Owning up
The guys at Fujitsu are finally facing up to what has been evident to sensible observers for a long long time.
As reported in Computer Weekly, Andrew Rollerson, the healthcare consultancy practice lead at Fujitsu in his presentation acknowledged last week at the “Successful implementation of NPfIT 2007″ (kinda ironic, don’t you think?) conference that there is a “gradual coming apart of what we are doing on the ground because we are desperate to get something in and make it work, versus what the programme really ought to be trying to achieve“.
“There is a belief that the National Programme is somehow going to propel transformation in the NHS simply by delivering an IT system.Nothing could be further from the truth. A vacuum, a chasm is opening up. It was always there.”
Rollerson said there was a danger that suppliers would end up delivering “a camel, and not the racehorse that we might try to produce“
At this stage, I would be happy even with a camel, you can still use it for transport. What we are in danger of receiving is a moribund pensioned off white elephant that sucks up all available resources & leaves no room in the ecosystem for another try at getting a decent IT system that delivers the required functionality.
Who will join me in laying the blame right at the door of CfH & the talking heads who negotiated this deal? I don’t see many of them crowing now about how this contract was a masterpiece of negotiation. But no doubt the spinners will be out in force to shovel this under the carpet as they have done innumerable other criticisms. And there will be a knighthood or other honour for those involved at a later date.
As questioned by Martyn Thomas, a Visiting Professor in Software Engineering at Oxford University who is one of the 23 computer scientists referred to previously here, “If sharing smartcards is secure, it should have been in the security policies from the start. If context switching can be unacceptably slow, there should have been explicit upper limits for the time allowed, stated unambiguously in the specifications. So: did the specification omit this essential requirement (in which case, what other essential requirements have been overlooked?); or did the output-based specification state a time limit that has not been achieved? Or did the output-based specification specify a time limit that was too long in practice (in which case, what else have they got wrong by failing to prototype adequately before letting contracts?).”
Which brings me to my first rule of procurement, one I am sure most people are familiar with: Know what you want to buy and whether you really need it! And make sure that your specifications reflect this. I will have more to say on this subject with reference to the ISTC procurement programme currently under way.