Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register? |
Newsletter RSS Twitter
18 March 2010 | 13:17 GMT


HOME | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | OPINION & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | AWARDS | PODCASTS | VIDEO DIARIES

Scrap big government IT: think tank

Tags: A   Conservatives   Google   Google Health   Government   GP   Health Vault   HealthVault   Information   iS   Microsoft   Open Source   Savings   Standards   UK   US   Web 2.0  

30 Jun 2009

A right-wing think tank has called for more open standards and open source development in IT, arguing this could lead to savings of 50% on government IT expenditure.

A paper published by the Centre for Policy Studies - It’s ours. Why we, not the government own our data – dismisses the government’s Transformational Government strategy as disappointing, staggeringly unsuccessful and completely at odds with what citizens need.

It argues that instead of continuing with its centralised and “failing” IT projects, government should hand control of personal information back to individuals, so they can use it on a voluntary basis to transact with public services.

“This approach requires that all public services use open data standards to ensure that data can be easily transferred from one provider to another, in the same way that customers can today transfer their accounts from one bank to another,” it says.

“The potential benefits are substantial: they include savings on [untested and unnecessary] new technology, more flexibility, better public services, greater security and privacy over data, and far less intrusion by the state into the lives of its citizens.”

The paper written by Liam Maxwell, a Windsor councillor who wrote a report on open standards for the Conservative Party last year, uses health as an example of its preferred approach.

It argues that individuals could use services such as Microsoft HealthVault or Google Health to store their health records and to communicate with their GP or Hospital, eliminating the need for “the NHS database”.

It states: “If services such as HealthVault had already existed, there would be no need whatsoever for the UK government to spend anything like £12 billion building its own centralised medical system.”

Apart from being intrusive, the paper argues that the government’s approach has made it reliant on a “handful of IT suppliers”. It describes this as “peculiar” and “dangerous” and asserts that 60% of spending is in the hands of just nine companies.

The suppliers listed include the two remaining local service providers to the National Programme for IT in the NHS, CSC and BT. “One of the many dangers of awarding these sizes of contract is that when things go wrong, they can drag on for years, at great expense,” the report says.

As an alternative to large suppliers, the think-tank promotes cloud computing as a simple and effective platform for users to access the computing services they need. “Cloud computing systems, provided by third parties other than government will enable us to choose where to store our personal information, such as medical records,” it argues.

“All government departments will no longer need to procure and own all IT infrastructures itself, or to pay an outsourced company to do so. The market is now providing the IT systems needed for government systems, which are better centred on the needs of public service users rather than in government as a fumbling middleman.”

The paper calculates that the government’s IT provision of £16.5 billion this year is the equivalent to £700 for every house hold across the country. Yet it calculates that of all the IT projects that the government invests in, only 30% succeed.

Link: It’s ours. Why we, not the government own our data.

Sarah Bruce

Related Articles
Related Articles

© 2009 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Readers Comments
Add a comment
Readers Comments

1

Twisted logic

30 Jun 09 16:34

Why on earth does the author suggest that HealthVault is the answer to the woes of CfH?

The tories would do well to think for themselves. We have heard David Cameron use that sound byte recently as well so it appears to have eminated from this source.

There are many good reasons why HealthVault isn't the answer per se - in the US the solutions from M 7 G have paid search as their revenue earner. Regulations are vastly different here in Europe because of the heavy regulations on direct to consumer promotion of prescription drugs and devices.

There are lots of other answers to the cfh woes but IMHO this aint one of them - simplistic and naive at best.

 

 

 

 

 


2

This is daft

30 Jun 09 18:22

 

This takes an important discussion about centralised vs distritibuted architectures, an important discussion about centralised vs localised decision making and a very important discussion about data confidentiality mixes in some right wing anti-public sector/pro-private sector rhetoric and comes up with just about the daftest answer possible.

 

If the answer is "hand your highly personal data over to a couple of private sector American corporations, outside the remit of British or European data protection regulations" then frankly it was a b***** stupid question.

 


3

From frying pan to fire?

30 Jun 09 19:16

No sooner does the Cabinet Office stick its head in the G-Cloud -

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/06/17/government_cloud_computing/

than Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is obliged to headline with the new computing buzzword.

Cloud computing is principally another hardware and operating system infrastructure option.

Hardware & operating systems are a simple commodity compared to enterprise application software. The latter is itself perhaps less complex than process redesign, tailoring, deployment, training, upgrade and maintenance issues associated with the software - these carry the major risks and expense!

Then the 'choice' red herring : cloud computing enables 'choice' only if alternative applications run on it. A proliferation of cloud healthcare applications which cannot share their data is no less likely than the current state of system [non-]interoparability.

>>eliminating the need for “the NHS database”<<

And my bank can decommission its costly infrastructure because I can maintain my own financial records on a cloud based spreadsheet?

Heaven knows I no strong advocate of NPfIT - but I think we got more from the chat between the former PM and Bill Gates and the subsequent forty minute Downing Street meeting than this Conservative offering.

The real message to politicians I believe is this - give us a clear set of coherent implementable policies and data standards for the NHS, and don't change the requirements every fortnight. The software will then look after itself - much as it has done for UK Primary Care.

If that can't be done then IMO the NHS and/or the leadership IS the problem - not the software.

 


4

Does the report writer know anything about IT

panoslondon1@yahoo.co.uk

02 Jul 09 15:01

The main cost of IT is the cost of Human Resources you deploy, not Software. Providing developers the best software and resources is the answer to the question. Using freeware or open source software can sometimes help with simple tasks, however, you can't beat Visual Studio, SQL Server and the other popular tools for developing software reliably and efficiently for the long term. And they cost next to nothing. 

Cloud relies on  fast web connections and do you really want to transfer all your data to somewhere you don't know anything about?? Inherently a cloud (web) application will never be as good a fat client application.

In summary get the best software and let your developers thrive. I am sure it will be cheap and effective. Oh get some good developers as well!

 


5

Big IT

john.harris@bhrhospitals.nhs.uk

03 Jul 09 09:25

Having worked on both sides of the NHS IT divide, as an analyst in an old 'Regional' IT organisation, as a support consultant for private supplier, and now in a non-IT job in an acute trust, I've seen most things.

I feel the inherent problem is that most IT implementations are long term, especially if there is a development phase, whereas secretaries of state and governments are 'here today, gone tomorrow', so want quick results.  The outcome are systems that are rushed to meet essentially political deadlines, rather than throughly thoughtout solutions to meet the user's requirements.

Even seemingly successful projects, like ESR, dragged on and that was really only a makeover on an existing, proven, system Oracle's HRMS.

The solution is probably to take such decisions out of political control, to encourage long term planning and solutions, not to embark on dubious notions of 'self control' of things like medical records.


6

Dodgy maths?

03 Jul 09 11:11

Anybody else having trouble with the maths in this paper?

On page 10, "60% of [government IT] spending is concentrated in the hands of just nine firms".  If you add them up, the top 5 suppliers have about 45%.

But on page 11: "...in the Netherlands, the top five IT suppliers have 20% of the government market. In the US, this figure is 48%. In the UK, it is 80%"

Is this just a rounding error?

 


7

Bad Maths? No.

03 Jul 09 13:27

If you read the article, the numbers have come from different information sources. You need to read the footnotes.


8

It makes sense

gerard@careprovider.com

04 Jul 09 13:56

HealthVault or Google health my not be the answer, but keeping data local, using governance structures (eg GP surgeries) is a safer patient centred approach.  Search for data if needed securely.   There is no need for Governments to invent clinical systems.  All Governments should do is set standards and rukes for an open market to operate: that would create a system quicker and less cost to the tax payer than a centralised soviet approach that was CfH.  The CfH project is unwinding already, before any change in Government.

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
Most commented
Most commented
Tags
Tags
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters