Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jan 16, 2010
I think that the game simulation approach will be a great bridge to train power system operators. As a response to "how do you train old dogs new tricks, so that they can gain the same gut understanding of the latest rules and technologies?," maybe part of the problem is the old dogs are just unable to unlearn the old tricks needed for the smart grid to be successful. The games will be great to train new dogs new tricks.
However, there is also an even more important source of opportunity, which is to restructure the power industry to reduce its complexity. I anticipate that the architecting and the game approaches will mutually reinforce each to address the huge complexity.
As you might have inferred, you have written a very interesting post from the systems architecture point of view. When you write about the "wrong decision-making," you should also signal a wrong restructuring decision made in the 1992 federal Energy Policy Act, which enables you to write also that "Much the same can be said for the power grid crash that took down a large swath of the Northeast in August 2003."
While writing "The emerging smart grid is supposed to make our power system more reliable," you may add that EPAct's Open Transmission Access mistaken decision as an important source of your statement that "The bad news is that it also will add complexity to North America's already byzantine power machine." There are decisions that only socio technical systems architects should make, that were made under the political process guided by the prevailing style of management. In order for the taxpayer to get the benefit of the large investment, I suggest taking a hard look at the EWPC article "A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management, which can be read at the hyperlink http://bit.ly/8xQmIz
However, there is also an even more important source of opportunity, which is to restructure the power industry to reduce its complexity. I anticipate that the architecting and the game approaches will mutually reinforce each to address the huge complexity.
As you might have inferred, you have written a very interesting post from the systems architecture point of view. When you write about the "wrong decision-making," you should also signal a wrong restructuring decision made in the 1992 federal Energy Policy Act, which enables you to write also that "Much the same can be said for the power grid crash that took down a large swath of the Northeast in August 2003."
While writing "The emerging smart grid is supposed to make our power system more reliable," you may add that EPAct's Open Transmission Access mistaken decision as an important source of your statement that "The bad news is that it also will add complexity to North America's already byzantine power machine." There are decisions that only socio technical systems architects should make, that were made under the political process guided by the prevailing style of management. In order for the taxpayer to get the benefit of the large investment, I suggest taking a hard look at the EWPC article "A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management, which can be read at the hyperlink http://bit.ly/8xQmIz
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario