Joe Barr:

As one to whom technology in the field meant a pocket compass and a
penknife - but who got round to experimenting with a laptop - I couldn't
have improved on your thoughts re wearable computers.

James Lewis




At 07:15 02/12/01 +1100, you wrote:
>Dr Homan
>
>C Kelly makes some very valid points.  In 20 years at the sharp end of
>disaster management  in a variety of countries, I have been offered
>numerous new technologies and told of their advantages but reliability has
>been an overriding criterion for acceptance.  If it will work when the
>power is out or erratic; if it can be charged from a generator working on
>dirty fuel; if it works when there is dust or torrential rain; if it is
>easily portable; if it can stand rough treatment; if it is explainable to
>suspicious customs officers; if it is reliable and gives faster answers;
>and if it can be fixed easily and quickly when it goes wrong; then it has a
>much better chance of acceptance.
>
>As an example, satellite phones have gained increasing acceptance because
>the Inmarsat M terminals are light reliable and flexible in use, easily
>chargeable and operate in  pretty difficult conditions.  However GIS has
>limited value in the field if you are trying to download information over
>the satellite because there just is not time to accept the slow downloads.
>In Gujarat earlier this year we would have welcomed GIS - there were no
>maps available in the earthquake zone in the early stages of the disaster.
>However, download times over satphones were prohibitive as the few phones
>available had to be used for so many  other purposes.   At a later
>conference I saw a satellite photo that was taken and available at the time
>that would have met many urgent needs - we didn't  know it existed so
>couldn't ask for it even by air delivery.
>
>Further back in coordination centres, there is increasing use of new
>technologies but again, it need to be reliable in times of crisis and it
>must be affordable - disaster preparedness is notoriously ill-funded for
>the expectations placed upon it.
>
>New technologies are invaluable in the planning and preparedness stages and
>for research but cost can be a significant hindrance to acceptance.  The
>decision-makers often lack the technical skills to evaluate the best of a
>bewildering array of solutions promoted by enthusiastic companies,
>scientists and technicians.  As a result they may either buy wrongly and
>become wary of making decisions again, or may just avoid the spending
>decision because it is too hard.  They know they can operate in their
>'comfort zone', albeit at less than optimal level, because they know the
>capabilities of what they have (and possibly because disaster managers can
>be  just plain conservative when it comes to new and unproven technology).
>
>The communication gap between the technical and research communities and
>the field disaster management community is far too wide.  Some people can
>bridge it to the benefit of all and we need more people like that.  However
>the disaster manager can be dealing with a very wide range of disciplines
>all of which impose pressures.  There is rarely the luxury to delve deeply
>- to paraphrase the old saying  ' when you are up to your armpits in
>alligators, it's very hard to remember that your aim in life is to drain
>the swamp!' .  We flounder along setting priorities and reacting to the
>immediate situation on the basis of available information and hoping that
>someday we will have time to think!  The benefit of forums like this is the
>exposure that is available to new ideas and the chance to hear other views
>- we need more of them.
>
>Joe Barr
>
>
>
>
>At 10:50 AM 29/11/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>>Dr Jacqueline Homan,
>>
>>Your email raises several secondary question which I think other list
>>members may want to comment on.
>>
>>The first is how quickly does the natural hazards management industry adopt
>>new technology? I presume innovation adoption is rather fast at the hard
>>science end of the business and slow at the response management end of the
>>business. For instance the melding of GIS, GPS and remote sensed images is,
>>I presume, old hat for geologist, but really cutting edge for your typical
>>emergency manager.
>>
>>Second, to what degree is the use of technology in hazards management being
>>pushed by industry and not by needs?  A wearable computer sounds neat, but
>>do you really need one (basically the question you ask)? Since most of the
>>hazards management industry is very cost sensitive (being largely funded
>>from the public purse), making the needs-base justification to spend money
>>on new technology is probably more critical than actual utility.
>>
>>But awareness is also an important factor. I have worked on major disaster
>>relief operations in the past 3 years where well established communications
>>technologies were not used (but sorely needed) apparently because staff on
>>the ground (and presumably in HQ) weren't aware of what was possible with
>>off-the-shelf equipment.
>>
>>Finally, the problems with Iridium's hand-held sat phones suggests that
>>"new" and "reliable" technologies are not always the same. Most emergency
>>managers probably go for reliable but old technologies since disasters are
>>often poor times to experiment. In other words, a wearable computer is
>>fine, but will it survive having a 50 kg bag of grain dropped on it? A
>>pencil and notebook would, and probably cost a lot less to replace.
>>
>>C. Kelly
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>
>
*************************************************
James Lewis
Architect RIBA
-------------------------------------------------
Datum International
101 High Street
Marshfield
nr Chippenham Wiltshire
SN14 8LT
United Kingdom
--------------------------------------------------
e-mail   : [log in to unmask]
website    www.livingwithflooding.co.uk

telephone: +44 (0)1225 891 426
fax      : +44 (0)1225 892 092

e-mail also on:
[log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------
Neither this e-mail, nor any attachments to it, constitute professional
advice or legal obligations unless confirmed by a signed letter.

If this message has been received in error, please contact the address above.
****************************************************