Gee ! 9 0f 20 get Canucks bucks in aid

[Shwa]

What do you think is reasonable time for someone to spend searching then ? We can say "as much time is required" but in fact people give up.

What is reasonable likely has a direct affect on the level of interest or need on the subject being researched. Wouldn't you say?

I have spent hours upon hours searching JSTOR and EBSCO for information of interest. I should have just Googled it and then given up.

[bush_cheney2004]

I expect them to be able to find what they're looking for in 30 seconds maximum, or at least get them to the next page where they will expect to find what they're looking for.

That's unreasonable, even with the best indexing systems. Interest level should drive time invested. Maybe you are too young to remember card catalogs and microfiche machines.

[Michael Hardner]

What is reasonable likely has a direct affect on the level of interest or need on the subject being researched. Wouldn't you say?

Related to the level of interest or *NEED* yes.

How much does the public *need* to know ? It serves people well to let the public know less and less. It costs less, and you get less pesky questions. But at a certain level, you have a virtual dictatorship - the people aren't represented by a public anymore, and we only have masses.

If we allow people to see where their money is spent, then they are in charge of their own destiny.

I have spent hours upon hours searching JSTOR and EBSCO for information of interest. I should have just Googled it and then given up.

JSTOR ? Huh ?

You flummoxed me !

[Michael Hardner]

That's unreasonable, even with the best indexing systems. Interest level should drive time invested. Maybe you are too young to remember card catalogs and microfiche machines.

I am not too young, but in those days we didn't have the problems we have today with sprawling governments, unknown budgets and unknowledgable protest movements. The tools of media have an interesting relationship to the politics of the day in that way.

30 seconds from the homepage to be able to find 'aid to china' or a report that you would expect to explain that information isn't too much to ask, I think.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not too young, but in those days we didn't have the problems we have today with sprawling governments, unknown budgets and unknowledgable protest movements. The tools of media have an interesting relationship to the politics of the day in that way.

Reporting of any kind is usually the outcome of data collection and analysis. One can't assume that it is always available in consumer/public form regardless of the technology. I actually prefer primary sources when digging for personal interest. That's why there is such a fuss about climate change conclusions...in God We Trust...all others bring data.

30 seconds from the homepage to be able to find 'aid to china' or a report that you would expect to explain that information isn't too much to ask, I think.

Anyone who is familiar with government budgeting and outlays would know where to look in short order. Part of the responsibility lies with the public consumer to know what they want and where to get it; it can't always be a fishing expedition that catches the right fish (in 30 seconds).

[Michael Hardner]

Anyone who is familiar with government budgeting and outlays would know where to look in short order. Part of the responsibility lies with the public consumer to know what they want and where to get it; it can't always be a fishing expedition that catches the right fish (in 30 seconds).

Still - imagine how much better equipped we would be to make decisions if communicating was a priority for governments.

[Shwa]

Still - imagine how much better equipped we would be to make decisions if communicating was a priority for governments.

And you don't think it is?

[bush_cheney2004]

Still - imagine how much better equipped we would be to make decisions if communicating was a priority for governments.

It is a priority, just not in the instant gratification format that you seek. Technology does not change the basic processes of government beauracracies, and in some cases, causes even more confusion and red tape.

There is also a difference between archival access and access to current operations data. How much legacy data should be migrated to online formats and who will pay for this vs. other budgetary needs?

[Michael Hardner]

And you don't think it is?

No, I don't.

[Michael Hardner]

It is a priority, just not in the instant gratification format that you seek. Technology does not change the basic processes of government beauracracies, and in some cases, causes even more confusion and red tape.

It's not a priority. People guard their budgets as state secrets in all organizations. Technology doesn't change the basic processes of government bureaucracies, but it can destroy governments: see facebook vs Mubarek, radio vs German opposition parties 1933 etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not a priority. People guard their budgets as state secrets in all organizations. Technology doesn't change the basic processes of government bureaucracies, but it can destroy governments: see facebook vs Mubarek, radio vs German opposition parties 1933 etc.

Maybe not on your timeline, but government communicates in direct proportion to what is directed or demanded. It is not and should not be the primary focus.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe not on your timeline, but government communicates in direct proportion to what is directed or demanded. It is not and should not be the primary focus.

That's the thing - the less you give people, the less you expect. And the complacency creeps in. People complain about ER wait times in Canada, yet they have no idea what the big picture is, whether its getting better or worse, and governments don't exactly bend over backwards to advertise how well they're doing.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's the thing - the less you give people, the less you expect.

Frankly, I would expect a majority of citizens to prefer that budgets go to services delivery and infrastructure over instant reporting and metrics. What's the big hurry?

And the complacency creeps in. People complain about ER wait times in Canada, yet they have no idea what the big picture is, whether its getting better or worse, and governments don't exactly bend over backwards to advertise how well they're doing.

Different kind of problem, and secondary to actual health care delivery. People should already know what to expect in an ER.

[Michael Hardner]

Frankly, I would expect a majority of citizens to prefer that budgets go to services delivery and infrastructure over instant reporting and metrics. What's the big hurry?

They could do this with the budgets that they have now. As has been pointed out by others, they already have data that is cleared for public consumption they could just publish that.

No hurry - except that people have been talking about this for years (including the US president and UK prime minister) and the mountain hasn't started to move yet.

Different kind of problem, and secondary to actual health care delivery. People should already know what to expect in an ER.

They expect a wait. How long ? 1 hr ? 6 hrs ? What's acceptable ? If we don't care, then fine but I think people care.

[bush_cheney2004]

They could do this with the budgets that they have now. As has been pointed out by others, they already have data that is cleared for public consumption they could just publish that.

But that still takes resources that divert funding from another service. There is no free lunch. Those who really want such real time data know how to request it in a desired format and actually pay for it.

No hurry - except that people have been talking about this for years (including the US president and UK prime minister) and the mountain hasn't started to move yet.

Then how important can it be? There are other more important, pressing matters.

They expect a wait. How long ? 1 hr ? 6 hrs ? What's acceptable ? If we don't care, then fine but I think people care.

What are they gonna do...walk out and wait in an ER with an unknown wait time as well? People bitch about their personal experiences over reported metrics with averages. Some days you wait a long time...others ya don't. Even if you had data that supported expanding ER capacity, few would want to pay for it if it means losing something else.

[Michael Hardner]

But that still takes resources that divert funding from another service. There is no free lunch. Those who really want such real time data know how to request it in a desired format and actually pay for it.

The public needs to know it though, and you can't expect the public to do that much - even a public that is curious.

Then how important can it be? There are other more important, pressing matters.

At the root of all of our problems now is communication, and the lack thereof. People make uninformed choices, and the debate (as we see on MLW) ends up being about political identity, not facts.

What are they gonna do...walk out and wait in an ER with an unknown wait time as well? People bitch about their personal experiences over reported metrics with averages. Some days you wait a long time...others ya don't. Even if you had data that supported expanding ER capacity, few would want to pay for it if it means losing something else.

No - they're going to embarrass those who are responsible for delivering services, and there will be an improvement. As for costs, that needs to be part of the discussion too. It's too easy to paper over mistakes when nobody is watching.

[bush_cheney2004]

The public needs to know it though, and you can't expect the public to do that much - even a public that is curious.

But they do...if you want data smarter, faster, and in a certain format you pay for it. Otherwise wait in line with the rest of the unwashed masses.

At the root of all of our problems now is communication, and the lack thereof. People make uninformed choices, and the debate (as we see on MLW) ends up being about political identity, not facts.

Now you're into ideology, which is an altogether different matter. Data can't vote.

No - they're going to embarrass those who are responsible for delivering services, and there will be an improvement. As for costs, that needs to be part of the discussion too. It's too easy to paper over mistakes when nobody is watching.

Do you think ER staff are purposely not more responsive just for kicks? Fundamentally, as discussed many times, universal access in Canada means there will be more waiting for scarce resources. Reporting that data is fine, but that is not the primary mission.

[dre]

But that still takes resources that divert funding from another service. There is no free lunch. Those who really want such real time data know how to request it in a desired format and actually pay for it.

Actually they would SAVE money and free up funds for other services. The current system the FOI act runs on is the very most expensive way it can be done. Each request is manually processed and you can have duplicate requests against the same data.

Just classify what you have grounds to classify and put the rest online.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually they would SAVE money and free up funds for other services. The current system the FOI act runs on is the very most expensive way it can be done. Each request is manually processed and you can have duplicate requests against the same data.

This according to law, not the keepers of the data.

Just classify what you have grounds to classify and put the rest online.

Still costs extra to scrub private data.

Edited November 8, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Still costs extra to scrub private data.

It's not private data though - it's released now, albeit in a hidden and sneaky way.

[Michael Hardner]

But they do...if you want data smarter, faster, and in a certain format you pay for it. Otherwise wait in line with the rest of the unwashed masses.

Publishing raw data should cost a pittance. If it doesn't, then that is a sign in itself that the organizations move as dinosaurs did.

Now you're into ideology, which is an altogether different matter. Data can't vote.

No, but people can - regardless of ideology - and they don't have the information they need to judge the results.

Do you think ER staff are purposely not more responsive just for kicks? Fundamentally, as discussed many times, universal access in Canada means there will be more waiting for scarce resources. Reporting that data is fine, but that is not the primary mission.

This isn't about staff, it's about overall performance and management. Not the primary mission ? It's not even low priority. But maybe not for long: a politician I have loathed for a long time is taking up my cause.

The sentiment that "government knows what its doing" has always been more of a Canadian trait than an American one. You've been on MLW too long - you are growing beaver teeth. It's time to move up here.

[Shwa]

No, I don't.

Qualified on what premise? Your personal feelings?

[bush_cheney2004]

....This isn't about staff, it's about overall performance and management. Not the primary mission ? It's not even low priority. But maybe not for long: a politician I have loathed for a long time is taking up my cause.

Government performance is an oxymoron.

[Shwa]

Just classify what you have grounds to classify and put the rest online.

Which is Gov 2.0 isn't it? I am sure you are aware of Shared Services Canada, one of initiatives with a goal of consolidating data centres and server farms. That will go towards Gov 2.0. Then there are the billion dollar hardware and infrastructure renewals. It is not like the government can go into TigerDirect and start filling up the cart.

Secondary to all this is the sheer amount of data to be classified, which you yourself agree is an important component. So who reviews and classifies it all? A very impotant billion dollar question.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seriously...look was an IT joke Canada made its Gun Registry. It is still taught in project manager courses as one stop shopping for everything that can go wrong!

WB

Edited November 8, 2011 by bush_cheney2004