Oliver Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David More wrote: > > > 3. I also agree with Tim about the risks of the grand plan..we need > some organising > > principles and direction and then to get on with it - Strategy Lite > maybe..but we need > > some clear sensible frameworks etc. The strategic vacuum approach has > not been seen to > > work. > > Are you saying that a strategic vacuum persists despite the efforts and > reports of all those committees and reports that Ken Harvey listed? If > all those committees and reports did not fill the strategic vacuum, what > *were* they doing or what did they think they were doing?
Reading between the lines of David's blog, I think that he wants *his* strategy. He is not alone. Every woman, man and her/his dog has their own take on the One True Strategy. That's OK, let us all have our own National Strategies, and let us all put them on our personal blogs which John Howrad's government is going to provide us with. But in the meantime, rather more of us need to get on with the nitty-gritty. Nitty-gritty? Writing better software, writing better training documents, sitting around in really boring (virtual, I hope) committee meetings developing data encoding standards, pouring over SNOMED CT to create useful subsets, creating a sufficiently complete list of medicines, defining a standard method for secure messaging transport - you know, really dull stuff like that. You never know, one of those Strategies might decide that boring stuff like that is actually needed. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
