> Tim Churches wrote: >Yes, OK. My take is different. I don't think that there is a lot wrong >with NEHTA's *strategy*. It is NEHTA's *tactics* which suck. By that, I >mean that after several years, they are failing to substantially >increase the pace of progress. Yes, they are far less anodyne than the >bunch of bureaucrats that preceded them, but that is not saying a lot. >In each of the areas that NEHTA has identified as important in their >strategy, ranging from secure communications and messaging to shared >terminologies to unique identifiers, things are moving too slowly. The >problem is that a) they are trying to do far too much themselves, >instead of either outsourcing tasks to more highly skilled and better >established technical groups and b) they are failing to enlist local >talent, meaning the local software industry and local universities and >so on, to help (um, OK, a and b are the same, but I am using repetition >to hammer home my point, and old debating trick...). By "enlist" I don't >just mean consult, although that is important, I also mean fund R&D and >commission reference implementations (which should be open-sourced) in >order to force industry to follow. Leaving it to the market will take >forever, because there are only weak or absent business drivers, from >software vendor's perspectives, for things like implementation of >terminologies or of proper, detailed standards (especially >interoperablity and data intercahge standards - there are actually >negative business drivers there). And yesterday we have reports that the >NEHTA CEO only wants to engage with the large software players (as if >they give two hoots about the tiny Oz market...). NEHTA has been given, >I've lost track, but I recall $150m at least by COAG (council of >Australain govts). They need to start using that, instead of trying (and >mostly failing) to recruit technical staff to fill up their little >office in Brisbane. OK, they need technical staff, but only to >commission technical work, not to do the actual work - else we'll be >waiting forever. And they need to start leveraging matching or like >funds from their constituent govt organisations. At the very least NEHTA >needs a full-time liaison officer who sits in the CIO's office of each >state health department, constantly promoting the NEHTA agenda to state >health depts. And equivalents to work with the primary care sector and >the local software industry and with local academia. That would be ten >NEHTA staff who would more than earn their keep, instead of being >bunkered in the Brisbane NEHTA enclave. There is plenty of talent in the >private sector, in academia and at the coalface in Oz - harness it! >NEHTA must not just rely on "the market" to implement its strategy - it >needs to drive the strategy forward using its funds and other people's >funds - spent with *Australian* companies and institutions. Don't rely >on the same old group of professional volunteers working at a very >leisurely pace with Standards Australia to develop the standards and >codesets we desperately need - commission others to create them. And for >goodness sake, don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good! Adopt >the open-source mantra: release early and often. Which means release >drafts and initial versions of guidelines, standards, prototypes, >reference implementations etc as soon as they are good enough to be even >marginally useful - don't wait until they are perfect. And then keep >releasing updates, upgrades and improvements. Everyone would prefer >Version 0.4 in 6 months followed by versions 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 >etc every month or so thereafter, instead of Version 1.0 in 4 or 5 years >time, which is what we are seeing with so many NEHTA initiatives. And >keep the documents short, for goodness sake. Institute a policy in which >staff member's pay is docked for every page they write over 30. And fund >reference open-source implementations to kick-start industry into >implementing your initiatives. > >NEHTA, your tactics are terrible! But your strategy is pretty good, I think. > >Tim C >
Amen. John Mac _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
