Eric, To be clear, it is not my document. It is the document created by the members of the Dutch mirror group on, to which I've contributed. Like I stated it's a consensus document which is great but also created many boundaries to the extend we could extend the discussion. So don't shoot the messenger.
Op 8-okt-2008, om 11:16 heeft Eric Browne het volgende geschreven: > Stef, > > I don't question your intentions, but I definitely question the value > of such a document in helping the discussions at CEN and ISO level. I > can only see it confusing the already muddied waters. You simply > cannot advance the cause of harmonisation of standards, or choosing > between standards, by dumbing down the issues to such an extent! > > I'm sorry, Stef, if my response seems brutally rude, but I'm sure that > the level of debate at CEN and ISO must be more sophisticated than the > simplistic suggestions embodied in your document. If not then we are > centuries away from the sort of IT-enabled healthcare systems that > many of us can imagine. I'm sorry to disturb your sweet dreams, but this is the level of debate that takes place at least at NEN. I'm not aware of more sophisticated discussions at the level of CEN of ISO. Please feel free to post your brilliant contribution to this debate so we can educate the less sophisticated among us. > > And as for your analogy regarding the "Dutch Syndrome", we are not > talking about marketing a product, we are talking about standards and > specifications for e-health interoperability, decision support and > much more, that affect our own health and the health of others. > > Please reconsider taking your document to those meetings. Again it's not my document and not my decission and if you had taken the time to read my mail properly you could have known that. Luckely the Istanbul meeting is in 2 weeks so there is plenty of time to come up with an alternative document in which al of your brilliant analyses are put togehter. I really encourage you to do so. Cheers, Stef > > regards, > eric browne > > On 08/10/2008, at 7:05 PM, 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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? >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stef >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
