Computer Weekly readers' have their say
Patient data more widely visible than we are
told
Having read your front page lead on NHS smartcard access to
patient data (Computer Weekly, 7 February), I was very surprised by
the comments from the Connecting for Health spokesman, "Only staff
with the right role allocated to them can access the Patient
Demographic Service (PDS) with a smartcard and their own unique
password".
This is not the case. I know a finance manager who has access to
the PDS. He does not want or need access to the PDS - the access is
given by virtue of his role as manager. You cannot turn this access
off.
Registration authority manager, NHS trust
Business intelligence software is no
cure-all
"Business intelligence software drives surge in retailers'
sales" heralds your front page (Computer Weekly, 24 January).
I am worried that such a headline reinforces the much held view
that business intelligence software can be some sort of silver
bullet for business. It is such attitudes that cause businesses to
make large-scale datawarehousing investments, only to be severely
disappointed by the returns.
The retail industry is a classic case in point where there has
been years of large-scale investment for minimal return. Many of
these investments have been driven by the now legendary quest for
the next "beer and nappies" revelation.
The headline would have been much more appropriate if it had
read "Retailers drive returns from embedding business intelligence
in core processes". For at the heart of your article lay the real
story. That is in all businesses, the power of business
intelligence lies in understanding how it can contribute to core
operational processes. In the case of your story, this was in the
vital area of merchandising and stock replenishment.
Until such time as this is more widely understood, business
intelligence investment will continue to be misdirected and
businesses will continue to be disappointed.
Mark Douglas, director in consulting, Deloitte
Simplicity is the Kiss of life for IT
projects
I am writing regarding the story "IT programmes risk failure
when the focus is on technology, not end-users, says report"
(Computer Weekly, 31 January).
Does this have anything to do with that other story, "Pope
Catholic - shock finding"?
The problem is that managers spend so much time and money on
management consultants, instead of relying on in-house staff (who
know the business and what the users want).
System analysis is not rocket science; it just needs someone to
listen to what the users need. Change management is the same. There
is no point in creating lovely programmes that do not function.
Using the Kiss system has always worked for me, and the users
appreciate it, because they understand what you are trying to do
for them.
If managers spent less time downsizing, rightsizing, offshoring
and outsourcing, then we might get somewhere.
Oh, and they should also learn to speak English, not Management
English. The difference between the two is quite simple. When you
speak English you are attempting to communicate ideas and motivate
your staff.
When you speak Management English you are attempting to
obfuscate issues, tell lies, and generally use 20 long words when
two would be enough. Those two words would be "You're
redundant".
Bob Browett, HP3000 systems manager
Payment for bulk e-mail delivery won't stop
spam
While recent attempts by ISPs to reduce spam should be
applauded, news that AOL and Yahoo will soon charge senders of bulk
e-mail a fee for guaranteed delivery (computerweekly.com, 6
February) badly misses the mark.
Firstly, it guarantees delivery based on the sender paying (not
based on users' preferences), ultimately allowing more unwanted
e-mail through to users.
Secondly, only legitimate companies will be asked to pay. While
legitimate senders sometimes send email to people who do not want
it, the amount of spam that falls into this category is negligibly
small.
Most spam does not come from legitimate business entities. It
comes from the margins of the business world - people with neither
the money nor the inclination to pay for delivery of spam. Instead,
they continue to make spam more deliverable, modifying message
content to defeat older filters and sending ever more spam to
vulnerable e-mail addresses, keeping response rates as high as
possible.
In short, the plans do not actually prevent spam; they ask
legitimate senders to pay for the sins of the real spammers.
Andrew Lochart , Postini
Lack of warranty not confined to open
source
In his article on open source licensing (Computer Weekly, 7
February), Matthew Harris says, "Another disadvantage of open
source software is that it is provided without warranty
protection," leaving the user to assume the risk of problems.
This is unfair: you could remove the words "open source" from
that sentence and it would still be true for the majority of
cases.
In general, the manufacturer will accept liability to the extent
of giving you back the money you spent on buying the software. I
have never heard of a supplier of packaged software who would pay
you compensation for any software failure.
How rich would Bill Gates be if paid users every time Windows
crashed, to compensate them for the work they lost as a result?
Lyndon Hills
Firms must wake up to IM security threat
Your article "Firms warned of instant messaging worm threat"
(Computer Weekly, 7 February) highlights the growing threat from
instant messaging services.
This should be a big worry to most UK firms, not least because
most have no idea how many of their employees use instant
messaging; nor do they have any policies covering its use.
In most cases, instant messaging is the unprotected back door to
damaging companies' systems. Aside from the entry of malicious
code, it is likely that no one is policing whether confidential
company data is exiting via this gateway. Losing information via IM
due to human negligence is one excuse, but companies without a
policy for using this technology are as much at fault.
Organisations should be aware that existing content security is
ill-equipped to manage instant messaging. Instead, companies should
appraise the very specific threats of this now widely used (and
abused) application.
Ed Macnair, Marshal