Absolutely agree with this - no single company can do everything well - you end up with an application that does everything in a mediocre way but nothing excellent. Allowing a framework where modules plug in would enable excellence in each area and allow smaller players to bring their wares to small parts of this. Often these small companies do one thing better than anyone else...
__________________________________ Dr Hugh Leslie MBBS, Dip. Obs. RACOG, FRACGP, FACHI M: 0404 033 767 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Horst Herb > Sent: Tuesday, 5 September 2006 9:31 AM > To: General Practice Computing Group Talk > Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] maybe now is the time to cut the > proprietary nonsense? > > On Monday 04 September 2006 19:17, Hugh Leslie wrote: > > Horst, I'm not sure what non-proprietary stuff could have replaced > > what iSoft are offering. > > > > I think its very sad that in Australia we can't support > local software > > companies, most of whom make most of their money overseas. > > I agree. > > What I think should be done for projects of such scale is > 1.) determine the framework and publish it openly > 2.) subdivide the project into small modules, > interoperability defined in the framework > 3.) determine a module interdependency plan and schedule > module priorities accordingly > 4.) write detailed specs for each module > 5.) put the implementation of these modules to tender in > order of their priority within the inter-dependency framework > 6.) all contractors implementing modules must put the source > code into a common source code repository - within the > contracted time frame only the contractor gets write > privileges to the code > > Benefits: > > - no dependency on a single company (ever!) > > - anybody can compete / win a contract, no matter whether the > company is small or large, national or international: the > specs are defined, the time frames are set, and because of > the modularity each module will have a rather short timeframe > for completion so that incompetent contractors can be weeded > out (by checking their source against the specs) quickly > without causing any show stoppers > > - since anybody can look at the code, I would expect that > competitors will quickly point out incompetent peers, again > assisting in preventing show stoppers and increasing competition > > Requirements: > - an independent competent body overseeing, coordinating, and > setting the specs (something akin NEHTA, only with need for > technical and domain > expertise) > > Drawbacks: > - to the government / taxpayer: none > - to the contractors: no possibility for procrastinating, > deceiving, incompetence, marketing bullsh*t, overcharging > > Horst > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
