Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ flyer ] on Wednesday 07 March 2007 08:33 \__
>
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:14:14 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>>
>>>Microsoft in the NHS
>>>
>>>,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Microsoft is one of the key technology firms in the £6.2 billion NHS
>>>| IT programme. It is working particularly closely with iSOFT...
>>>`----
>>>
>>>http://www.e-health-insider.com/comment_and_analysis/index.cfm?ID=69
>>>
>>>
>>>CfH refutes computer failure claims
>>>
>>>,----[ Quote ]
>>>| "Very often they are not major incidents as such, but could be caused
>>>| when a patient administration system is running slow or there may be
>>>| problems with the local network. The severity level is attributed by the
>>>| user and this is subsequently very often down graded or amended."
>>>|
>>>| Many of the incidents that have been reported by CfH include failure of
>>>| the systems used by surgeons to see X-ray pictures on a computer screen
>>>| in wards and operating theatres. On some occasions the system is believed
>>>| to have crashed during an operation, forcing surgeons to suspend the
>>>| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>| procedure while a hard copy of the X-ray is found.
>>>`----
>>>
>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/19/cfh_defends_itself/
>>>
>>>
>>>Failed NHS project cost $12 billion [Edit: make that 16]
>>>
>>>http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/item.cfm?ID=700
>>
>> I guess the talk about Red Hat being in trouble was a bit overstated.
>
> The same analyst who got it all started gave them a recommendation a few
> months afterwards. It's like Russian Roulette, played by a bunch of people
> in suits. If they guess correctly, they strut like a peacock. When they get
> things wrong -- which lack of technical, as opposed to financial knowledge
> can do -- they go hide under a rock.
I don't think that analysts care all that much about where the funding
comes from, it's just a job from their point of view, and they'll do
what they're paid to do. One of the major mistakes people make when
using analysts is to assume that they're magically better informed or
more intelligent than internal people. This is, generally, not correct.
Clearly they will be high flyers, but then probably so are the people
who deal with them, too. The important issue to note is that they do
what you pay them to do, so if you ask them to give you a plan to
implement a new set of computing systems across the NHS, they'll give
you one. It doesn't mean that it's likely to be a success, indeed,
government-funded and managed IT programmes usually fail. Not because
the initial design was right or wrong, more probably, because the whole
concept was fundamentally flawed.
One thing anyone who's ever been involved in any engineering activity
knows, change as little as you can each step in evolving a system, just
like when climbing a rock, you move as small a gap as you reasonably
can, avoiding trying to overreach. Just like a good racing driver will
move the vehicle with smooth steady change rather than the kind of jerky
"throw it around" which looks great in tv care chases, but actually
doesn't work very well.
Of course, bringing the analysts in a second time is no more likely to
be helpful than the first, unless you know /why/ you've done it, and
what you expect to get from it.
>
> Regarding my last remark on impact, now it's C|Net...
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6164879.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news
>
> Let's see if COLA's efforts reach the BBC, CNN and maybe even Faux...
>
I'm sure it'll happen!
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
