Stef Verlinden wrote: > Thomas. > Op 7-okt-2008, om 17:10 heeft Thomas Beale het volgende geschreven: > >> Governments need to understand these realities, or they will continue >> to find it difficult to see how to apply any of the competing >> standards available today. I have to say that I don't find this >> report particularly helpful, because it gives very little in the way >> of really solid advice on how governments should move forward. > > Although I agree with you, you also know where we're coming from: a > situation where two camps dug in deep, proclaimed that their solution > was the best and didn't want to look over the fence. This is a > consensus document generated by all parties involved and as such a big > step ahead. > > Another thing is that this document is about the interational EHRCOM > standard 13606 and not about all the fantastic things we could do once > openEHR derived commercial solutions finally become widely available. > Since openEHR isn't an international standard, nor widely implemented > as a commercially product, so that people can see it's beneifits, > your remarks seem academic. Furthermore it's intended audience is the > people at CEN and ISO, not governments. For that purpose we'll try to > create a less technical document.
well none of the standards mentioned are widely implemented. I would be interested to know of any commercial offerings in fact. > > I completely agree with your remark that Governments need to > understand these realities. Again I'll invite everbody to come up with > clear examples, proof and/or bussiness models, which are > understandable for decission makers (technical lay-man) so they can > get a good understanding of these realities and the consequences of > their choices. So far the discussion is only accesible for the happy > few who have the time, enthousiams and (some degree of:-)) technical > understanding to dug in deep. To convince an average decission maker > you have a couple of minutes. If we (as the openEHR community) aren't > capable of selling 'our' product to these decission makers in an > understandable and concise manner, we still have the best product in > the world but nobody will use it. So far I haven't seen any document/ > example/ bussiness case that can convince a decission maker/ goverment > why they should consider using openEHR. did you have a look at the PPT at the top of this page - http://www.openehr.org/shared-resources/getting_started/government_orgs.html > > As you might know this is what we call the Dutch or Philips syndrome > over here: Back in the eighties Philips created an brillant new and > innovative product: a videoplayer called Video 2000. Since everybody > was convinced that such an superior system would sell itself not much > attention was paid to marketing. > At the same time a videoplayer which was on all fronts inferior to the > Philips player was developped: the VHS player. Since it's producers > knew that marketing was key, they promoted the product as aggresively > as they could and with great succes. Since for the end user the VHS > already was a big step forward (untill then there was no way to record > and play video at home) and all they heard about was VHS they bought > into that system and took over the market. Any simllarities here? I guess that's why some 'standards' bodies need a dedicated marketing budget and personnel. I didn't know about Video 2000, but people always talk about Sony Beta losing the race. In fact they did not; betamax has been used in every TV studio in the world (probably not Russia I guess) for years - the part of the market that needed quality. There are many myths like this about the marketplace. The key technical failing of many of the standards is that they are just not integrated; they are competing and overlapping. And yet what is most needed is a coherent framework, not a mish-mash of disparate standards each designed to solve one problem in isolation. The very existence of IHE is an indication that this is the case. Decision-makers need to study evidence, not words. - thomas beale
