Failed IT systems

[glebe digital]

GP systems are normally pretty reasonable (EMIS and In Practice), and the NHS doesn't have too much to do with them. It funds them and accredits them, but the GP practices essentially own the relationship with the vendor. IIRC the exception is TPP, which is a GP / community shared system, which the NHS has its fingers all over and it has a pretty bad reputation.

EMIS is actually one of the many problems, the local I.T guy 'fiddled with it' and not it's totally fubar apparently. The trouble is, I don't think the GP practice really understands that direct/vendor relationship, and thus is attempting to palm it off to the local health board, and no sense of urgency anywhere by all accounts. Wifey says also the TPP is always dropping out, so more often that not one can't access the records......another local I.T success story!

[Darren_Test]

I've just been warned of no more renewals on this gig. The project was actually going well and I had high-hopes of
Most problems come from:

Poor specification or design.
Poor technical skills (looking for the cheapest/outsourcing).
Management infighting.

...and not giving voice to most important heroes of any Project - Test team!!

[WTFH]

Project managers who need to be managed by the project team
Using resources that lack the relevant experience, but they are chosen either because of who they work for (D&T, etc) or because they are cheap
Making project decisions based on business managers that do not understand how their business actually operates.
Using generic people to do specific jobs i.e. get the business users to draw up test plans, get the business users to carry out the proper testing, get the business users to sign off on their own testing.

[TwoWolves]

But then every human activity has a high rate of failure.

This is worth remembering. Marriage success has slumped to 50%, families squabble, God can seem cruel.

Life is full of disappointment, best to learn to live with it.

[original PM]

The rush to deliver something so an exec can get bonus and then fook off with no interest in the long term future of the company.

An inability to accept that unless you actually speak to the user you will end up with a system designed by execs to deliver what execs think they want that is unusable in the real world.

Basic stupidity of people in influential positions.

Protecting your position because you do not like change

Cutting costs without really understanding the impact of cutting costs

Thinking that if things do not go well 'everyone will work a bit harder and longer for free to fix it' except me of course.

An inability to recognise that 25 years of doing accounts does not mean you have the skills, education, knowledge or experience to understand the intricacies of a large IT project.

I could go on but....

[MyUserName]

Suity is the answer.

FTFY

[SimonMac]

Seems to be consistent failure and inadequacy of IT systems (mainly government programs - health, immigration, borders etc).

With all due respect - WTF does this keep happening?

Are IT guys incapable of delivering systems that work?

Best wishes, PG

Any system can fail, just the government ones always end up in the papers when they do

[tazdevil]

It's all about the money and in the end no one cares about the deliverable just that something gets delivered and they make the maximum profit. Clients play safe by buying in a top consultancy and the top consultancy maximises its revenue by bringing in outsourced project teams and selling oodles of unnecessary consultancy. No one sits down and designs the system or takes care with doing the foundations right. There's no reason for IT projects to cost billions or even millions, they cost that much because of the charms of the snake oil salesman.

[DimPrawn]

Are IT guys incapable of delivering systems that work?

No, but contract IT guys are capable of making sure delivery is always after the next renewal.

[fool]

Chinese whispers.

Could go into many specifics but ultimately there's too many layers between the people buying the system, the people using the system and the people building the system.

That and there's a ridiculous lack of respect and worth placed on knowledge. Nobody respects anyone elses opinion, both within the "useful layers" and outside of them.

It's not that I'm saying that the other layers are all entirely useless, it's just they've inserted themselves as a middle layer as opposed to a useful side function.

Ultimately this is the large consultancies business model, which is where big business spends its money, so what we gonna do?