April 12 2007
Version 7
slightly revised in November 2009
Ownership
by the business sector over IT
procurement
has been made a matter of law due to the recent expenditure
of 338
billions of dollars on the single federal program called e-Gov.
Many
benefits exist if the Resilience Project
finds its required first year budget of 6.8 billion dollars.
Table of Contents
(hyper linked)
Additional supporting
materials [3]
The Resilience Project:
Preamble
Personal knowledge editors and
knowledge operating systems
(new - 4/15/07)
Simplification of computer interfaces
Why usability matters in software
products
Benefits
to be expected from the Resilience Project's work
Introduction to the New Science
Request
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
Focus on Resilience after Disaster
Political Justification for Federal
Involvement
Computational Models of Resilience
Appendix A: First-school/second-school
controversy
Appendix
B: Category and Perception
Appendix
C: The Aspects Framework
Appendix D: International Standard
"U.S.
federal investments
in government IT spending increased steadily from approximately 36.4
billion
dollars in 2001 to 59.3 billion in 2004.
According to OMB estimates, eighty percent of this spending is
for
consultants. Technical expertise and
human capital in the federal government is being greatly weakened as a
result
of the "competitive outsourcing" policy and lack of human capital
with IT expertise in the federal government."
K.
E. Fountain,
"Prospects for the Virtual State" (2004)
Written
in 2005 and revised in November 2009, the Resilience Project White
Paper sought to renew information
science by coordinating broad scale collaboration amongst scholars,
business
leaders, innovators, democratic institutions and international agencies. The collaboration was to be about how a Bridge to
the Future might be developed using a simplification of over
complicated IT paradigms and standards. As a consequent of this
renewal, we sought to
make it far easier for each individual human to know oneself. As
knowledge of self developed, we imagined that many individuals would
choose to develop small sustainable
communities. These communities would focus on good living in a
harmonic balance with the Earth. Is this such a stretch? Many feel that
the answer is no, it is not a stretch.
In the eight years 2000-2008 the U. S. government essentially became an
instrument of the corporate business sector. Now in 2010, as we
push in the opposite direction, we are faced with a system of systems
collapse. The most obvious system collapse is the financial
system, but this system is part of other systems that are also in
collapse. The rebuilding process should take into account some
new principles, principles developed from a clear perception about why
the systems of systems collapse is occurring. Central to all of
this are the questions about ownership.
The lesson learned is that government and business should be clearly
separated and that government at all times should provide a complete
and public transparency on business processes. This separation
should then allow free market entrepreneurship to take a strong hand in
driving the U. S., and world, economy. Private entrepreneurship
could then lead the necessary decentralization of economies and
do so without violating the individual human and the environment.
Again we ask the practical question. Might
we create a better private sector by creating a better public
sector? By creating a better public sector might
we push those things that should be reserved to free
market entrepreneurship out away from the government influence, while
reserving those things that should be public as part of a government
service?
The bold proposal might arise from the national debate over health
care. Government should not be in the business of providing
health care
services. On the other hand there should be only government health care
insurance system. There should be a single payer. To make
this work the business system that provides health care should be
without government participation, except as the payer.
Transparency would be provided over outcomes and individual entrepreneurship
encouraged through a free market. Choice would evolve to individual
humans and doctors rather than committees. But
if attempted, how is such a separation between government and the entrepreneurship
sector to be created and maintained? We conjecture that the
necessary element is information transparency and interoperability of
data transfer within a digital communication medium. We do not
suggest that an absolute separation is possible, only that the nature
of private enterprise be questioned at least as deeply as those who are
purist about this suggest that the public sector can do no good.
continued . . .