Before you share data, ensure it's high
quality
I refer to your article, "Can it always be good to share?"
(Computer Weekly, 13 March), which covered the move towards data
sharing between government departments.
New technology enablers such as SOA and web services have
allowed data to be integrated easily, and in the commercial world
this has often lead to huge efficiencies and enhanced customer
service - it is easy to see why the government has passed recent
legislation.
However there have also been many disasters, with many projects
overlooking the value of the base data. This was often the case
when CRM and ERP software was purchased on a large scale in the
early 1990s. Let's not have the same "garbage in, garbage out"
again.
Poor quality data being replicated throughout government could
simply automate the mistakes of the past, instead of providing a
fuller picture of the citizen. Government officers could be left
with a murky picture of individuals and base decisions on
inaccurate information.
Colin Rickard, DataFlux
Mobiles will cure pain of hospital phone
fees...
I am writing regarding your story about the government lifting
the mobile phone ban in hospitals (Computerweekly.com, 15
March).
I believe the only reason that hospitals have clung to the myth
that mobile phones present a threat to sensitive equipment is to
force patients to use their overpriced bedside phone services,
which can cost more than 30p a minute. I can only assume hospitals
are using this to subsidise their budgets.
However, I do think there is a more practical reason for
restricting the use of mobiles, and that is the thought of the
cacophony of ring tones warbling through wards full of sick
people.
Stephen Meredith, Webscreen Technology
...as long as they're used in the 'normal'
fashion
The article on lifting the ban on mobile phones in hospitals
says there is no problem with normal use of mobile phones in the
hospital environment. Can someone tell me what "abnormal use" of a
mobile phone might include?
Phil Sissons
User buy-in is crucial for effective CRM
Regarding "Think long-term on CRM, users told" (Computer Weekly,
13 March), companies will fail to obtain competitive advantage if
they treat a CRM implementation as a pure software roll-out.
Firms continue to spend on CRM without first considering their
business strategy or processes. CRM is not just about the software
it is a complex process that is useful only if companies know which
problems they are trying to solve.
While I agree that CRM is not just installing a box, Gartner
analyst Scott Nelson misses an important point: businesses that
implement CRM must work with users to drive the methodology. As the
user rate increases, businesses will start to see CRM's real
benefits.
Matthew Crook, SalesCentric
E-commerce sites only as good as value they
add
Whatever solution retailers choose in the race to build better
online offerings, ("Retailers rethink online platforms", Computer
Weekly, 6 March), these cannot simply be bolted on to the existing
business.
Going beyond the problems of systems integration, retailers must
not forget the fundamental business challenge: how their online
offer will add real value.
Customers are more savvy than ever, so if they see yet another
featureless transactional website with badly managed customer touch
points, they will shop elsewhere. This means the online offer has
to integrate effectively with all business processes, such as the
supply chain, catalogue management, product delivery, product
returns and customer service.
This is not just a question of technology being joined up: it is
about the business having an holistic multi-channel strategy.
Ultimately, decision-makers need to know that if they sold the
online division, customers would notice - otherwise, the site is
not adding value to the business proposition.
Andy Morris, Egremont Group
Was that a rise in the fall or a fall in the
rise?
Your report, "Getting better value with graduates" (Computer
Weekly, 13 March), states that "the decline in the number of
graduates choosing to study IT... has fallen, which has alarmed
heads of IT".
Why are they alarmed? Shouldn't a fall in the decline be a cause
for jubilation?
Or is this evidence of a falling rise in standards of
English?
Neil Haughton
Answer back
Do you have a fresh take on someone's opinion on this page, or
something to say about a Computer Weekly article? E-mail
computer.weekly@rbi.co.uk.
Please include a daytime phone number.