chieftech’s blog

OPEN source software offers one cure for clinical system implementation woes, as authorities struggle to find solutions that meet all medical requirements, a leading health informatics researcher says.

...

Rather than the all-in, big-bang approach of a full CIS (clinical information system) implementation, an open, standards-based approach would allow a more incremental, lower risk approach, with organic expansion based on lessons learnt.

I think the mixing of terminology around open source software and open standards is a little confusing in the piece. However, what is clear is that complex environments, like we find in health care, need new approaches to information technology to avoid the mistakes of the past. This includes open source software, open standards, etc but also new approaches to procurement, support, solution design and project management. Just focusing on open source software itself is missing the bigger picture of the challenge. And what about the hardware too?

Personally I apply a few innovation and change management concepts in my work:

• IMA's Accelerating Change Methodology (AIM);
• James Carlopio's change management model (see Changing Gears: The Strategic Implementation of Technology), which has origins in Rogers' innovation theory (see Diffusion of Innovations if you aren't familiar with this fantastic book); and
• Nambisan W, Agarwal R & Tanniru M, 1999, ‘Organizational mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information technology', MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 365-395.

Jodie Miners was asking about this following my earlier post about WIIFM. I realised that I had already covered this before in this post on my old blog.

Incidentally (and this is probably why it was top of mind) I'm planning on attending a 2 day Accelerating Change Methodology introduction program (it will be a refresher for me and a chance to hear about the change issues being faced by other organisations) in Sydney on the 16-17 September 2009. You can find out more about the course on the AIM site.

Most of us have built and reviewed and rebuilt intranets using Waterfall project methodologies. It’s the process of understanding all of the requirements and risks first, developing specifications to describe them, and then implementing the solution. Using this approach, however, typically results in late and over budget intranets. This is because intranet projects are often plagued with changing requirements, unanticipated integration challenges, and usability annoyances that are difficult to accommodate in the fixed scope of the project

I can't tell you how strongly I agree with the recommendations here - its one of the reasons I've been a fan of the MIKE 2.0 methodology, to help break that waterfall approach failure cycle with not just intranets projects but any kind of information management, knowledge management or collaboration system implementation.
BTW I couldn't find the original article, so hat tip to Matthew Hodgson for sharing it.