is Jensen, not Brandt.
On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 Lawstuff@aol.com wrote:
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:18:01 -0500
> From: Lawstuff@aol.com
> To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
> Subject: Shepard's Causes of Action
>
> 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
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:10 PST