8 ms·

From the limited context of the article, Clemans sounds very talented and helpful but "blowing up, yelling, and cursing" when someone dismisses the helpfulness

From the limited context of the article, Clemans sounds very talented and helpful but "blowing up, yelling, and cursing" when someone dismisses the helpfulness of a project is not an ideal way to change a culture.

metric10 11y ago
And the reason he blew up was because any changes to the way 911 operators worked had to be approved. Wow. What I can't believe was that he was allowed to resign and wasn't fired on the spot.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Basically. Short of owning my own company, I've never been allowed to make sweeping changes unilaterally. Hell, I have a business partner, so even now I don't get to make changes unilaterally. The first time someone isn't as impressed with this guy as himself, he goes red.
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    You make him sound like a cop.
    - CountSessine 11y ago
      Cops make a living dealing with people with extremely poor impulse control and bad judgement. This sounds like another day at the office at the SPD.
- pascalmemories 11y ago
  You read the story quite differently from me. I don't think he changed how they operated at all. He gave them a program which highlighted the most critical calls for most urgent attention. That's EXACTLY how 911 operators are SUPPOSED to operate. CAD systems are supposed to do that but it can be difficult to properly do that when lots of calls come in - and when a really critical calls does come in, it frequently is reported multiple times leading to duplicates as other operators key it simultaneously. Many CAD systems will not automatically connect them and require intervention. It sounds like metrics like this and others were being used to automatically suggest critical calls. He helped them do their job, in the way they should do their job, but in a way which was efficient and directly led to better, and possibly life-saving, outcomes to residents of Seattle. But you are suggesting he should have been fired ? [edit:spelling]
  - CountSessine 11y ago
    He helped them do their job, in the way they should do their job, but in a way which was efficient and directly led to better, and possibly life-saving, outcomes to residents of Seattle. How did it determine call priority? How did it order priority? How was the ordering presented? Was the computer system itself modified, or was it running on a parallel, out-of-band system? Did the call system computer need to run new, untested and unverified processes? Did the call system computer need new untested dependencies installed? Was the deployment procedure for the new system worked through with IT? Could IT restore a system with the new call prioritization display on it? What are the security boundaries for the new call system with the prioritization display? Is the threat model the same? Has he assembled a threat model? Does he care? Does he know what a threat model is? But you are suggesting he should have been fired ? On the spot.
    - aeorgnoieang 11y ago
      Are all of your questions rhetorical? Or would the answers to them change whether you think Clemans should have been fired on the spot? Would it matter that, as badly as Clemans may have behaved, he was significantly better than the other IT staff that worked in the center? Just based on the post, I don't expect its author to even know enough to ask any of the questions you have. Why are you assuming the worst? Is there anything specific that makes you think Clemans was irresponsible?
      - CountSessine 11y ago
        Are all of your questions rhetorical? Or would the answers to them change whether you think Clemans should have been fired on the spot? If any of those answers were any different than what I expect they are, it would have required the participation of the larger IT apparatus at the SPD. In which case, his boss probably would have been suspended as well. Would it matter that, as badly as Clemans may have behaved, he was significantly better than the other IT staff that worked in the centre? better? That is positively dripping in thoughtless elitism. But for the sake of argument, better than the other IT staff who worked with their superiors to define solutions to requirements rather than railroading their pet ideas through? Better than the other IT staff who understand the extraordinary intolerance the public has for acute and sudden failure in public agencies? If this clueless cowboy had brought the 911 dispatch system down, heads would have rolled. Clemens can waddle off and get a new private sector job, but what about everyone else caught up in the mess? Just based on the post, I don't expect its author to even know enough to ask any of the questions you have. Why are you assuming the worst? Is there anything specific that makes you think Clemans was irresponsible? The hissy-fit he threw when he didn't get his way? Why, based on this article, would you ever give Clemens the benefit of the doubt? Especially when he's pitted against a public servant who has most likely risked his life on more than one occasion in the line of duty?
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  In 2005 I was creating a national 9-1-1 company for VoIP. It's understandable why people would be so conservative given the stakes. (Though sometimes they laughably underestimate the fragility they introduce, like initiatives to hook up every PSAP to the Internet and route calls that way.) One PSAP in particular was very upset with our service. He insisted that we do not connect "Internet calls" to his PSAP, as "there might be viruses or something". Note that this was simply dialing the 10-digit number that's part of the public network - anyone can dial it. Though it's hard to tell from the article if this was really just a procedural issue ("great software, but you must clear it and run through this checklist") or territorial/political.
  - timclemans206 11y ago
    A number of people thought it was important software including the Chief Operating Officer who immediately had it put to use in the Realtime Crime Center. It was the Captain who didn't want to have a checklist. My bosses, bosses, boss at the time tried to get the Captain to agree to a structure that would allow stuff like this to be developed but the captain refused.
    - MichaelGG 11y ago
      Ah. Well that sucks then. Best of luck.
ihsw 11y ago
It seems pretty clear that the captain wasn't dismissing the helpfulness but rather dismissing Clemans' authority to deploy the project. It's a power play, and Clemans' disdain for rigid power structures clearly contributed to the friction between him and the SPD administration. EDIT: the captain's response is not unwarranted at all. Emergency response call centers are a critical public resource and he is ultimately in charge of them.
- btilly 11y ago
  What is worse, it is not even clear that the captain is entirely wrong here. If Clemans screwed up, he had the potential to have 911 calls be routed to /dev/null. If he succeeded, the department became more efficient. However the 911 system is already working "well enough". Therefore in terms of outside perception any win will be small, and disasters could be huge. He is not the one who has been give the authority to make this kind of risk decision. The captain is. If Clemans screwed up, the captain would be the one getting fired. Keeping the captain out of the loop is irresponsible. It doesn't matter that it worked. It doesn't matter how good the system is. You need to work with stakeholders, and not behind their backs. However Clemans seems like the kind of person who can never understand this point.
  - ihsw 11y ago
    Never is a strong word, I think it's too strong. You are absolutely correct that he had no authority to perform modifications to a critical public service, and that his actions bordered on reckless and negligent and that his response to the captain's accusations was cringe-worthy as well as indicative of the ignorance of his actions, but I think it stands to reason that the captain could have handled the situation more diplomatically. Granted, I would probably get into a shouting match with Clemans for what he did (and I'm just another developer), but that hardly justifies barring him from entering the premises until further notice. Clemans' actions can be chalked up to youthful ignorance and exuberance, whereas the captain has no excuse. He is the central source of truth and the ultimate arbiter in the situation, he should know better than to react so aggressively to one of his own staff members.
tonomics 11y ago
I'm not convinced a 'calm and rational conversation' would help either. Seems like his superiors were filled with aggressiveness and testosterone.
- robwilliams 11y ago
  What makes you say that? Clemans sounds like the aggressive one.
  - timclemans 11y ago
    The Chief Information Officer at the time arranged the meeting to put structure around all this app development I was doing for 911: CAD remarks keyword highlighter, instant 911 call history, immediately show call out #s for a shooting etc (so dispatchers aren't leaving their desks to find the numbers in phone books), and TAC channel registration (again so they would leave their desk). It was the Captain that wouldn't go along with the Chief Information Officer was trying to accomplish.

metric10 11y ago

And the reason he blew up was because any changes to the way 911 operators worked had to be approved. Wow. What I can't believe was that he was allowed to resign and wasn't fired on the spot.

themartorana 11y ago
Basically. Short of owning my own company, I've never been allowed to make sweeping changes unilaterally. Hell, I have a business partner, so even now I don't get to make changes unilaterally. The first time someone isn't as impressed with this guy as himself, he goes red.
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  You make him sound like a cop.
  - CountSessine 11y ago
    Cops make a living dealing with people with extremely poor impulse control and bad judgement. This sounds like another day at the office at the SPD.
pascalmemories 11y ago
You read the story quite differently from me. I don't think he changed how they operated at all. He gave them a program which highlighted the most critical calls for most urgent attention. That's EXACTLY how 911 operators are SUPPOSED to operate. CAD systems are supposed to do that but it can be difficult to properly do that when lots of calls come in - and when a really critical calls does come in, it frequently is reported multiple times leading to duplicates as other operators key it simultaneously. Many CAD systems will not automatically connect them and require intervention. It sounds like metrics like this and others were being used to automatically suggest critical calls. He helped them do their job, in the way they should do their job, but in a way which was efficient and directly led to better, and possibly life-saving, outcomes to residents of Seattle. But you are suggesting he should have been fired ? [edit:spelling]
- CountSessine 11y ago
  He helped them do their job, in the way they should do their job, but in a way which was efficient and directly led to better, and possibly life-saving, outcomes to residents of Seattle. How did it determine call priority? How did it order priority? How was the ordering presented? Was the computer system itself modified, or was it running on a parallel, out-of-band system? Did the call system computer need to run new, untested and unverified processes? Did the call system computer need new untested dependencies installed? Was the deployment procedure for the new system worked through with IT? Could IT restore a system with the new call prioritization display on it? What are the security boundaries for the new call system with the prioritization display? Is the threat model the same? Has he assembled a threat model? Does he care? Does he know what a threat model is? But you are suggesting he should have been fired ? On the spot.
  - aeorgnoieang 11y ago
    Are all of your questions rhetorical? Or would the answers to them change whether you think Clemans should have been fired on the spot? Would it matter that, as badly as Clemans may have behaved, he was significantly better than the other IT staff that worked in the center? Just based on the post, I don't expect its author to even know enough to ask any of the questions you have. Why are you assuming the worst? Is there anything specific that makes you think Clemans was irresponsible?
    - CountSessine 11y ago
      Are all of your questions rhetorical? Or would the answers to them change whether you think Clemans should have been fired on the spot? If any of those answers were any different than what I expect they are, it would have required the participation of the larger IT apparatus at the SPD. In which case, his boss probably would have been suspended as well. Would it matter that, as badly as Clemans may have behaved, he was significantly better than the other IT staff that worked in the centre? better? That is positively dripping in thoughtless elitism. But for the sake of argument, better than the other IT staff who worked with their superiors to define solutions to requirements rather than railroading their pet ideas through? Better than the other IT staff who understand the extraordinary intolerance the public has for acute and sudden failure in public agencies? If this clueless cowboy had brought the 911 dispatch system down, heads would have rolled. Clemens can waddle off and get a new private sector job, but what about everyone else caught up in the mess? Just based on the post, I don't expect its author to even know enough to ask any of the questions you have. Why are you assuming the worst? Is there anything specific that makes you think Clemans was irresponsible? The hissy-fit he threw when he didn't get his way? Why, based on this article, would you ever give Clemens the benefit of the doubt? Especially when he's pitted against a public servant who has most likely risked his life on more than one occasion in the line of duty?
MichaelGG 11y ago
In 2005 I was creating a national 9-1-1 company for VoIP. It's understandable why people would be so conservative given the stakes. (Though sometimes they laughably underestimate the fragility they introduce, like initiatives to hook up every PSAP to the Internet and route calls that way.) One PSAP in particular was very upset with our service. He insisted that we do not connect "Internet calls" to his PSAP, as "there might be viruses or something". Note that this was simply dialing the 10-digit number that's part of the public network - anyone can dial it. Though it's hard to tell from the article if this was really just a procedural issue ("great software, but you must clear it and run through this checklist") or territorial/political.
- timclemans206 11y ago
  A number of people thought it was important software including the Chief Operating Officer who immediately had it put to use in the Realtime Crime Center. It was the Captain who didn't want to have a checklist. My bosses, bosses, boss at the time tried to get the Captain to agree to a structure that would allow stuff like this to be developed but the captain refused.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    Ah. Well that sucks then. Best of luck.

ihsw 11y ago

It seems pretty clear that the captain wasn't dismissing the helpfulness but rather dismissing Clemans' authority to deploy the project. It's a power play, and Clemans' disdain for rigid power structures clearly contributed to the friction between him and the SPD administration. EDIT: the captain's response is not unwarranted at all. Emergency response call centers are a critical public resource and he is ultimately in charge of them.

btilly 11y ago
What is worse, it is not even clear that the captain is entirely wrong here. If Clemans screwed up, he had the potential to have 911 calls be routed to /dev/null. If he succeeded, the department became more efficient. However the 911 system is already working "well enough". Therefore in terms of outside perception any win will be small, and disasters could be huge. He is not the one who has been give the authority to make this kind of risk decision. The captain is. If Clemans screwed up, the captain would be the one getting fired. Keeping the captain out of the loop is irresponsible. It doesn't matter that it worked. It doesn't matter how good the system is. You need to work with stakeholders, and not behind their backs. However Clemans seems like the kind of person who can never understand this point.
- ihsw 11y ago
  Never is a strong word, I think it's too strong. You are absolutely correct that he had no authority to perform modifications to a critical public service, and that his actions bordered on reckless and negligent and that his response to the captain's accusations was cringe-worthy as well as indicative of the ignorance of his actions, but I think it stands to reason that the captain could have handled the situation more diplomatically. Granted, I would probably get into a shouting match with Clemans for what he did (and I'm just another developer), but that hardly justifies barring him from entering the premises until further notice. Clemans' actions can be chalked up to youthful ignorance and exuberance, whereas the captain has no excuse. He is the central source of truth and the ultimate arbiter in the situation, he should know better than to react so aggressively to one of his own staff members.

tonomics 11y ago

I'm not convinced a 'calm and rational conversation' would help either. Seems like his superiors were filled with aggressiveness and testosterone.

robwilliams 11y ago
What makes you say that? Clemans sounds like the aggressive one.
- timclemans 11y ago
  The Chief Information Officer at the time arranged the meeting to put structure around all this app development I was doing for 911: CAD remarks keyword highlighter, instant 911 call history, immediately show call out #s for a shooting etc (so dispatchers aren't leaving their desks to find the numbers in phone books), and TAC channel registration (again so they would leave their desk). It was the Captain that wouldn't go along with the Chief Information Officer was trying to accomplish.