MCC has kindly set up a server: "Action-Officers-ICEIMT" .
-I suggest that this server be used for messages and information related to the specific issues of next actions. Please use the "All-ICEIMT" (or other, future addresses) for traffic which is not directly related to this mission.
-There are a large and diverse number of recommendations. I expect that a substantial amount of reprioritizing will be done on the fly. And I also expect the environment to be very dynamic. (In the US, roles and plans related to EI are still evolving.) Therefore, I solicite your guidance in keeping the vision coherent and appropriate to the opportunities. It carries much greater weight if the EI "vision" for action is jointly shared by the experts in the field. The purpose of this account is to provide the channel for maintaining the plan.
-A first request: Please participate. If the email server is not convenient, then email me directly, FAX (804/721-0150), or phone (804/426-6704). (These numbers are both office and home.) As I said, I believe that we can add both value and "policital" weight to the next actions through collaborating.
-A second request: Each of us is doing something worthwhile, and naturally we would like to see it highlighted. But please do not use this server for progress reports on your work, arguements for your approach over another, etc. Other media exist to support those dialogs. I hope that with your cooperation this server will be very mission-aware.
++++++++++++
My own energies this summer are being applied toward two of the recommendations from the group:
1. There must be a "Plan". We know that EI is important, but we also know that it (by definition) involves multiple, uncoordinated agents and disciplines. This is both the case in application of EI (in an enterprise) and in action to improve EI (through knowledge and products). To support the latter, we need better definition of who needs to do what and why. Aditionally we need better insighhow these elements cohere with each other and with objectives of the (government and corporate) sponsors.
I a working to create a group to makeess in this regard. At this moment, as US Action Officer, I can only address the facets of the plan of interest to US corporations and government agents. Your input will go directly to this group if it comes about.
2. There must be "Pilots". I continue to be a firm believer in the importance of pilots. The term in the present context does not mean experiments or demonstrations. Rather I mean situations in real industrial applications where application of the EI plan (and associated processes) adds value to an enterprise in some way. This model of a pilot presumes that an "EI" requirement exists, and has already been identified and resourced. Action will be taken (by the enterprise) regardless of whether there is a plan or EI agents. What is added is the "plan" and actions by EI agents. The actions, of course may be a diverse mix of processes (R&D, precompetitive forums, metrics and standards services...)
the details of which depend on the situation. Funding for the major work of the pilot will come from the enterprise itself, and will be expended (overall) as it independently determines. Funding for the new EI processes which add value and lower risk (the precompetitive elements of the pilot) will represent presumably "new" funding.
This scenario assumes that pilot opportunities exist. I will be spending some time looking for these opportunities, and rationalizing them against the "plan". My scope is pilots in the US Defense Industrial Base, those in the US Commercial Industrial Base, and those which involve both US and EC elements. Ideal opportunities will span multiple of these categories. I seek your suggestions on appropriate opportunities.
-Ted Goranson