In article <[log in to unmask]>, Declan Fox
<[log in to unmask]> writes

[observations about Gpass software and the Gpass organisation snipped]

>I still have GPASS in the practice,   v4.2 (which came out in 1993 I think)
> running on a 386 with Wyse terminals.   The hardware specified for the
>current version of GPASS is beyond our pockets and we shall not be getting
>it so we struggle on with a four year old version.  I spent a lot of time
>and effort working on an alternative to GPASS but that failed so we are
>stuck with an old system which does prescribing OK but not much else.
You bought it, you still use it, it works on a 386 machine which
wouldn't look at windows 95 - but it's no good? Why do you stick with
it?
 
>I also was involved with one of the companies which tendered for the "new"
>version of GPASS and feel, like many others, that the GPASS developers'
>admission that they could no longer hack it came a bit too late--like five
>or six years.
The Gpass development team is still actively developing software,
(though we try to avoid the phrase 'hack it'!)

Things have moved on since version 4.2, both with the Unix version
(currently version 4.8 on release), and with the development of a new
system. 

The new system - at beta test just now - is written in Delphi, runs
under Windows NT and uses the SQL Server database engine. This goes a
long way towards allowing other developers to produce add ons to the
software - but it won't run on a 386.

[snip] 
 
>GIven that my practice is stuck now with GPASS and that I am not selling
>anything else I think that my criticisms cannot be easily dismissed.

I don't understand why you are stuck with it - why not get another
system?  





Your criticisms may be valid, given the version of the Gpass software
which you have. But I think that they have been addressed over the last
few years. This is the situation with Gpass now:

- Gpass developments are set and prioritised by a group which includes
GP representatives, and are independent of the day to day running of
Gpass. 

- A new version of the software has been developed to meet the demand
for systems which run on Windows platforms, using standard tools such as
SQL server. This development has consistently met planned (and
published) delivery dates.  

- The development method has been reviewed and we now use DSDM, which
involves users at all stages of system development. Literally hundreds
of practice staff have been involved in the development of the new
system. 

- The new system is undergoing extensive testing at practices before it
goes on general release. 





There will be further development of the system, and practice staff will
be actively involved in this.

My job is supplying software for use in General Practice. If GPs don't
want it, then I end up without a job. It is that simple. So it is in my
interest to find out what software systems are required in General
Practice, and do my best to deliver them. 

I am genuinely interested in hearing about what is wrong with Gpass
(both the software and the organisation), but can't do anything  about
the past. 

So what should Gpass be doing *now* to make sure that they are
delivering the systems which GPs want in the future?
-- 
John L Hardy BSc CEng MBCS              http://www.gpass.demon.co.uk/
Development Manager - Gpass
All views expressed in this post are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the 
views of my employer


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%