This appeared last week as and given it is a commercial piece I am happy to reproduce it in full.
Tender words that hurt
When ADHA released the Digital Health Mobile Channel tender this month, the first thing I looked for, and hoped dearly not to see, was the mandate that any solution must already be used somewhere else.
Sadly, it was. This was yet another government tender that my company, and those like us, were not welcome to apply for.
This isn’t a new occurrence. The Alfred Health’s recent Electronic Patient Journey Board tender, released last month, has only two mandatory requirements, the first being someone else must already use the system. So, we couldn’t apply for that either.
With this precondition, it doesn’t matter that a new solution may be better, cheaper or safer. It’s new – therefore rendering it unwelcome in many governmental digital health tenders.
Why is this happening?
The underlying answer is fear. Public entities must be sensibly careful with taxpayer’s money. But they’re falling for the old “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” sales maxim.
FUD – or Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt – is a marketing strategy used to persuade buyers to choose larger, more established vendors and/or technologies despite the technical and financial merits of their competitors. FUD plays on the assumption that more-established solutions are “safer” than an unknown or untested one, but we all know this is not necessarily true.
Well-masterminded FUD strategies convince customers that tragedy awaits those who buy new technologies. FUD is insidious and leads to recommendations for products that are technically and financially inferior simply because upper management is more likely to recognise the brand and approve them. Choosing a “reputable” brand can be attractive in a “blame culture”, as staff are less likely to be held accountable if something goes wrong.
Regardless of the reasons, this practice is unfair and anti-competitive. By refusing modern technologies, the practise fosters monopolies/oligopolies, which:
- ensure high prices
- disincentivise innovation
- restrict competition
Not only does this practice virtually guarantee outdated healthcare technology, it also really hurts new and innovative Australian companies, because they are prevented from selling their solutions in their country, simply because they are new.
Also, the practice is self-fulfilling. Every tender that goes to an incumbent (typically international) is one fewer opportunity for an Australian company next time. It’s a downward spiral that ultimately hurts Australia and Australians, instead of helping them.
Instead of mandating that tenderers have previously implemented the solution, public entities should require tenderers prove their solution “can do” the job. This way, the public can be certain they’re getting the best solution on the market, and Australian innovators get a fair go.
Everyone knows that technology is changing rapidly, so a policy that disincentivises change cannot be good for anyone.
The most famous public servant of all, Winston Churchill, said: “Those who never change their minds, never change anything.” It’s time we changed our minds on digital health procurement practices, so we can all benefit from the change we deserve.
Chris De Sair is the Chief Operating Officer at IP Health.
Here is the link:
https://wildhealth.net.au/tender-words-that-hurt/
Having been involved in many public tenders I have to say this is just nonsense.
Anyone who buys anything without seeing it working is just mad – it is nothing to do with over cautious bureaucrats who sensibly just want to see the product they are purchasing working somewhere and more importantly to be able to talk to the users to see that it is delivering what is needed.
From a corporate perspective is makes a great deal of sense to establish a reference site to use to show off and more importantly improve the offering. This is frankly a basic cost of doing business while showing the company you are a provider others can be confident in doing business with!
Chris is clearly a smart guy and so surely will know a good idea, well executed, will have no trouble proving itself!
Anyone who watches knows there are plenty of startups that have prospered in the field of Digital Health. Alcidion and Pro Medicus spring to mind instantly!
What do you think?
David.
4 comments:
David, you asked what 'others' think. I think you should not be calling Chris's complaint "nonsense" quite so quickly.
It all sounds rather 'strange'. Perhas there is more to this than meets the eye.
I seem to recall IP Health was acquired in part (30%) by Telstra Health a few years ago and then a few years later TH disposed of its 30%. But IP Health had its product installed at the Peter Mac-RMH & The Womens if memory serves me correctly. So on the surface this might suggest they may well have had a technology solution that was worthy of being considered.
Perhaps there is a lot more to Chris De Sair's complaint which should be looked into. Perhaps his complaint has some validity.
"What do you (and others) think?"
The big problems with government procurement is that they often don't understand what they really want and cannot assess what they are being offered. That's because they don't have the expertise in house. Which is why they keep turning to consultants.
Governments of both colours over many years have dumbed down and politicised the public service. They were totally unprepared for the COVID-19 pandemic and have struggled to cope.
They think government should be like running a business, it isn't, it's much more complex and uncertain. I suspect Chris De Sair is frustrated by the process. I'm not surprised, the government is a very poor customer. Turning to consultants and contractors is an admission of failure and is a really bad idea.
But they have no alternative after throwing out all the experts they used to have.
On the flip side, government seem happy to push unique apps onto the public and do so “iteratively’ with little thought. Seems at odds with procurement approaches.
When ADHA released the Digital Health Mobile Channel tender this month, the first thing I looked for, and hoped dearly not to see, was the mandate that any solution must already be used somewhere else.
This puzzle me, the ADHA Mt Health record system is a one off, other than Accenture who would have a demonstrable solution in use? More pork barrelling western Sydney ?
Post a Comment