Reply to: Darling to shelve NHS IT system

[EternalOptimist]

The NHS is not big- only average.
Its not that complex - only average here also.

SO WHERE ARE THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS??

PZZ

data take-up
migration

[d000hg]

Safety, privacy, accuracy, completeness, speed, security.

But the big one is safety which depends on the others being 100% right. If they aren't, you don't lose an order, or a bit of customer data, you could kill someone.

Guarantee those and you're most of the way there.

Safety, privacy, security... nothing that unusual. Banks have this and actually your personal medical data is not as super-critical as their data (it IS important, but not in the same way).

[Doggy Styles]

The NHS is not big- only average.
Its not that complex - only average here also.

SO WHERE ARE THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS??

PZZ

Safety, privacy, accuracy, completeness, speed, security.

But the big one is safety which depends on the others being 100% right. If they aren't, you don't lose an order, or a bit of customer data, you could kill someone.

Guarantee those and you're most of the way there.

[TheFaQQer]

NPfIT spend is believed to be £12 bn over the past seven years.

NHS spend on IT over the past seven years (excluding NPfIT) is £7bn.

So, if the system is scrapped, over the next five years, at least a further £5bn is going to be spent by the NHS on IT, not including whatever is purchased to replace the scrapped system.

[pzz76077]

I wonder how far Google had got for the first £1 billion, let alone £12 billion. I would imagine, quite a long way. I'd also suggest that in adjusted real-world value, both MS and Apple have created several operating systems for that kind of cash.

I also doubt that World of Warcraft (which is a formidable system, seriously) has got anywhere around that level of investment.

The NHS may be big, but really there are only 60 million people in the UK and it is hard to conceive what £12bn could be spent on. That's 120 THOUSAND man-years of work, even if it costs £100k/year per person.

In the private sector, would even a big bank spend that much on a new software system?

The NHS is not big- only average.
Its not that complex - only average here also.

SO WHERE ARE THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS??

PZZ

[AtW]

I wonder how far Google had got for the first £1 billion, let alone £12 billion. I would imagine, quite a long way. I'd also suggest that in adjusted real-world value, both MS and Apple have created several operating systems for that kind of cash.

Did Google ask external consultancies to do the job for them? No - they hired bright people who did what was necessary very efficiently. It cost them less than £12 bln, and that most likely includes many data centers around the world - the task that they solve so well is a couple of orders of magnitude harder than anything NHS IT system was meant to do.

[d000hg]

I wonder how far Google had got for the first £1 billion, let alone £12 billion. I would imagine, quite a long way. I'd also suggest that in adjusted real-world value, both MS and Apple have created several operating systems for that kind of cash.

I also doubt that World of Warcraft (which is a formidable system, seriously) has got anywhere around that level of investment.

The NHS may be big, but really there are only 60 million people in the UK and it is hard to conceive what £12bn could be spent on. That's 120 THOUSAND man-years of work, even if it costs £100k/year per person.

In the private sector, would even a big bank spend that much on a new software system?

[pzz76077]

I'm sorry, I have no idea how that refers to my previous post, so am unable to comment.

This is how much it should cost.

PZZ

[TheFaQQer]

So, 1m per year Oracle costs, where did the rest of the 170Bn costs go??
Whos pocket??

PZZZ

I'm sorry, I have no idea how that refers to my previous post, so am unable to comment.

[TheFaQQer]

Sun is no longer in control - Oracle (software company) is.

How can Oracle be in control, if they don't own the company?

[pzz76077]

When Oracle and Sun bid for work with VW (UK) in 1999, the hardware costs were £10 million. Software licensing was £10 million. Consultancy revenue was £10 million.

That project was a hell of a lot simpler than the NHS one is, with much lower expectation of reliability, redundancy and security.

So, 1m per year Oracle costs, where did the rest of the 170Bn costs go??
Whos pocket??

PZZZ

[minestrone]

great idea... I'd love to have my medical records "hooked up to the web". I really don't think letting all the trusts go off and do their own thing is a great idea.

They are already. have been for years.

[TheFaQQer]

Thats the problem, 50m for hardware etc - are you mad??
10m max

PZZ

When Oracle and Sun bid for work with VW (UK) in 1999, the hardware costs were £10 million. Software licensing was £10 million. Consultancy revenue was £10 million.

That project was a hell of a lot simpler than the NHS one is, with much lower expectation of reliability, redundancy and security.

[pzz76077]

All I can say is -= 170Bn, I would give you a system you could wank over.....and get rich in the process.

I will say no more....

PZZ

[AtW]

and with Sun providing all the hardware/OS/apps there's no risk of the 'it's not us, contact them' nonsense.

Sun is no longer in control - Oracle (software company) is. Their Sparc architecture was a goner years ago, but now it is dead certainty that it won't be here soon.

Solaris? Not exactly super supported system - the Sun is a goner and anyone buying their stuff now should seriously consider if they are fit for the job they do.

Case in point - Sun sells lots of x64 boxes, if Sparc was so great they'd never do it.