The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cannot reveal weather forecasts from a particularly accurate hurricane prediction model to the public that pays for the American government agency – because of a deal with a private insurance risk firm.
The model at issue is called the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP) Corrected Consensus Approach (HCCA). In 2023, it was deemed in a National Hurricane Center (NHC) report [PDF] to be one of the two “best performers,” the other being a model called IVCN (Intensity Variable Consensus).
2020 contract between NOAA and RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Washington Post, requires NOAA to keep HCCA forecasts – which incorporate a proprietary technique from RenaissanceRe – secret for five years.
Well I can’t say how it works with software since my experience is only with hardware, but that’s not the way the government usually receives a product.
Usually the government puts out a Request for Proposal (RFP). Companies will respond with a proposal and the government chooses one. The product is developed and ultimately delivered to the government for it to use as it sees fit. If new technology is created during the development, the company providing the product can usually patent that technology.
It’s possible other models for this exist, but I’m not aware of any product the defense contractor I worked for ever telling the government how or where to use a product. On the other hand, I’m not aware of the government ever wanting to expose that knowledge either. Usually it’s the other way around. So it would be a non-issue.
But to me it makes no sense that the RESULTS of the model can’t be shared. The real important stuff is HOW the model works. I admit I did not read the article, only the piece at the bottom. Please disregard if this is based on false information.
In what you’re describing, the government pays for the software, then uses the software as they see fit. Probably includes service contracts that last for a year or so past dev completion.
Well, according to the Washington Post article, the government did not provide compensation for this. It seemed to me like this company developed this on its own and is allowing the government to use it to help people, but just wants 5 years of profiting off this before it goes public and is used by other private for profit weather companies.
Again, I’m not saying this is great, but the amount of rage in the comment section does not match what is actually happening.
All I said was that it was not the normal way. I’m not paying judgement either way.
Right, it just seems like when you say, “that’s not the way the government usually receives a product”, that you are implying there’s something wrong with the way they received this product.
It just seems so unrelated to what you deal with (scientific studies vs software products) that it isn’t even worth mentioning.