On Sat, 2003-06-07 at 21:22, David Forslund wrote: > ...what I keep hearing from hospitals that have purchased > a large system (usually for billing). They tell me that despite the > fact that they've paid the vendor some $10+M, the vendor owns them > rather than the other way around. They believe they can only do what > the vendor tells them they can do. They've totally lost control of their > resources. This is a big and recurring problem as far as I can see. > This is where open source can help. But it only helps. I find that there > isn't enough expertise in the hospital for them to understand what they > really need. > They are dependent on the vendor for that knowledge. This is where the > danger lies. > The same situation could happen with an open source installation. I don't > have > a good solution for this problem. > > Does this sound familiar to anyone else?
This is a ubiquitous and inevitable problem when expert systems or expert-dependent systems are deployed for the benefit of inexperts. We will never get away from it; we merely modify the competitive mileau over time to hinder unfair exploitation (which is essentially what open source is beginning to do for the technically savvy). But... I am a physician; non-physicians are at our mercy. How do *you* know your doctor is actually up to date, diligent, prudent, and skilled? Not very easily. The readily available "second opinion" is the main fall-back. There will come from open source, I believe, a consultant class that is in fact expert, which will help. But... I own a couple of automobiles. I am totally at the mercy of the vendor regarding maintenance and repair; I am saved by the commoditization of the automobile; this is one of the things that open source is beginning to do. Dan Johnson
