conservatives are

[SirGalahad]

http://nhsforsale.info/database/impact-database.html

If you want information regarding the NHS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ers-disgrace-healthcare-service-a7651531.html

The list goes on but some seem to have their head in the sand or simple believe what they are told.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The hospital had its hands tied as it had entered into a long term supply relationship.

Could not the contract be terminated on the grounds of poor quality product?

 

[SirGalahad]

Could not the contract be terminated on the grounds of poor quality product?

Have you seen these contracts for multiple products? If you fought this the costs of litigation and the waste of management time. As the work is always won by the lowest bid anything off specification will be used to squeeze the buyer.

This highlights the issue of externalities. If the departments were encouraged to work together and not this idiotic concept of an internal market where they compete against each other - brought in by the tories.

 

[Doggit]

Could not the contract be terminated on the grounds of poor quality product?

You can pretty much guarantee that the private finance companies had better contract lawyers than the government did.

Kankerot, I have no problem with being corrected, but a person knows what he knows, simply because of the information he's picked up so far. I have no problem being show that some of my knowledge needs updating, but if you want to be rude simply because I don't know the things that you do, or don't believe in those that you do, then I see no point in allowing you to be rude to me.

 

[SirGalahad]

You can pretty much guarantee that the private finance companies had better contract lawyers than the government did.

Kankerot, I have no problem with being corrected, but a person knows what he knows, simply because of the information he's picked up so far. I have no problem being show that some of my knowledge needs updating, but if you want to be rude simply because I don't know the things that you do, or don't believe in those that you do, then I see no point in allowing you to be rude to me.

Fair enough point taken. I apologise for my terse behaviour.

 

[Judy in the sky]

As the work is always won by the lowest bid anything off specification will be used to squeeze the buyer.

Perhaps the NHS should have allowed Tesco's and Asda to supply paracetamols. I can buy them cheaper there than the NHS pays their supplier. So it's not always the cheapest tender that wins the contracts. (surely NHS buyers are not that gullible ?)

 

[Doggit]

I didn't manage to read the Computer weekly article properly Kankerot, as the site kept crashing, but it seemed to imply that it would have been better to let the health authorities to get their own systems rather than design a centralised one. Now it seems as though the NHS has a bigger IT department (?) than I realised, but did they, or an outside agency design the failed system.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I didn't manage to read the Computer weekly article properly Kankerot, as the site kept crashing,

Irony?

 

[Brigadier]

I didn't manage to read the Computer weekly article properly Kankerot, as the site kept crashing, but it seemed to imply that it would have been better to let the health authorities to get their own systems rather than design a centralised one. Now it seems as though the NHS has a bigger IT department (?) than I realised, but did they, or an outside agency design the failed system.

Certainly, the most sensible approach would be to run a smaller pilot project (parallel to existing system), and work forward from there.

One of the comments from the Guardian article:

MoneyCircus lozza
18 Sep 2013 13:26
01
The best comment yet. You've identified the main faults:

Corruption - of the "plausibly deniable" sort (as in, nobody gets fired for hiring the big name consultants). Lower-level hiring may also be corrupt.

Everybody benefits - almost everyone except the patients and the taxpayers. That's why this happens again and again.

Stalinist planning - that took so long that the technology would have been out of date, even if the project had not collapsed.

What will happen now?

Rinse and repeat - given that politicians are LESS informed than the civil servants on the inside of the project.


________________

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Certainly, the most sensible approach would be to run a smaller pilot project (parallel to existing system), and work forward from there.

There are several recognised methodologies for introducing new systems. The one you have mentioned is only one of them.
But certainly a sufficient amount of testing is required.
As is a reflective view to see if the new system has delivered the required objectives.

 

[SirGalahad]

There are several recognised methodologies for introducing new systems. The one you have mentioned is only one of them.
But certainly a sufficient amount of testing is required.
As is a reflective view to see if the new system has delivered the required objectives.

The iterative approach works in some specific cases but would you build a warship by iteration? lol - You can have the hull and we can add the tower and systems later.

 

[SirGalahad]

Certainly, the most sensible approach would be to run a smaller pilot project (parallel to existing system), and work forward from there.

One of the comments from the Guardian article:

MoneyCircus lozza
18 Sep 2013 13:26
01
The best comment yet. You've identified the main faults:

Corruption - of the "plausibly deniable" sort (as in, nobody gets fired for hiring the big name consultants). Lower-level hiring may also be corrupt.

Everybody benefits - almost everyone except the patients and the taxpayers. That's why this happens again and again.

Stalinist planning - that took so long that the technology would have been out of date, even if the project had not collapsed.

What will happen now?

Rinse and repeat - given that politicians are LESS informed than the civil servants on the inside of the project.


________________

You missed the big merry go round where ex ministers and civil servants having signed the contracts end up working for the suppliers / providers.

All of this can be avoided if the Government decided to builds its own capacity bit by bit. But if your ideology is to contract out - you will always be in a situation where your hands are tied.

 

[Brigadier]

All of this can be avoided if the Government decided to builds its own capacity bit by bit. But if your ideology is to contract out - you will always be in a situation where your hands are tied.

If the spec. and legals is poorly-written, or the procurer lets the tail wag the dog, I agree.

 

[SirGalahad]

If the spec. and legals is poorly-written, or the procurer lets the tail wag the dog, I agree.

Let me give you an example. Say you are looking to build a new IT system for hundreds of millions - something trans formative. So you are prudent, you hire an external legal team and external IT consultants to help you develop the contract and scope of work. As your IT consultants start specifying the work to avoid uncertainty they try to add as much detail as possible (it seems prudent the more accurately we describe our requirements the less chance of dispute). What transpires is that the legal contracts and project documents get so large no one person has a clue anymore and the clock is ticking as you still haven't signed it. In the end you just sign the contract and then spend the rest of the project arguing as the supplier knows the game to be played as well because no one can distil into a contract every possible interaction and requirement that will change.

Its a gravy train for accountants, lawyers and consultants

 

[Brigadier]

Let me give you an example. Say you are looking to build a new IT system for hundreds of millions - something trans formative.

There's your problem - trying to change the world from the offset. No wonder it goes wrong, and is manna from heaven for the legal teams......

What is so wrong with saying "Yes; we want it to cover the NHS eventually (so it needs to be scaleable) but, bearing that in mind, let's start with a small pilot scheme."?

Or is it really that the big providers want to sign the billion-pound contract, knowing that they'll cash in to a huge extent, regardless of the outcome?