<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>art-ikon - NHS Archives</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.art-ikon.com/art-ikon/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.art-ikon.com/art-ikon/art-ikon/nhs/atom.xml" />
    <id>tag:www.art-ikon.com,2009-08-27:/art-ikon//2</id>
    <updated>2009-10-05T00:05:34Z</updated>
    <subtitle>Art and the creative act. Collecting and sharing images with words to contemplate and comment. Science and the creative act. Collecting and sharing the possibilities in science and management through the lens of Software Engineering.</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 4.32-en</generator>

<entry>
    <title>Project National Health - policy driven IT</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.art-ikon.com/art-ikon/2009/10/project-national-health---policy-driven-it.html" />
    <id>tag:www.art-ikon.com,2009:/art-ikon//2.28</id>

    <published>2009-10-04T23:06:23Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-05T00:05:34Z</updated>

    <summary>How can an IT project grow from 2.3 billion to over 12 and no-one question the manner by which the project is set up?
I find it very odd that any country can engage in such a huge project in such a wasteful way.
We know that government want to mitigate risk by risk transfer and that can only work if the company is sufficiently solid to bear the risk.
At first sight this seems obvious and good business.</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Ikon Art</name>
        <uri>http://www.art-ikon.com/art_ikon/</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="NHS" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="art_ikon" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="steps" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="flaship" label="flaship" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="itcompanies" label="IT companies" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="nhs" label="NHS" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="opensource" label="Open Source" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="project" label="project" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="software" label="software" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="tax" label="tax" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="taxation" label="taxation" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="valueformoney" label="value for money" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="waste" label="waste" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.art-ikon.com/art-ikon/">
        <![CDATA[<div class="zemanta-img mt-image-right" style="margin: 1em; display: block; float: right; width: 310px;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:InnovationLifeCycle.jpg"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/InnovationLifeCycle.jpg/300px-InnovationLifeCycle.jpg" alt="Innovation" height="192" width="300" /></a><p class="zemanta-img-attribution" style="font-size: 0.8em;">Image via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:InnovationLifeCycle.jpg">Wikipedia</a></p></div>How can an IT project grow from 2.3 billion to over 12 and no-one question the manner by which the project is set up? I find it very odd that any country can engage in such a huge project in such a wasteful way. We know that government want to mitigate risk by risk transfer and that can only work if the company is sufficiently solid to bear the putative risk. At first sight this seems obvious and good business. However, look at the figures and imagine the cost of this risk mitigation. No sensible project would be underwritten to that degree. The reality is that large contractors revisit the risk on the government, just as the banks have. And the reason for this is poor, unimaginative management.<br />The <a property="ctag:label" resource="http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000016ed2f" typeof="ctag:Tag" xmlns:ctag="http://commontag.org/ns#" class="zem_slink freebase/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000016ed2f rdfa" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_%28England%29" title="National Health Service (England)" rel="ctag:means wikipedia">NHS</a> IT project has been an absolute disaster for the tax payer and for the IT industry in this country. For the former in terms of value for money and for the later in terms of boosting innovation and competitiveness. What I find very difficult to understand is how it is that a government can expound the virtues of <a property="ctag:label" resource="http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000005b64c" typeof="ctag:Tag" xmlns:ctag="http://commontag.org/ns#" class="zem_slink freebase/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000005b64c rdfa" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_capital" title="Intellectual capital" rel="ctag:means wikipedia">intellectual capital</a> and competitiveness on the one hand and act in such a crass and destructive manner on the other?<br />

<div style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;" class="zemanta-pixie"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img style="border: medium none ; float: right;" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=caa86bb0-f228-43a8-9059-fe2191008109" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a><span class="zem-script more-related more-info pretty-attribution paragraph-reblog"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://static.zemanta.com/readside/loader.js" defer="defer"></script></span></div>]]>
        <![CDATA[The reality is that large contractors revisit the risk on the government, just as the banks have.<br />The dynamic is not the same as it is an absolute that the banks should not fail, but, in that this project is a flagship of government policy and the government does not want to be seen to fail, this project cannot fail. Except that, by any sensible measure, it already has failed.<br />Feed the insatiable appetite of large IT companies has decimated innovation that can only thrive in the competitive environment that is fostered by healthy small firms.<br />To understand all of this fundamental principals have to be revisited.<br />Definitions of intellectual labour need to be understood, especially in the context of IT engineering, something that government simply just does not get at all.<br />I shall lay some trails.<br />One of the strong motives to Open Source software is subversive, while the other is that of wishing not to have to repeat behind closed doors what may need to be done only once if the doors are open.<br /> ]]>
    </content>
</entry>

</feed>
