A sure way NOT to improve technology in the Register of Deed's office...
Use Guilford County Information Services (IS) Department on the back end of technology projects.
Example: My opponent ignored Information Services advice and made a unilateral decision 2 years ago to use “snap servers” for information storage through a number of applications.
Result: Snap servers were not dependable. When system was down, it was down for extended time. Complaints resulted. IS had to ultimately commit time and resources to fix this bad judgment and put them on the county's SAN (Storage Access Network).
Alternative: I will listen and work together with IS to improve technology. I'll develop a process to avoid unilateral decisions that adversely impact technology enhancement in the Register of Deeds office.
Example: My opponent ignored Information Services advice and made a unilateral decision 2 years ago to use “snap servers” for information storage through a number of applications.
Result: Snap servers were not dependable. When system was down, it was down for extended time. Complaints resulted. IS had to ultimately commit time and resources to fix this bad judgment and put them on the county's SAN (Storage Access Network).
Alternative: I will listen and work together with IS to improve technology. I'll develop a process to avoid unilateral decisions that adversely impact technology enhancement in the Register of Deeds office.
14 Comments:
What was Information Services' advice?
By
Anonymous, at 7:02 PM
Basically, not a good idea....
By
Jeff L. Thigpen, at 7:14 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 7:18 AM
Why?
By
Anonymous, at 11:04 AM
Why? I believe the management/leadership style to this storage space issue was autocratic, did not value advice, and keep an eye on the longer term solution. The result was a shortsighted solution "snap servers" to a larger storage space issue. IS had to end up intervening anyway, which I would suspect they thought would happen as a result of that decision.
That leads me to the initial answer to your question- it was a bad idea in my opinion.
By
Jeff L. Thigpen, at 12:50 PM
Why do you remove reader's comments?
By
Anonymous, at 6:14 PM
I acidentally hit anonymous key on my response posting and I withdrew the comment.
By
Jeff L. Thigpen, at 7:45 AM
Or in another case I mispelled a word--like "accidentally"....
By
Jeff L. Thigpen, at 7:47 AM
I'm a Sys Admin for a large company and I can attest that Snap Servers do indeed suck, lack recoverable redundancy, and are usually purchased by companys (or municipalities) trying to pinch a penny. I know of several that have been thrown in the dumpster by many corporations who tried them out.
By
Anonymous, at 3:55 PM
If elected, I'll have a committee of users and folks who have tech. skills. I might need your help.
haha. Take care.
By
Jeff L. Thigpen, at 8:05 PM
Snap Servers not allow for redundancy, (either by RAID or Tape methods) but make it much easier to setup this off site, as it is a modular appliance giving even greater security. Just give it an Internet connection and configuration. As a Systems Administrator myself, I use them for many different applications. They are affordable, scalcable and offer redundancy.
Jeff, you have yet to state what IS's advice was in the first place. You spoke all around it when asked, but did not answer. "Basically not a good idea.." does not tell us what they thought the Deed's office should have done.
By
Anonymous, at 8:54 PM
Last post should of read:
Snap Servers not ONLY allow for redundancy, (either by RAID or Tape methods) but make it much easier to setup this off site, as it is a modular appliance giving even greater security. Just give it an Internet connection and configuration. As a Systems Administrator myself, I use them for many different applications. They are affordable, scalcable and offer redundancy.
Jeff, you have yet to state what IS's advice was in the first place. You spoke all around it when asked, but did not answer. "Basically not a good idea.." does not tell us what they thought the Deed's office should have done.
By
Anonymous, at 8:55 PM
Direct answer: Basically, a bad idea.
Alternatives: #1-Choose snap servers after rec. not to use them. #2- Do not choose snap server after rec. not to use them. #3- sit down, work together, and figure out an alternative together.
I may be wrong, but I don't think #3 really happened so I don't know of alternative solutions discussed. We can only speculate. (And that's not IS fault).
Do you think it was a great idea to use snap servers (and I see you are partial to them) after an advisement not to (even though you are still unclear on all discussion) and we are clear that the result was IS having to put more time, manpower, and pursue an alternate approach putting storage on their SAN after that the current Register of Deeds decision?
By
Jeff L. Thigpen, at 8:58 AM
Oh yeah, I'll make the same offer I made to the other anonymous comment--I'll have a committee of folks to look at stuff like this and give recommendations. You are welcome to come and take part although I disagree with you on snap servers.
By
Jeff L. Thigpen, at 9:04 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home