Maps 2.0

This is a quick summary of what we’re hoping to achieve over the next several weeks, based on our current working drafts.

The goal

Ongoing blog posts and direct reports to HumaniNet’s field partners about promising tech responses to the January 12 Haiti earthquake that can help our field partners be more effective on the ground.

Strategies

• Sort through all of the tech activity responding to the Haiti earthquake
• Assess tools/resources/systems according to a standard list of criteria
• Share our results with our field partners

Who we are trying to help (target audience)

HumaniNet Field Partners and other NGOS on the ground (or preparing to deploy soon) who will be involved 10 days to multiple years after the disaster, i.e. well beyond the initial crisis phase.

Inputs

• Needs of NGOs on the ground, and prepping to deploy (determines our research priorities)
• Lessons learned from Maps 2.0 interviews in 2008, simulation support in 2008-2009
• Research leads via blogs, Twitter, emails, personal research

Outputs and Deliverables

• Twitter: raw-ish research, ideas, conversations and promising leads
• Maps 2.0 site: blog posts about individual tools/resources/solutions as we complete them, maybe later posts with updates
• Maps 2.0 site: category round-up pages that point to the individual posts
• Direct reports to field partners and other NGOs that express interest.

Evaluation Criteria

General info we need for all tech we assess:

• How it works (brief description)
• Category (see below)
• Who created it
• Who would use it
• Who benefits from it

HumaniNet’s Big Five Criteria

See this page for background.

1. Provides a capability humanitarian organizations need

2. Potential for widespread use

3. Available to all humanitarian organizations in sufficient quantities

4. Operationally ready for field use

5. Clearly stated costs, valuable to organizations of all sizes

And two new ones:

6. Sustainable

7. Adaptable for Local Use

Security features/concerns

• Authentication? What method?
• Encryption
• – in transit
• – in storage
• – in memory

• Role-based access control?
• Selective sharing between organizations and agencies
• Security audited by a third-party?
• Impact of security protocols on use (i.e. does it get in the way?)

Other Considerations

• Ease-of-use/usability

• How old is it?
• Actively maintained?
• Availability of Support?
• Long-term relevance

• Documentation

• Technical requirements
• Connectivity/bandwidth requirements
• Can it be used offline? With what limitations?
• Reliability
• Interoperability

• Data sources and input formats
• Output formats (KML, CSV, SHP, GeoRSS, PDF, etc.)
• Data portability (Can you get data in and out in standard formats?)

• Data searching and filtering
• Personalized, criteria-based data streams/feeds
• Event alerting via email/SMS

• Costs throughout lifecycle (Startup, operation, retirement and export)
• License fees (or FLOSS aka open source)
• Hardware implementation costs

• Skills needed to implement
• Skills needed for use
• Skills needed for administration and maintenance
• Learning curve for implementation, use and maintenance

Not all criteria will apply to everything we evaluate. Use N/A and Unknown as needed.

Research Categories

• Imagery Sources
• Map sources
• Data sources
• Data collection (includes geo-coding tools/practices?)
• Data analysis
• People-Finding
• Damage assessments
• Operational awareness
• Transportation
• Logistics/Distribution
• Language Tools
• Remote tech support

Additional categories will be added as needed.

If you have any suggestions of additions or modifications, please let me know by emailing maps2project@gmail.com.