[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>In a large organisation, is it better (however that is defined) to have
>identical systems, or to let everyone "do their own thing"?
Phrases like leveraging existing expertise spring to mind.
The existing expertise is in general practice, and therefore it would
be wasteful to substitute a centrally decreed solution for the local
ones which are or later evolve, unless it is well thought out, funded
properly and can be supported.
GIven the widespread ISPs and other network/comm supporters around,
some with specific experience in the NHS/health field, and even more so
given the NHS central record on introduction of largescale computer and
networking projects, this becomes even more convincing. To me.
>Would any bank introduce IT by sending out the tellers to buy a PC in
>Dixons?
No, but it is at least possible that a conglomerate and distributed
organisation might delegate the task of sourcing some infromation
systems and supporting them to the branches, or local head offices,
rather than holding all that centrally.
It is a good practice to give workers the ability to alter the way they
do their jobs - many industries and services have found this improves
morale and effectiveness.
It also speeds innovation.
THe role of the centre is to ensure that distributed systems are
connectable, and it has of course made a limited and unexciting start
on this, no surprise that the rethink of policy has stretched to such
length.
However, technology has arisen while th eNHS was thinking, which allows
disparate systems to be connected, use it.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|