My G+ Profile
« February 04, 2004 | Main | February 08, 2004 »
February 06, 2004
Additional Questions for eVoting Panel
The Digital Democracy Teach-In is Monday and I think its going to be great. There's over 170 people registered and that's not counting speakers. Here are a few additional questions for my eVoting panel.
- Jim Flowers, who has been involved in Georgia state government in a number of posts says "For Georgia going back [to paper ballots or voting machines] is simply not an option. The panel needs to understand that the paper ballot systems Georgia used, and the old mechanical machines (from the 1930's),which did not have a paper trail, yielded a higher undercount than Florida in 2000. Plus, there is the matter of some $52 million spent replacing the old machines."
- Is eVoting here to stay? Is there a significant difference between existing eVoting machines and their mechanical cousins? If we've lived with mechanical voting machines for 100 years, why are we so worried about electronic voting machines?
- David Sklar asks the following question: "If I want to make and sell a slot machine, the Nevada Gaming Commission audits my code. If I write software that controls an airplane, the FAA reviews my code and development practices. Shouldn't our standards for machines that protect democracy be at least as strict as our standards for machines that protect our ability to gamble fairly and fly around safely?"
- Scott Ritchie, a California college student has proposed bringing open source eVoting software from Australia and modifying it to meet the demands of the California Secretary of State. Is this really a viable option?
- ATMs seem to be able to give us a reliable paper trail of our finances, what makes this so hard in voting?
05:35 PM | Recommend This | Print This
Answering the Build or Buy Question
One of the questions that CIOs frequently face is termed "build or buy." Should we build this system or function ourselves, or should we just buy something even though it may not meet our needs exactly? For example, often the business side will argue for building something because the systems that can be bought don't quite align with how the business runs. Other times, the techies will want to build something and the reason comes down to having fun. So, what criteria should you use to decide whether to build or by your next system?
I think there's one simple measure that can be applied to answer the build vs. buy question: Does the system or function add competitive advantage? If so, then build it. If not, buy it. A few examples:
Company IT departments don't build general ledger packages anymore for a good reason: your accounting software won't add to your competitive advantage. We do, however, see organizations trying to significantly modify ERP systems to change how paydays are handled, etc. In Utah for example, we modified SAP's payroll system to handle a special way the Highway Patrol had of paying troopers because they couldn't be convinced to follow a standard business convention. The end result will be a system that's more prone to problems now and more expensive to upgrade later.
Of course, Utah isn't a business, but if it were, they'd be deriving no special competitive advantage from the way troopers receive their paycheck. These kinds of system should be bought and business processes should be changed to ensure that the system requires as few modifications as possible.
On the other end of the spectrum, I'd cite my experience at iMALL. We built a subscription-based eCommerce system. It wasn't one of a kind--at several points we could have bought something that did something similar. In the end, however, we believed we could build a better system and that was the basis of our competitive position. Worked too. We sold the company for $450 million (in 1999 dollars) based largely upon the business model and the technology. We eventually had over 50,000 merchants using the system and did partnerships with companies like First Data Corp. that we would have never been able to pull off without our own system.
The cloud in that silver lining is this: we built too much of the system. For example, we should have bought a transaction monitor (application servers were too new) early on instead of trying to handle them ourselves. We spent a lot of precious capital building components that we should have bought. The rule works here too: many of the components offered no special competitive advantage and we had no business building them.
03:10 PM | Recommend This | Print This
At Last, Someone to Talk To!
AOL has released AIM 5.5 which includes iChat compatible streaming video. At last there will be someone to talk to. I've used iChat's video feature several times and it really works. Jon Udell and I had a real conversation a few weeks ago that was much more than an IM exchange or even a phone conversation because of the presence of video. Now, if Apple would reciprocate and incorporate digital certificates in iChat, I'd be happy (for a few minutes at least).
10:35 AM | Recommend This | Print This
Wayne Perry: The Future of Wireless Communications
Wayne Perry, CEO of EDGE Wireless and a member of the board of ATT Wireless (not to mention part owner of the Seattle Mariners and private pilot), is giving the keynote address at eBusiness Day at the Rollins eBusiness Center at BYU.
The cellular concept was invented in 1948 by Bell Labs. Cells allow reuse of the frequency. Previously, there could only be 500 mobile phone uses per frequency. In New York City there was a 25 year waiting list for a mobile phone. The FCC didn't allocate spectrum until 1982. Another major development was the DSP chip. ATT expected up to 1 million cellular subscribers by the year 2000.
By 2000, there were 97 million subscribers, almost a factor of 100 greater than predictions. Today 157 million people (55% of the US population) have cellular phones. That's more than wireline telephone users in 1994. In 2001, for the first time since the Depression, the number of wireline phones decreased. In 2005, the number of wireless phones will surpass the number of wireline phones. On average we use the phone about 600 minutes a month. Worldwide, this amounted to 100 million years of talking.
On top of this, the US is behind the rest of the world. In Taiwan, there are cellular users 110% of the population. China has 250 million subscribers and China MobileCom is expected to add 35 million subscribers next year. Verizon has 35 million subscribers total.
While voice lines are down, 22% of US households have a high speed data connection. US broadband penetration is higher than most of the rest of the world. The exceptions are Korea (80% penetration) and Japan.
Mark Twain said he loved to talk about the future because no one can call you a liar. Not surprisingly, Wayne is very bullish on wireless carriers, not 802.11 carriers, but cellular providers. What's really telling, I think is that he turns to things that are currently happening in other countries to point to what will happen in the US. The question that is left unanswered is, who's fault is it that the US is so far behind? I have to point to the wireless carriers. They all want to keep you inside their walled gardens and give you just the services they think you want now.
Wayne speaks to the privacy issues of location-aware phones. Parents will buy a service that alerts them when their daughter goes to her boyfriends apartment. Of course the daughter will buy an alibi service that says she's at the library. Wireless providers are like arms merchants---they win either way.
Wi-Fi is popular because its perceived to be free. The total CAPEX to install Wi-Fi at the United Airlines terminal in Denver is less than $50,000. That kind of CAPEX won't support charging for Wi-Fi in general (because someone else will offer it for free). Wi-Fi will drive down the cost of other wireless options.
DoCoMo predicts 500% penetration. How do you get there? Lots of wireless devices. In five years, no child will leave the house without a location-aware wireless device. No one will be allowed in the national forest without one. He tells the story of a dairy farmer who installed a pager on his lead cow. Instead of going out to get the cows, he trained the lead cow so that when he paged it, it would come in and bring the herd. The moral of the story: don't assume you know how people will use wireless. To which I would add, don't install barriers to people doing interesting things.
Why would VodaFone (largest wireless provider in the world) by ATT WS? VodaPhone wanted to be in the US. They own a 40% ownership in Verizon, but their phones didn't work with Verizons system so Verizon wasn't cutting it. The world is moving toward consolidation of wireless systems and standards. CDMA is probably better, but better doesn't cut it. GSM is going to win.