tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post9156166875962534693..comments2024-03-28T17:49:03.998+11:00Comments on Australian Health Information Technology: Here Is A Valuable Analysis Of The Qld Health Payroll Debacle. Why Are The Same Mistakes Made Time After Time?Dr David G More MB PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-44405737147476037942013-06-24T12:59:20.345+10:002013-06-24T12:59:20.345+10:00So, in the case of Queensland Health, the fundamen...So, in the case of Queensland Health, the fundamental questions are:<br /><br />1. Was acceptance testing conducted and signed off by the customer?<br /><br />2. Did live production commence before acceptance testing was signed off?<br /><br />3. Were any parallel runs implemented in parallel with ‘live production’ before the Health Department turned off the ‘old’ system and became fully Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-72480373421942544302013-06-24T10:45:17.610+10:002013-06-24T10:45:17.610+10:00Normal practice is to conduct acceptance testing b...Normal practice is to conduct acceptance testing before any form of live production is attempted, parallel or not.<br /><br />Acceptance testing means that the system owner (the government in this case) is happy that the system performs as required - re functional and performance.<br /><br />This is why requirements are rather important. If you don't know what the system is required to do, Bernard Robertson-Dunnhttp://www.problemsfirst.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-42900496343950588592013-06-24T09:24:24.881+10:002013-06-24T09:24:24.881+10:00It is my understanding the system went live on DAY...It is my understanding the system went live on DAY 1 without any parallel running; once, twice or thrice. Surely that is an essential role and responsibility of the prime contractor and project manager. Therefore, if there was no parallel running the question to be asked is why not; and if there was even one attempt what were the results?Dr Ian Colcloughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-67049313283941526282013-06-24T08:44:14.584+10:002013-06-24T08:44:14.584+10:00Governments have problems, vendors sell solutions....Governments have problems, vendors sell solutions.<br /><br />Vendors assume that governments have worked out what their problems are and can define accurately what solutions they need.<br /><br />Alternatively, vendors assume that they can work out what the problem is at the same time as they are delivering the solution.<br /><br />In my experience both these assumptions are wrong.<br /><br />Bernard Robertson-Dunnhttp://www.problemsfirst.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-77220598667186290972013-06-23T19:48:39.962+10:002013-06-23T19:48:39.962+10:00@anomymous01:00pm - agree entirely. It continues ...@anomymous01:00pm - agree entirely. It continues to happen and there is no accountability from these large players - and not just in Australia. <br />Perhaps time to allow some local players a go to see if they can do better. I also think that the software vendors are to blame here as well - their systems are just too complex and archaic. Look at HealthSmart, the UK NPfIT etc, and you see Paul Fitzgeraldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-81427889741257777172013-06-23T17:01:51.193+10:002013-06-23T17:01:51.193+10:00Why does the government continue to use large cons...Why does the government continue to use large consultancies like IBM and Accenture to do this work?<br /><br />Where is the obligation to the community as a whole when such huge slices of taxpayers money result in such a debacle.<br /><br />Can you imagine one of the large engineering companies building a power station or a bridge that fails and then just walking away with a shrug of the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com