NHS IT - will they ever pull the plug ?

[cuneus]

The implementation of the Patient Administration System and Choose and book have been a disaster

and now http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7295116.stm

[gbbird]

cuneus said:

The implementation of the Patient Administration System and Choose and book have been a disaster

and now http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7295116.stm

Your statement that the implementations have been a disaster is not entirely accurate.

Don't get me wrong - in project terms it has not been a resounding success, but neither has it been a disaster.

[bugsbunny]

Its no Mars lander yet, albeit very very close, but crash and burn it will. Definition of a succesful project: on time + on budget. This is neither.

[cuneus]

gbbird said:

cuneus said:

The implementation of the Patient Administration System and Choose and book have been a disaster

and now http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7295116.stm

Your statement that the implementations have been a disaster is not entirely accurate.

Don't get me wrong - in project terms it has not been a resounding success, but neither has it been a disaster.

So the PAS at Taunton has been what exactly ?

[Timmy33]

This Government seems to be absolutey obsessed with giant databases.

[tigger1]

It is still, currently (he says, not holding his breath) going to deliver cost savings of the order of 1 billion pounds.

If this isn't a positive outcome (all things being equal), I'm not sure what is? Ok, it *should* have saved more, it hasn't - but it is still a big advance.

It's easy to forget how absolutely massive projects like this are.

[siscar]

bugsbunny said:

. Definition of a succesful project: on time + on budget. This is neither.

Certainly on time and budget are two considerations but it is quite possible for a project to be a success even if it doesn't meet those criteria - I'm not saying that the NHS project is a success, I don't know enough about it, but time and cost shouldn't be the only success criteria.

[Bing o]

tigger1 said:

It is still, currently (he says, not holding his breath) going to deliver cost savings of the order of 1 billion pounds.

If this isn't a positive outcome (all things being equal), I'm not sure what is? Ok, it *should* have saved more, it hasn't - but it is still a big advance.

It's easy to forget how absolutely massive projects like this are.

So they have spent £12bn to save maybe £1bn?

And how long before disks of your medical records are getting lost in the post?

[tomtom]

The NHS trust my Mrs works for, quite a major one in London, was without email for four days last week while the muppets who run their IT figured out how to fix it...

[dustybottoms]

I would say that the NHS project and its deliverables has been pretty good so far and although I agree that costs have risen above planned budget and some deadlines slipped (not all) this is, I believe generally the case with Government driven projects.


I would take the BBC news story with a pinch of salt, having been involved in several IT stories that have made the front pages over the last 8 years, much of what journalists write when it comes to IT is pure speculation or else it is a story that has been drip fed to them via Corporation PR's who themselves are controlled by IT incident managers to distract the journalists from more sensitive issues that need to be kept out of the press. A case of which story do we give them.

I wasn't even aware that the NHS IT Project primary aim was to introduce cost savings, more to do with moving from a paper/imaging based, outdated, spanish customs set up to a single consistent infrastructure and function across Hospitals, GP's and Chemists.

[dilbert]

They always say that it's because it's the most complex system in the world.

I can't imagine it's more complicated than, say, the global banking system, and you never (ever) hear about problems with that. I mean they have financial crises, but it's not (reportedly) because their computers weren't up to the job.

The thing is that the banking system appeared almost without anyone even trying (or so it seems). So how the heck did the NHS screw up so badly?

Edited by dilbert on Saturday 15th March 00:05

[esselte]

dilbert said:

They always say that it's because it's the most complex system in the world.

I can't imagine it's more complicated than, say, the global banking system, and you never (ever) hear about problems with that. I mean they have financial crises, but it's not (reportedly) because their computers weren't up to the job.

The thing is that the banking system appeared almost without anyone even trying (or so it seems). So how the heck did the NHS screw up so badly?

Edited by dilbert on Saturday 15th March 00:05

If it's complex then that's down to the designers surely?

[tomtom]

dilbert said:

So how the heck did the NHS screw up so badly?

EDS.

[cuneus]

It's easy to spot the parasites on this thread

If I worked on this project I would be morally obliged to resign

[esselte]

cuneus said:

It's easy to spot the parasites on this thread

[dilbert]

esselte said:

dilbert said:

They always say that it's because it's the most complex system in the world.

I can't imagine it's more complicated than, say, the global banking system, and you never (ever) hear about problems with that. I mean they have financial crises, but it's not (reportedly) because their computers weren't up to the job.

The thing is that the banking system appeared almost without anyone even trying (or so it seems). So how the heck did the NHS screw up so badly?

Edited by dilbert on Saturday 15th March 00:05

If it's complex then that's down to the designers surely?

Perhaps. I think it's just that government aren't even comparably fit to manage anything complex...... Including people and/or countries.

The competitive influence of an organisation that has to make money to survive doesn't exist. I worked in central government for a while, and I just came to the conclusion that one of the factors (there are others) is that it works on a cycle.

Pay is average, and government know little already about what they are doing. I was taken on to know about a specific thing, and I know my stuff (I know what I know and don't know). You would not believe the number of pretenders, but because no-one knows anything, they get away with it.

During a slack cycle they take on people with an average hit of competence. They niether hinder the bad nor choose the good. Then when things get going in the economy, anyone worth more than their weight leaves for somewhere that looks better. Competitive organisations pay more and take on above an average hit. Gradually the best people leave. Over a long period of time government collects people who have no idea. The worst rise to the top.

TBH they do try. Unfortunately they think that paying megabucks guarantees results. It doesn't. You either get expensive crap, or one good person that could never be worth their weight.

My pay was average, but they never actually asked me do to anything so it felt more like prison than work, so I left.

Edited by dilbert on Saturday 15th March 00:24

[dustybottoms]

dilbert said:

They always say that it's because it's the most complex system in the world.

I can't imagine it's more complicated than, say, the global banking system, and you never (ever) hear about problems with that. I mean they have financial crises, but it's not (reportedly) because their computers weren't up to the job.

The thing is that the banking system appeared almost without anyone even trying (or so it seems). So how the heck did the NHS screw up so badly?

Edited by dilbert on Saturday 15th March 00:05

Its a very good point and comparison you make. I would say from my experience of working in both fields that from an infrastructure perspective it is no way near as complex as a Global Banking system and certainly no way near as old.

The second key comment you make is that you never hear about problems with the Global Banking systems and you are exactly right, you never HEAR about these failures but believe me they happen. This goes back to my comment previously, more often than not the press when reporting IT failures/problems are responding to what they have been fed by the IT side of the Business that wishes to keep the journalists away from something more sinister.

[dilbert]

dustybottoms said:

dilbert said:

They always say that it's because it's the most complex system in the world.

I can't imagine it's more complicated than, say, the global banking system, and you never (ever) hear about problems with that. I mean they have financial crises, but it's not (reportedly) because their computers weren't up to the job.

The thing is that the banking system appeared almost without anyone even trying (or so it seems). So how the heck did the NHS screw up so badly?

Edited by dilbert on Saturday 15th March 00:05

Its a very good point and comparison you make. I would say from my experience of working in both fields that from an infrastructure perspective it is no way near as complex as a Global Banking system and certainly no way near as old.

The second key comment you make is that you never hear about problems with the Global Banking systems and you are exactly right, you never HEAR about these failures but believe me they happen. This goes back to my comment previously, more often than not the press when reporting IT failures/problems are responding to what they have been fed by the IT side of the Business that wishes to keep the journalists away from something more sinister.

I'm sure you're right. I guess the size of the potential nightmare doesn't bear thought.

[cirks]

cuneus said:

It's easy to spot the parasites on this thread

If I worked on this project I would be morally obliged to resign

Um - not sure I agree with the description but I know what you mean. I worked on it for approx 3 months before a) getting something better and b) going to something that wasn't so poorly organised and a waste of money.

During the little time I was there, I (as a contractor) had work outsourced to me via a major software supplier who, in turn had had the work outsourced to them by IDX. Everyone of course was geeting a big profit margin.

As I don't give up my social life for work, with the exception of one weekend, I didn't jump on the bandwagon of most of the guys there who, every night and weekend were working overtime at a minimum of time and a quarter to double and triple time at weekends. If it was because the work was overly complex or deadlines impossible then that would have been one thing but it was primarily due to shocking project control, poor staff and greed.

It is an absolutely massive project but realistically, there are millions being spent on putting technology in place to circumvent a one in 100000 chance of something happening and that could just as easily be resolved by a phone call and a fax machine.

[dr.sickman]

NHS IT, from the perspective of my little nest as a consultant doctor on the South West, is, er, rubbbeeeeessh.

HTH.