Archive for the ‘GIS (Geographic Information Systems)’ Category

David v. Goliath: Specifications and Standards

March 30, 2010


The underdog applies a little friendly guerrilla marketing.

I just put the finishing touches on a press release announcing one of our firm’s clients throwing its hat into the ring as a supporter of the federal government’s Virtual USA program. Writing the release was fraught with memories of one of my other involvements in getting a client’s technology into a government-mandated specification and global standard.

Those memories include traipsing all over the world from one spec meeting to another. Being up most of the night not because of jet lag, but putting the final touches on a specification document, updating a PowerPoint presentation, or lobbying spec leaders in a hotel bar.

The specification subject matter focused on global standards for passenger use of laptops on commercial aircraft. Virtual USA has similar implications, as a program that will standardize agency emergency response databases at all levels, from the local police and fire departments up to the FEMA and Department of Homeland Security level. Both specifications address issues of safety…ways to prevent an exploding laptop battery at 30,000 feet being analogous to emergency first responders having access to national databases via GIS (Geographic Information Systems) mapping software.

Another analog is that both clients are comparatively small fish, and both have IP and products that are (more…)

Code Word “Interoperability:” Danger Will Rogers!

March 13, 2010

It’s Saturday, and I’m preparing for Monday’s conference call with a GIS client. The topic is the government’s Virtual USA (vUSA) initiative, specifically a press release about the client’s mapping software as a viable end-user application in vUSA.

I’m conflicted as to how to counsel my client.

On the one hand, the vUSA information appears to be focused almost exclusively on data interoperability, with limited statements about the app layer (See my comment at Directions Magazine). The Technologies Working Group is working integrating data with different (read “legacy”) applications that agencies already he in place. The apps are going to be open-source, it seems. That’s may not necessarily be good for my client., because it infers the possibility of having to surrender the company’s strong IP.

On the other hand, my firm has considerable domain expertise in specs and standards. Hands on in key WINtel and the Mobile Advisory Council (MAC) specs and standards as players in Marketing SIGs. Our firm was a lead player in drafting government (FAA) specs/standards for mobile device software, hardware, and infrastructure for use on commercial aircraft. I hold 14 patents on those high-tech mobile devices.

In this situation with my client, I feel like the man who knows too much about how government agency specs/standards usually get created. Our firm marketed its mobile device client to success in accepting its interoperability requirements at the standard’s gray cover stage. Over a year and a half, our marketing/PR campaign hobbled the alleged incumbent, paralyzing that company’s already sizeable installed customer base.

Why couldn’t the AEEC (Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee), ARINC (Aeronautical Radio Incorporated), and other agencies accept both companies’ requirements? Because, even though government specs/standards are supposed to be open sourced, and are supposed to allow for “interoperability” performance from more than one vendor, the reality was that the spec process was only to give an 800-pound gorilla exclusive rights to monopolize the commercial aviation industry. We were also able to successfully resolve our client’s potential surrender of its IP rights…a common issue in some agency specs/standards.

By comparison, the firm’s experiences in the high-tech specs/standards bodies were not met with such interoperability issues. Any company, including our client, was able to bring its requirements into the standards. Our firm was able to leverage our client’s alliances that we created with Intel, Microsoft, and IBM to join the client in its government specs battle.

Our client believes in and wants to contribute to the success of the vUSA initiative but, if what that other client experienced happens here, I guess at least this client will have the benefit of how our firm engaged in the art of war with government specs/standards.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

One Editor’s Snooze Is Another’s News

March 10, 2010

By Patrick Potega (CSTO at MarkeTech)

It used to work fine. As far back as 1906, when the first press release was sent along a telegraph wire from a train wreck site to the editorial offices of an East Coast newspaper, communicating with editors was a piece of cake. By the mid-1980’s, the communications infrastructure was a bird’s nest, and the population of editors/journalists was overwhelming…to the point that Regis McKenna declared PR dead. That freaked me out, because I had just launched Video Games Magazine. Fortunately then, as now, no one believed Regis “Himself.” As the editor/publisher, I kept doing the same thing I had been doing every day during my previous decade as a technology-pub editor. Daily, I sorted through press releases, deciding what information my readership should (or shouldn’t) receive.  

In today’s over-connected public relations environment, anyone can self-publish, either as a contributor, or even an e-zine publisher. Online media can structure its content as news only, blogs+news, or even blogs only…and everything in between. I’m glad that I’m not on the publication side anymore. First, I’d be constantly pacing the floor trying to decide who were those people that I could legitimately identify as my “readership.” If I could figure that out with enough specificity, I’d then be getting brain cramps trying to judge what my audience considered news. Being an editor or publisher today must be tough, because many good periodicals and papers have folded. Maybe too many bad calls about what a most amorphous audience wanted to read. (more…)

%d bloggers like this: