Ian Cheong wrote: > At 8:28 am +1000 15/8/06, Tim Churches wrote: >> Geoff Sayer wrote: >>> Hi Jon >>> >>> So what have you tried so far as a reason for SCT? >>> >>> What was the response? >> >> It is a bootsrapping problem - it is hard for potential users to >> perceive the benefits without some concrete examples of how SCT might be >> deployed and used, and it is hard to create such examples without some >> enthusiasm from potential users. >> >> The solution is to start slowly > [...] > > All new ventures have bootstrapping problems. > > The solution is to minimise risk and know when to pull the plug. Within > the context of a business plan, one should set interim milestones of > progress against which to assess likelihood of success. Given than more > than 90% of new ventures fail, plug pulling is a particularly important > skill.
Agreed, although introducing SCT to the Australian health care sector is not quite the same as starting up a new cafe or restaurant (90% of which probably do fail). also, my understanding is that now that the SCT license has been signed, it is a sunk cost for the next five years - the question then will be whether to renew the national license in 2011 (and even if NEHTA or whoever doesn't renew, we can all keep using SCT in perpetuity, we just don't get updates from the US). > Starting slowly is what one does with a small amount of seed funding. > (probably <$20k) I agree that seed funding and pilot or demonstration projects are needed, but projects in the $20k range are way too little given the time pressures you mention to produce results. rather larger investment in the development of SCT interfaces is needed first up. When such interfaces are ready - and if paid for by public funds, they *must* be open sourced - then $20k demonstration grants to practices to start trialling them might be in order, although larger coordinated studies would be better. > When one invests a seven digit sum of public money, the clock is running > to demonstrate effectiveness within a political cycle. Does that also apply to the nine-digit sum of public money invested in HealthConnect/MediConnect? I suppose it does, since these programmes have undergone a very quiet involution some two electoral cycles are their inception. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
