David More wrote: > What we did in those reports was identify, describe in some detail, place a > priority on > and try to group logically the functions required to best support running a > general > practice.
Reflecting on the this and the other relatively cheap GPCG projects vis-a-vis the fairly large amounts of money spent on HealthConnect over the last 6 or 7 years, without much visible effect, I wonder if GP information systems are not a victim of the Bike Shed Effect? Huh? See http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.html#bikeshed It seems to me that the Bike Shed Effect is actually rather common. For example, the lack of debate over the decision to build a vastly expensive water desalination plant for Sydney versus teh endless debate over whether it is safe to re-use water from the shower to flush your toilet ("grey" water recycling). and on Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:57:13 +1100, Horst Herb wrote: >If you want to end up with a functional computer program, you have to create >specs that lend themselves to implementation in software - and best done in a >way that can create some of the boring software bits automatically from the >specs (e.g. specs in UML). Not just the bird's eye view but the nitty gritty >details. Ah yes, the approach taht was adopted for GNUmed, is that right, Horst? Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
