The bureaucrats dont understand the process and can be easily bamboozled
by slick sales talk. If govt would take control and ownership of the
project they could outsource manageable bits of it as Horst says. But
who has the expertise to manage such a project? Not an easy task.
R
Hugh Leslie wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
