Category Archives: Campaign4Change

A few suggested blog posts – on change at Kodak, the rise of Splunk and a culture clash in China

By David Bicknell

Browsing over the weekend, I came across a few posts about change management and cultural change that caught my eye and are worthy of passing on.

A couple are from the Harvard Business Review, and one is taken from IT-Director.com.

The Harvard Business Review items cover the innovation and transformational change issues involved in the continued demise of Kodak and the cultural issues that anyone who has plans to do business in China may have to get to grips with. The IT-Director article covers the growing reputation of Splunk, a real-time operational intelligence specialist that collects and indexes machine data and which has potential in the growing ‘Big Data’ marketplace.

Rounding-up coverage of David Cameron’s planned Co-operatives Bill

By David Bicknell

Prime Minister David Cameron’s announcement of  a forthcoming ‘Co-operatives Bill’ to consolidate outdated pieces of legislation governing co-operatives and mutuals into a single statute has been heavily commented on in recent days.

Cameron said the Co-operatives Bill would cut red tape and help to build a fairer economy, ensuring that co-operative members can share in the benefits of enterprise. 

Here is a round-up of coverage in the last few days about the planned bill and about co-operatives and mutuals.

Co-operatives UK

The Daily Telegraph

The Guardian

The Economist

Transition Institute

Halt NPfIT Cerner deployments after patient safety problems at 5 hospitals, says MP

By Tony Collins

Conservative MP and member of the Public Accounts Committee Richard Bacon called today for a halt on deployments of the NPfIT Cerner Millennium system after patient safety problems at hospitals in Oxford and North Bristol.

Other hospital deployments underway include Royal Berkshire and Imperial College London.   The BBC has reported that patient-booking software at North Bristol was regarded by some consultants as ‘potentially dangerous’.

The software was installed at the Trust last month under the National Programme for IT [NPfIT].    According to a BBC Points West investigation, the implementation led to some patients missing their operations and, in other cases, the wrong patients being booked for operations.

One consultant told the BBC he had been put down to operate on patients from a completely different speciality.  Patients were also being booked for unlikely appointment times, such as five minutes past midnight, and patients were said to have turned up for phantom appointments on the New Year bank holiday.

Separately the Oxford Mail reported this week that Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, which includes Nuffield Orthopaedic, John Radcliffe, Churchill, and the Horton General hospitals, has difficulties booking in patients for treatment.  It deployed the Cerner Millennium software in December.

According to the Oxford Mail, some patients ringing in to book appointments waited up to an hour to have their calls answered and appointments were so delayed the Trust abandoned car parking charges for three days.

Patients reported problems that included ambulances queuing outside of A&E as staff struggled to book in patients.

Pensioner John Woodcock told the Oxford Mail that it took a week of calling the local contact centre to book an appointment for an important stomach examination.

The contact centre gives patients the option of leaving a message for staff to call back, or to join a phone queue. The 75-year-old said “I managed to get an appointment in the end by staying on the phone but it took half an hour almost.”

An Oxford University Hospitals spokesman was unable to say when the system would be able to function without delays but suggested it could be up to three months. Hospital officials blamed the disruption on deployment problems and training issues.

Bacon has long criticised the National Programme for locking the NHS into buying software that was unreliable, subject to serious delays and, even after contract renegotiations, unreasonably expensive.

He disclosed that the costs of a Cerner Millennium deployment at the North Bristol NHS Trust are about £29m over seven years. This is more than three times the reported £8.2m price of a similar system, bought outside the National Programme, at University Hospitals Bristol Foundation Trust.

Bacon said the lessons from major patient safety problems at the Royal Free Hampstead, Barts and The London and Milton Keynes General Hospital had not been learnt.

“We now have two of our leading hospitals brought to their knees by this system.  These deployments need to be stopped until we are sure that they can be managed safely.”

He added “Effective, affordable and robust IT systems are vital to the future of the NHS, but it is clear that the fiasco that is the National Programme cannot deliver them.”

One patient emailed the Oxford Mail to say that the gain will be worth the pain.

“… A word of congratulations to staff. I too had problems with booking an appointment a few days after launch, but sent an email to which I first received an answer in the form of a call-back to fix an appointment and then a personalised apology and explanation…

“Think about the time, effort and accuracy gains of an electronic records system, and not having all those sometimes thick files being ferried round the different departments; think too of the gains in patient confidentiality – now every time someone accceses your records, that will be logged.

“When things have bedded in properly, and I believe this will be sooner rather than later, if the committed and dedicated staff have anything to do with it …  we’ll soon come to be grateful, both for the increase in efficiency and the financial savings – which can then be used on frontline services…”

NPfIT Cerner go-live has “more problems than anticipated”

System still causing chaos – Oxford Mail

London trusts in chaos

 

Clegg speech renews Coalition mutuals and employee-ownership focus

By David Bicknell

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has advocated greater employee-ownership.

In a speech yesterday to the Corporation of London, he described employee share ownership as “a touchstone of liberal economic thought for a century and a half and a hugely under-used tool in unlocking growth.”

As this report explains,  he suggested that employee-owned firms could end the ‘standing feud between capital and labour’.

“We don’t believe our problem is too much capitalism: we think it’s that too few people have capital. We need more individuals to have a real stake in their firms.”

It could be the latest kick-start the mutuals and employee-ownership initiative needs. (And John Lewis’s marketing department must be wallowing again in the free publicity)

Not all coverage of Clegg’s speech has been positive, however, with Nils Pratley in the Guardian calling the employee share-ownership  ideas ‘half-baked’.  Pratley says the speech raised more questions than answers.  But in fairness, I don’t think Clegg’s intention was to lay out a complete White Paper for action. It was merely to continue to put employee ownership on the agenda for discussion.

Text of Nick Clegg’s speech

Transition Institute’s weekly round-up of mutuals and spin-out stories

By David Bicknell

Here is a link to the Transition Institute’s weekly round-up of mutuals and public sector spin-out stories.

NB The link  on the Transition Institute site to the Public Service article on procurement change and SMEs on 13th January doesn’t work. The link below does, however.

Pace of procurement change frustrates innovative SMEs

‘Penny wise and pound foolish’ to postpone IT project

By David Bicknell

Sometimes you make decisions over the future of IT systems in the public sector with the best intentions – but still you can’t win. Someone, somewhere, will be unhappy.

Yesterday, I mentioned that a $92m overhaul of a Department of Revenue system in Oregon had been postponed to save money. Now, it seems,  the postponement is a bad idea that will hamper legislators’ ability to make well-informed decisions.  

“I think it is penny wise and pound foolish, if I could use an old saw,” said Vicki Berger, co-chair of the committee that oversees state taxing and revenue policy, according to the Statesman Journal. “We have to bite the bullet. We have to get a better system. We have to know better, more viable information on what impacts our revenue stream.”

Richard Devlin, co-chair of the legislature’s Joint Legislative Audits, Information Management and Technology Committee, has reportedly characterised the announcement as a “nine-month delay” rather than a cancellation of the project.

“I don’t see that as an end to the project, because the need is very real. They need to upgrade their systems, and they will continue to work to that end,” said Devlin. “I can understand the counter-argument, that you do have antiquated systems in the Department of Revenue, but I think citizens in Oregon would want when we invest in this fully that we do it right,” he continued. “I would not want to spend $92 million and then have a project that doesn’t really work.”

Comment

It’s a sign of the times that you can get such polarised views over the future of an IT project, but it’s perhaps not surprising when the project is going to cost $92m. I think the current climate is likely to see cost/benefits for IT projects become an issue for many organisations, both in the public and private sectors, but especially in the public sector.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that IT projects are at risk, simply that those making decisions on new systems/upgrades are going to need hard evidence of the real change benefits to justify any decision they make to proceed.

US state government and defence IT projects face uncertain future

By David Bicknell

Local newspapers in the US are offering some insight into the cloudy future of two significant IT projects.

In Salem, Oregon, a planned $92 million upgrade of the state’s Department of Revenue computer system is reportedly on hold because the state can’t afford $13 million in start-up costs.

The Register-Guard website says local officials chose to put the  project on hold rather than ask legislators to make a choice between paying for the computer system and paying for public safety and human services.

The computer system is said to be responsible for processing $7 billion a year and 94 percent of Oregon’s general fund revenue, but officials are apparently concerned about its future effectiveness.

The agency’s ability to collect taxes rests on a “myriad of disparate, aging software applications and databases,” according to a 96-page business analysis the Department of Revenue produced in 2010.

Meanwhile,  in Beavercreek, Ohio, a US Air Force computer modernisation project which has already cost $1 billion, is said to be at risk of Washington defence cuts.

US Air Force officials have acknowledged that the Expeditionary Combat Support System project, on which at least $986.5 million has been spent, won’t be completed in 2016 as had been hoped. Work began in 2007, but the local Springfield News-Sun newspaper reports that the completion date has been repeatedly postponed because of delays.

US report suggests huge FISCal IT project may be ‘running into some hurdles’

By David Bicknell

A report from the US has cast doubt on the progress of a major financial system for the state of California.

CivSource suggests that the IT project,  a business transformation project for the state government in the areas of budgeting, accounting, and procurement, is “running into some hurdles. The Financial Information System for California (FISCal), was supposed to streamline IT costs and staffing but seems to be hitting snags for exactly those reasons.”

So far, CivSource says, “…the project has cost over $60 million with final costs stretching into over a billion over the next 12 years. Supporters of the system say that the state needs to spend this money in order to upgrade legacy systems and modernise processes.

“However, long term cost-estimates of the project are still up in the air. As are claims that systems will be modernised if the proposed build out lasts over a decade. Future funding is also uncertain as the state faces unprecedented rolling budget crises.”

An LA Times article previously suggested that the system was at one point $300 million over budget and three years behind schedule.  It argues that despite its Silicon Valley technology expertise, California has a poor track record of delivering successful IT projects.

In our book on IT projects, ‘Crash’, Tony Collins and I reported on the problems with the Department of Motor Vehicles project  which was cancelled in 1994 at a cost of around $50m.  $50m would be a snip compared to the financial muscle which may be needed to finally deliver FISCal.

FISCal project site

Temenos confirms end of T24 IT project with Queensland Treasury Corporation

By David Bicknell

The Swiss banking software supplier Temenos has responded to overnight coverage of the end of an IT project with the Queensland Treasury Corporation in Australia.

Queensland Treasury Corporation said it had changed tack on the T24 project after experiencing problems developing a core banking system.

Temenos said today, “Temenos can confirm that the T24 project at Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) has been terminated. This decision was taken by QTC based on a change of requirements, which had become more specific; as a result it wanted an approach that was more in line with these unique requirements.

“It has therefore decided to run its IT upgrade in house. Temenos is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist QTC with their IT renewal project, and has enjoyed a constructive and mutually amicable relationship with the organisation.”

QTC, which manages public sector debt and investments, told the Brisbane Times it was now developing its own system and insisted it would be able to do so within the existing $27 million project budget. The organisation defended its handling of the IT contract, saying it has now acquired additional in-house capabilities.

The story had been extensively covered in the Australian IT and banking press earlier today.

QLD Treasury terminates failed IT overhaul

QLD Treasury Corp abandons core IT project

Queensland Treasury Corporation tears up Temenos T24 contract

Are officials pressing GPs to switch IT supplier to SystmOne?

By Tony Collins

There’s concern in the NHS that Primary Care Trusts, which are due to be abolished next year, are putting GP practices under pressure to switch their IT systems to TPP SystmOne, a patient record system that is supplied by CSC under the National Programme for IT.

The conversions are being subsidised by taxpayers under unpublished NPfIT local service provider contracts. The concern of at least one aspiring Clinical Commissioning Group – which is one of the CCGs being formed under Andrew Lansley’s health reforms –  is that GP system conversions to TPP SystemOne under local service provider NPfIT contracts could leave CCGs a legacy of financial commitments that are as yet unknown.

One CCG contacted Campaign4Change to express concern that it may have uncertain financial commitments when it begins to take on SystmOne commitments next year. On 1 April 2013 PCTs and strategic health authorities are due to be abolished and their responsibilities passed to authorised CCGs.

Aspiring CCGs are now taking a close interest in PCT financial commitments because the Groups are due to inherit any of their local PCT deficits incurred from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2013.

At present, GP practices receive PCT funding whether they take replacement SystmOne patient record technology from CSC  under the NPfIT or acquire new IT under a scheme known as GP Systems of Choice.

But the Group’s spokeswoman said that PCTs are putting pressure on GP practices to replace their systems with SystmOne. She said it’s because it can cost PCTs less – or nothing – for a GP switch to SystmOne under NPfIT-funded local service provider contracts. In comparison PCTs may have to pay costs such as hardware maintenance when GPs acquire systems under GPSoC.

Incentives for GPs to switch IT supplier

Our inquiries show that at least one PCT has received what it called “incentives” from its strategic health authority for GP practices to change computer systems, according to the PCT’s response to an FOI inquiry. The FOI response said: “The PCT can confirm that the incentives passed to [GP] practices to change computer systems as follows”.

It went on to say that its strategic health authority gave the PCT a £10,000 implementation fee [for each GP practice that changed its systems]. The PCT passed £3,000 of the £10,000 to the GP practice to part fund its implementation costs.

The PCT’s preferred GP system supplier was SystmOne, as supplied by CSC.

What happens when CSC’s NPfIT contract expires in 2015?

At that time Clinical Commissioning Groups may have to pay whatever costs are levied because GP practices with SystmOne could be reluctant to switch systems again, said the CCG spokesperson.

The Department of Health’s Informatics Directorate, which has subsumed NHS Connecting for Health, has confirmed that the prices it pays CSC for TPP installations are confidential.

Said a DH spokesperson “While prices within the LSP [Local Service Provider] contracts are commercially confidential we are in partnership with Intellect, the Technology Trade Association, to develop an open and transparent approach to costs and quality, as part of working to create a vibrant marketplace.”

A spokesperson for CSC said  “Because we are in active negotiations with the government, we are not able to comment in depth on the programme until those negotiations have concluded.”

The spokesperson said the comments applied to TPP as it is “a supplier to us working on the National Programme”.

Department of Health response

When asked if GP practices are taking on non-transparent NPfIT commitments for TPP systems, the DH spokesperson said “If a GP practice chooses to take a system under an LSP contract they are made fully aware of the product they are taking and the length of the contract.

“We are committed to ensuring transparent and trusting working relationships between suppliers and their NHS customers.”

Asked whether GP practices that choose GPSoC systems cost the PCT more than TPP acquired through the LSP contracts, the DH spokesperson said “ It is up to the GP practice as to whether they choose a system through GPSoC or through the LSP contracts.

“The GPSoC PCT/ Practice agreement provides a mechanism for GPs to raise and resolve any concerns they may have.”

Comment

Centrally-funded incentives to PCTs to encourage GPs to switch to SystmOne as supplied by CSC under the NPfIT keep alive one of the original objectives of the national programme, which was to have health IT dominated by a few suppliers that would be under firm central control.

But that strategy creates an imbalance in the health IT market, inhibits open competition and leaves the NHS with unquantifiable future costs given that SystmOne is being supplied under NPfIT contracts that are secret.

Favouring central control, Labour created the NPfIT. In contrast the coalition favours decentralisation so it makes sense for GPs to have a genuine choice of suppliers, with the funding PCTs remaining neutral on the decision.

TPP SystmOne is good enough to compete freely in the open market. It does not need a leg up from the PCT or the Department of Health – just for the sake of keeping a part of the original NPfIT alive.