Observations on NHS coverage
Regarding your stories, "Watchdog delays report into NHS IT
programme," and "NHS staff reveal serious concerns over IT plan"
(Computer Weekly, 9 August), we would like to make some
observations.
The thrust of the story is that there is a dispute between the
National Audit Office and NHS Connecting for Health over the
content of the NAO study of the NHS National Programme for IT. But
this theme has no grounding in fact and you produce no evidence or
quotes to stand up the "hints of conflict".
Indeed, towards the end of the piece you undermine the entire
thrust of the story by reporting that an NAO official says the
delay is due pressure of the NAO's workload and the parliamentary
recess. The dramatic headlines suggest more substance to the story
than there is.
I can assure you there is no dispute with the NAO about the content
of its report. There cannot be a dispute as no draft of the study
has yet been shared with us. As you anticipate, with your plea in
your leading article not to denigrate the British Medical Journal
report, we do not consider the paper published in the British
Medical Journal to be authoritative.
This survey of merely 23 people airs concerns which we are already
dealing with - and does not represent a significant body of opinion
within the NHS: it is a statistically minute sample of the NHS's
total staff of over a million people. Furthermore there is no
indication as to when this work was carried out.
This is a huge IT roll-out which has just begun, will take up to 10
years, and will involve significant changes to working practices.
People do not easily adapt to change and we understand that and we
are working hard to build the momentum of our communications and
engagement in support of the necessary change management.
Staff have to know what to expect. We have to take on board what
they say and give them a voice in the entire process. We will begin
a major communications exercise to involve all NHS employees in the
IT roll-out.
It is not helped by the kind of journalism you have recently
carried which undermines the morale of the many thousands of NHS
staff working hard to implement much needed new IT systems.
James Herbert
Director of
communications
NHS Connecting for Health
Editor's comment:
ComputerWeekly is not often in the position where it has to enter
into a forensic analysis of its journalism on these pages, but it
always welcomes such an opportunity do so.
The story on the National Audit Office (Computer Weekly, 9 August),
was about a delay in the publication of its report on the National
Programme for IT [NPfIT] in the NHS. It was in the context of a
previous NAO report on a large NHS IT-related programme, Read
Codes, which was delayed by more than a year, in part, because of
disagreements over the facts to be presented in the report.
Many in the NHS and beyond would like to know how well the world's
largest civil IT-related programme is progressing and what lessons,
positive and negative, need to be learned. This makes the NAO
report particularly important. Protracted delays in its publication
will be of widespread concern. That is why ComputerWeekly drew the
attention of readers to the delay.
NHS Connecting for Health (CfH) says the thrust of the article was
that there was a dispute between the National Audit Office and
CfH.
The report did not mention CfH. Some of the most deep-rooted
questions about the NPfIT involve ministers and senior officials in
Whitehall, not CfH which was set up to implement the wishes of
government.
In addition, the article was not about a dispute. It was about a
delay in publishing the NAO report and a warning from history that
Whitehall officials can delay these important reports.
Newspapers are frequently criticised for failing to give a balanced
view of contentious matters. It is perplexing that CfH's letter
criticises ComputerWeekly for highlighting that there could be an
entirely innocent reason for the delay in publishing the NAO
report, such as workload pressures.
CfH argues that there cannot be a dispute as "no draft of the study
has yet been shared with us". There can be disagreements before a
draft report is available. The NAO's Read Codes report was delayed,
in part, because of contention over some of the factual content in
protracted exchanges of information and questions between Whitehall
officials and auditors.
On the survey published in the British Medical Journal, which was
reported widely, by the BBC for example, CfH says it was not
authoritative; but then goes on to point out that it "airs concerns
which we are already dealing with". This would, on balance, give
some credence to the survey's findings.
That said, ComputerWeekly accepts that the survey was of 23 people
in four trusts only. Indeed, we reported this fact, but it was a
rare example of independent research which focused on individuals
who were involved in implementing national systems. It is not fair
to compare these key individuals with the more than one million
people who work in the health service, including cleaners, and
calling the 23 a "statistically minute sample of the NHS's total
staff".
The 23 were "all local senior management staff and clinicians
involved in implementing the NPfIT" according to the survey's
authors. Although the survey was carried out late last year it
raised present-day themes such as a failure to provide adequate
answers to questions about the programme.
Asset management is about proving value
Vaughan Smith's article "High cost of ignorance"
about IT asset management (Computer Weekly, 9 August), was
certainly on the right track. Understandably, Microsoft is trying
to encourage companies to take control of their licensing assets,
but this is just one piece of the IT jigsaw.
It's important to realise that asset management is much broader
than simply having the right number of licenses for the right
number of users.
Indeed effective asset management at both the software and hardware
level is at the core of every IT management decision. The
management of the costs and process can only accurately be
evaluated with a strong asset management tool and process in
place.
The continued growth in the adoption of ITIL best practises in the
areas of change and configuration management are focusing IT
staff's attention on this area but we still see organisations who
have no idea how many computers they have let alone the number of
software installations.
There is a challenge here, but also an opportunity. Microsoft's
drive for Software Compliance together with the more structured
approach to complete asset management under ITIL will allow IT
managers to demonstrate to company boards not just that they are in
charge of their software licensing costs but in charge of their
business.
Daniel Power
LANDesl Software
Don't overlook Linux as a Windows
alternative
I read with interest Clive Longbottom's opinion column about
Linux as a viable alternative to Windows.
I fear he is taking an outdated and narrow-minded view of
desktop use, certainly as far as larger IT departments are
concerned. In my experience, most end-users need just three
utilities: e-mail/a calendar scheduling tool; a web browser; and
productivity tools, such as a word processor and spreadsheet.
Evolution, Firefox and OpenOffice.org adequately fulfil these
requirements
Longbottom cites three applications that are "not going to be
ripped out" - Quickbooks, Sage and Maximiser - but what percentage
of end-users actually use these tools? Is he saying no-one can use
Linux because a small percentage do not want to migrate to an
alternative application?
Linux is surely a viable alternative for most desktop users,
offering potential cost savings and easier maintenance (in my
experience at least). I can also vouch for its greater reliability
as a server-side operating system.
Longbottom needs to look at the greater good, not just one small
aspect of IT usage.
Paul Ashbrook
IT consultant,
Bolton
Why digitise births, marriages and deaths?
The Office of National Statistics has announced it is importing
services from India (via Siemens) "to digitise 250m records of
births, marriages and deaths dating back as far as 1837" (Computer
Weekly, 9 August).
Microfiche records will be sent to India for conversion. The
database created will be used by other government departments such
as the Passport Office to validate passport applications.
When the DVLC converted 35 million vehicle licensing records,
the number of transcription errors was huge and access to the
original documents was unreliable.
Undertaking the work in India will mean data errors that would
be obvious to a UK resident could be overlooked. I wonder if the
British public will be given the opportunity to validate the
transcription results. If not, will any errors remain in the
databases forever?
The fundamental question is why undertake this task? What is
gained other than progressing closer to a police state?
Charles Smith
London
We must act now to revitalise UK IT sector
The IT industry seems to have finally recovered from its slump
and is facing a turning point. With demand for IT graduates
increasing at a faster rate than for any other occupation
(ComputerWeekly, 2 August), it seems to be a golden opportunity for
the UK to fully re-establish its IT sector as being first
class.
The increase in demand for IT graduates highlights how graduate
recruitment must come to the fore to ensure the next generation of
innovators, developers and programmers remains in the UK. However,
are there enough graduates to fill these jobs and are companies
working closely enough with universities to supply graduates with
the skills they need?
As a company we feel it is vital for IT companies to invest in
courses to help educate the next generation and we continue to
invest heavily in education as part of our business strategy.
The IT industry cannot continue to develop if future talent is
lured away to other sectors or countries, especially with the
increasing reliance upon IT and technology in all areas of
business.
The potential for the UK IT industry to grow and innovate is
here; it only remains for technology companies to step up to the
challenge.
Alastair Sim
SAS UK
Flexible working needs serious
consideration
I agreed wholeheartedly with your article on how flexible
working must match both staff and business needs (Computer Weekly,
2 August). In this era of the Flexible Working Directive, where we
have the technology to make any time, any place, anywhere working a
reality, there's no reason why employees and employers can't
mutually benefit from flexible working.
The danger lies in companies jumping on the bandwagon, rather
than implementing a well thought out policy. This might explain why
the CIPD survey you mentioned revealed that the proportion of
employees using flexible working was far smaller than the
proportion of employers prepared to offer it.
In research conducted by Inter-Tel in the UK among SMEs, the
number of organisations practising flexible working increased by
nearly a third over the past 12 months. However, only 2% of those
surveyed have made flexible working an integral part of their HR
policy. Alarmingly there are many businesses (23%) who claim that
as staff don't know about flexible working there is no need to
adopt a policy.
The benefits of flexible working are there for the taking. It's
time organisations made flexible working more than an
ill-thought-out 'me too' claim.
Duncan Miller
Inter-Tel
Back to basics for SMEbusiness continuity
plans
Martin Byrne raises some interesting points in your feature on
business continuity (Computer Weekly, 2 August). However, an
assumption is made in the article that most companies have a
business continuity plan. Worryingly, for SMEs in particular, this
is unlikely.
Although the example of Iglu.com shows progress is being made in
this area, many SMEs we deal with do not have a plan because they
are unaware they need one. Nobody has prompted them to have one and
it has not been considered, especially if they do not have IT
staff. It is only now insurers are asking, that the topic is being
raised.
Although Byrne provides important advice with key activities,
most small businesses are not this structured. They need help and
advice on a more basic level. Being able to securely access company
data, whatever happens, is the key. Premises and stock are
replaceable, but once data and knowledge are lost, the crown jewels
are gone forever. So the first question an SME should ask itself is
whether its data is backed up securely off site.
Ronnie Sandham
SystemHost