The video on the DisasterTech presentation by Mikel Maron and Jesse Robins at Where 2.0 is an interesting insight into Innovation in Disaster Response. Also interesting is the issues mentioned of getting geeky innovations into mainstream disaster-relief operations, or, as they say, making technology count. Absolutely true: but as Paul Currion mentions, this factor must and should be taken into mind as well: there are many technological events out there, but the dots should be connected. This I guess is true for many technologies, where the bigger players who have more visibility are more successful. I think Mikel’s comment on the need for a Champion for technological innovation stands true here - the need for someone to adapt the technology, which in turn brings a lot of visibility to it. Let me for instance take Sahana: since Sahana is being used widely in many disaster deployments, it in turn has paved the way for newer technology integrated into it to work in real-world scenarios.

It would be interesting to see how the newer features of Sahana, such as GIS, AJAXified custom reports, Webservices, SMS Messaging and the likes are used in future deployments, in real world scenarios. Crisis response is such that technology MUST work: and a lot of testing is needed to test out the practicality of these applications to make them ready for potential deployment usage. But that in turn brings us to the critical question: is there a line that should be drawn in terms of practicality vs. cutting-edge technology for disaster response technology? In my opinion, Sahana is well balanced now - its got the right mix of practical applications, along with innovative technological solutions: and there are newer , much needed features being built that are coming soon. But will Sahana become too technologically bloated some-day where technology might hinder deployment? Scary thought, but I guess that can be true, given the criticality of the domain.