Google+ Followers

Saturday, May 28, 2016

The GOP platform, what's in it?

The GOP platform, what's in it? The answer is that is is still a piece of work in progress. It is way behind schedule.

Some websites offer candidate comparisons and analysis of their views by labeling their orientation as being more or less liberal or conservative on general issues. This analyst finds them not useful. It is because such labeling fails to get at the essential substance. To generalize about topic categories is a lame and deficient approach that makes voters lazy and candidates inadequate in answering how they intend to produce necessary outcomes.

Show us the platforms and manifestos in such a way that they address how a presidential candidate will optimize return on national resources. Tell the American public how the candidate will attend to producing essential outcomes.

Candidates should be required to provide verifiable evidence about where they have acquired knowledge, skill, and experience that support their views.

The topic here is about the Republican platform for Election 2016? How different is it from that of 2102? What are the emerging issues and priorities from a GOP perspective?

"Inside Gov" is one example of a website that offers a general comparison by labeling candidates as being liberal or conservative. It isn't particularly informative. See for yourself. 
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40-70/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump

What are America’s essential outcomes?

I wrote an article for the Examiner awhile ago that outlines what I believe are American’s top priorities expressed as essential outcomes. Do you agree or disagree? Do you have some ideas to contribute?

“Motivation behind ‘Outcome-Driven Government’” First of all, the concept of automated government is as old as information technology itself. Application of automation to government has lagged behind automation in business and industry. Why?  
The White House leads e-government 
In information technology terminology, it is because the “control architecture” in government is not as advanced, is more recalcitrant than that employed by profit-driven free enterprise. What is “control architecture”? In the Zachman three-schema architecture model, the control architecture includes the business rules, laws and regulations that constrain enterprise activities that are processes required to produce specific outcomes. In government enterprise in the U.S., the Constitution is the overriding “constraint” that is accompanied by all of the laws and regulations that are passed by Congress. Subsequently, plans, budgets and funding regulate the pace of government enterprise performance in a massively complex system.  
Here is a major problem: Congressional representatives, Senators, the President and members of the executive branch don’t see themselves as government technology masters, or masters of e-government. Since laws and regulations are implemented and managed in an automated environment, don’t you believe that the people producing them (engineering them) would have technical competence to do that? 
Unless if by fortunate accident, they don’t. That is because voters don’t require proper skill, knowledge, and experience on their resumes. The control architecture for government is the essential element for managing the automated regulatory environment that is the product of laws and regulations and subsequent government processes, systems and enabling technology. The outcomes that are required of government include those shown on the list in several slides. (See the images).  
What outcomes do you believe are missing from the list? Every government department, agency and organization is an enabler to performing the work of government defined by processes and legislated by Congress and managed by the President. America has a legacy of bureaucracy that was invented at different times. It is the job of President, collaborating with Congress, to keep the entire system current. It is essential to measure effectiveness by focusing on outcomes. Begin with the top priority outcomes. Suggested here is that we have too many organizations whose outcomes are poorly specified or wrong priorities. Performing a top down audit will determine where government needs to be modernized. A story today talks about “hacking”. 
That seems to be a motivator for the DOD to address outcome-driven government. Whatever motivates them to improve is a fine place to begin. “This overwhelming reaction to rapidly re-equip deployed military personnel for battlefield exigencies in Afghanistan and Iraq has further reinforced the view that an expansive and sustained defense rapid innovation enterprise is an extravagance the nation can ill afford now that active combat operations are drawing to a close. But the real lesson to be learned is that the absence of a consistently applied and commonly construed defense innovation strategy has led to inefficiency, redundancy, and even abuse. The dysfunctional system we have contributes to the mistaken idea that doing things better and faster inevitably costs more and can only be accommodated during periods of budget largesse.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/motivation-behind-outcome-driven-government 
You will not find many of these things addressed in the party platforms with details and metrics.




2 comments:

  1. Do you want politicians to address the essentials, or do you want them to talk about the signs on the bathroom doors?

    ReplyDelete