5 ms·

What the government really needs to do is adopt newer software that will allow for better tracking of what needs repairs, what has been repaired, when something

What the government really needs to do is adopt newer software that will allow for better tracking of what needs repairs, what has been repaired, when something was last inspected, what needs inspection, and repair reporting tools. They should also adopt software that would allow them to better schedule all these repairs efficiently and in a timely matter. All this software should have contractor bidding platform integrated into it and also be integrated with scheduled utility repairs. This software can be used to anticipate budgets since you would know what upcoming repairs and inspections are needed. It would also prevent the situation where a city finally paves a nice new road after 15 years of potholes and then 2 weeks after completion the gas companies come in and tear up the road to do their work and do a shitty job patching the road back up so you're left with potholes again within a year, all thanks to poor communication. I know a few cities have adopted apps that allow residents to report needed repairs and they've been working great, both with upkeep and cost savings. That should really be proof of concept enough to make the needed changes, but I suspect there will be a long pause to the politicians can give their friends enough time to make a similar knockoff product and grant them an over-priced contact.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> What the government really needs to do is adopt newer software that will allow for better tracking of what needs repairs, what has been repaired, when something was last inspected, what needs inspection, and repair reporting tools. May I ask what the point of that would be? It's not like figuring out what's broken is a hard task. This sounds like it would drive up infrastructure cost even more than it already is.
- losteric 11y ago
  That's like saying the software world don't need issue trackers/scrum boards/todo lists because it's easy for devs to figure out bugs... City projects operate at scales beyond most companies... Coordination is kinda important for a decentralized organization running multiple billion dollar projects that impact thousands upon thousands of shareholders and consumers.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    Managing these kinds of projects doesn't need sophisticated software (not that software is a bad thing, in itself). It needs competent managers. Most city managers are political appointments, selected to meet some arbitrary diversity quotas, etc. and are not the most competent person available (often far from it).
    - DrScump 11y ago
      <Managing these kinds of projects doesn't need sophisticated software (not that software is a bad thing, in itself). It needs competent managers.> Indeed. California state and local governments, for example, are notoriously horrible at large software system procurement and installation, routinely paying full retail for unsuitable new infrastructure that never works and is tossed out completely, with the procurement process restarted from scratch by the next appointee(s). Only some of these cases are reported about in the media with any degree of scope or accuracy.
    - losteric 11y ago
      It's a little of A and a little of B... We need competent people to manage the system, but we also need systems that give greater transparency into the state of the city. As the parent poster pointed out, it's pretty common for low-level managers not to know about overlapping work in other departments... or for higher level managers to get data that's been sanitized by several levels of management. Even better would be giving citizens access to at least some of the data, making sure the right decisions are being made.
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    > That's like saying the software world don't need issue trackers/scrum boards/todo lists because it's easy for devs to figure out bugs... I am not familiar with how infrastructure is managed in the states but over here responsibilities for infrastructure is generally given to specific departments and they themselves generally have an understanding and a system to manage that. The idea that you can roll in their and introduce new software to improve that management is naive at best and dangerous at worst. The main problem infrastructure has in the states is that no maintenance is performed until it's completely broken and then it comes in very expensive. Also there is just too much decentralisation to maintain a lot of the infrastructure there.
- vlehto 11y ago
  I've been in construction and it's surprisingly common that one company tears street up for sewers and then patch it up. Then a week later, another subcontractor tears up the exact same spot for gas line repair. Both instances scheduled months in advance. I don't know if you really need software for it. And maybe hydraulic excavators are just too cheap for anybody to mind stuff like this. EDIT: even more common is this "oh this gas line looks really corroded. But I guess we just throw dirt on it as we finish."
chiph 11y ago
Or assign teams of workers to a geographic area, and empower them to make any repairs needed in it. The supervisor drives the roads, takes notes on what needs work, and schedules the team to take care of it.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago

> What the government really needs to do is adopt newer software that will allow for better tracking of what needs repairs, what has been repaired, when something was last inspected, what needs inspection, and repair reporting tools. May I ask what the point of that would be? It's not like figuring out what's broken is a hard task. This sounds like it would drive up infrastructure cost even more than it already is.

losteric 11y ago
That's like saying the software world don't need issue trackers/scrum boards/todo lists because it's easy for devs to figure out bugs... City projects operate at scales beyond most companies... Coordination is kinda important for a decentralized organization running multiple billion dollar projects that impact thousands upon thousands of shareholders and consumers.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Managing these kinds of projects doesn't need sophisticated software (not that software is a bad thing, in itself). It needs competent managers. Most city managers are political appointments, selected to meet some arbitrary diversity quotas, etc. and are not the most competent person available (often far from it).
  - DrScump 11y ago
    <Managing these kinds of projects doesn't need sophisticated software (not that software is a bad thing, in itself). It needs competent managers.> Indeed. California state and local governments, for example, are notoriously horrible at large software system procurement and installation, routinely paying full retail for unsuitable new infrastructure that never works and is tossed out completely, with the procurement process restarted from scratch by the next appointee(s). Only some of these cases are reported about in the media with any degree of scope or accuracy.
  - losteric 11y ago
    It's a little of A and a little of B... We need competent people to manage the system, but we also need systems that give greater transparency into the state of the city. As the parent poster pointed out, it's pretty common for low-level managers not to know about overlapping work in other departments... or for higher level managers to get data that's been sanitized by several levels of management. Even better would be giving citizens access to at least some of the data, making sure the right decisions are being made.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  > That's like saying the software world don't need issue trackers/scrum boards/todo lists because it's easy for devs to figure out bugs... I am not familiar with how infrastructure is managed in the states but over here responsibilities for infrastructure is generally given to specific departments and they themselves generally have an understanding and a system to manage that. The idea that you can roll in their and introduce new software to improve that management is naive at best and dangerous at worst. The main problem infrastructure has in the states is that no maintenance is performed until it's completely broken and then it comes in very expensive. Also there is just too much decentralisation to maintain a lot of the infrastructure there.
vlehto 11y ago
I've been in construction and it's surprisingly common that one company tears street up for sewers and then patch it up. Then a week later, another subcontractor tears up the exact same spot for gas line repair. Both instances scheduled months in advance. I don't know if you really need software for it. And maybe hydraulic excavators are just too cheap for anybody to mind stuff like this. EDIT: even more common is this "oh this gas line looks really corroded. But I guess we just throw dirt on it as we finish."

chiph 11y ago

Or assign teams of workers to a geographic area, and empower them to make any repairs needed in it. The supervisor drives the roads, takes notes on what needs work, and schedules the team to take care of it.