At 8:44 pm +1000 18/6/07, Ian Cheong wrote:
At 8:34 am +1000 18/6/07, kuang oon wrote:
Hi TimC & Ian & David,
On 18/06/2007, at 8:07 AM, Tim Churches wrote:
Ian Cheong wrote:
At 2:23 pm +1000 17/6/07, David More wrote:
<<http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/public-sector/news/index.cfm?newsid=3529>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/public-sector/news/index.cfm?newsid=3529><http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/public-sector/news/index.cfm?newsid=3529>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/public-sector/news/index.cfm?newsid=3529
NHS IT chief Granger quits
Head of £12.4bn programme will go before roll-out of crucial care
record system
=================================================
The lessons to be learnt from this are legion and need to be carefully
learned.
Cheers
David
----
...but the lessons were known prior to the project/programme starting.
Probability of failure being proportional to project size.
Not entirely true. It is all about good design.
The aids memorial quilt
<http://www.aidsquilt.org/makeapanel.htm>http://www.aidsquilt.org/makeapanel.htm
is one of the largest community project and its
design has a lesson or two for us trying to
build an interoperable health architecture. The
"pluggable component" is a panel 3 ft x 6 ft.
A "block" (or section) of The AIDS Memorial
Quilt which measures approximately twelve feet
square(144 sq ft), and a typical block consists
of eight individual panels each three foot by
six foot panels(8x6x3=144 sq ft) sewn
together. Add a few simple rules about
applique, paint, collage and photos. I wonder
if the architect of the quilt is a biologist
with a good grounding in multi-cellular
organisms? Back to e-health, I am not
sure(.... or too reticent to say) what that
"pluggable component" is in this domain, but
human readable context complete clinical codes
sure solve a lot of problems.
I believe good design does not prevent IT
project failure, in fact capture of the agenda
by technical experts overriding business
objectives (eg returm on investment) is more
likely to result in failure.
Now I know I am frozen in time - it seemed like
only yesterday, but it was nearly 3 years
ago.....
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:48:38 +1000
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Ian Cheong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FYI: IT Myth? - most IT Projects fail
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
The graph indicates only the big ones fail!
Over US$10M, 2% probability of success.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/13/33FEmyth5_1.html?s=feature
http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/reports/33SRmythsofit.html
http://www.it-cortex.com/Stat_Failure_Rate.htm
For those interested in Standish Group
methodology in their long-term study of IT
projects...which has been questioned for
scientific validity.
http://www.infoq.com/articles/Interview-Johnson-Standish-CHAOS
Ian.
--
Dr Ian R Cheong, BMedSc, FRACGP, GradDipCompSc, MBA(Exec)
Health Informatics Consultant, Brisbane, Australia
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(for urgent matters, please send a copy to my
practice email as well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
PRIVACY NOTE
I am happy for others to forward on email sent by me to public email lists.
Please ask my permission first if you wish to
forward private email to other parties.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
