Remarkedly similar to 'traditional' I.T. projects where the initial case leading to funding of a project
is not nonger valid 1-2 quarters laters, e.g., fortunes of the organization have changed or the markets
slumps. Could also be characteristic of the leaders who 'flip-flop' every quarter and sometimes sooner.
Whether hipe or paranoia the impact is serious for the Engineering groups who work on projects
requiring more than 2 quarters to complete a prototype.
Steady, committed, long-term approaches to advanced product design can adapt to market changes
but not high-level redirections.
It may be optimistic to believe compatible high-level management exists and can provide the long-term
support. It may have to come from the Healthcare field. It will be a requirement.
Regards!
-Thomas Clark
Thomas Beale wrote:
One major reason many health (and other) IT projects fail is because the level of decision-making (about funding and large-scale planning) is almost inevitably many levels of hierarchy above where the kind of technically/clinically competent people who could asses/design/plan such endeavours exist. Thus we have the situation where those who are competent to build anything (whether it be a single system or a national EHR strategy) are handed usually mad "architectures" and "specifications" invented by those without only the dimmest grasp of the domain, let alone the problem at hand. Now, let's all go and read "The Peter Principle" again;-)
- thomas beale
