[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ihc] Re: [bcm] Correction: XML 2004 and Dec. TC Meeting
Agreed, David, I think that especially in the healthcare field, the savings that are realizable through standards written with application development and developers in mind stand to show some disproportionately large savings almost immediately, and that is actually a strong argument against rushing forward pell mell on this stuff. We will run into the same quagmire that currently faces CIOs who are faced with diminishing ROI even while productivity still inches upward through the legacy of the Y2K Build-Out despite the past three years of negative growth in IT spending. CFOs dont GET that IT infrastructure not only wears out quicker than other investments, it becomes obsolete even more quickly and is practically useless for amortizing depreciation. There's a whole job of education that simply can't be done by lecturing seminars or trade shows. The only way to make the case is to show the advantages by example, but we actually need to make sure that equipment infrastructure is renewed at the same time as part of the overall recoverable costs we demonstrate, otherwise simple savings due to interoperable data exchange will convince the CFOs that the savings only come from software and open standards--relatively low cost and high benefit.. You'd think these bright folks would have a little more on the ball, but they already know everything better than anyone else, so we can only attract them to forward thinking by succeeding while they wallow, provided we can manufacture some opportunities. That's why I am attracted to healthcare. It is so fouled up and hidebound and frankly confused that it is low-hanging fruit of the first order, so showing considerable savings in this arena is very likely to get a lot of attention. It is also the most challenging in terms of immediate needs for standardizing the whole system inside out and end to end. Daunting, but doable. We're a lot less likely to get a lot of bean counting guff in such a hasty investment black hole, except for the pharmaceuticals, of course, but they already know the value of IT at least in terms of raw computational power with which theykeep their researchers supplied. Oops, who put this soap box under my feet? Ciao, Rex At 1:42 PM -0500 11/29/04, David RR Webber wrote: >Rex, > >Ok - I'm guilty as charged ; -) > >You did indeed answer the question beautifully from the IT >technologists view point. > >What I am after is the executive direction. Answer questions your >CFO might ask - like >'Why am I paying for this and what use is it anyway?'. 'When do I >stop signing the checks, >since then there's no benefit left to get?'. All questions the IT >tech guys probably don't want >to answer really ; -) > >But at the end of the day - knowing that you are solving the real >problems and delivering >on the business value is the point of all the IT in the first place. > >Alright - so I am guilty of pushing all these buttons at once. > >In BCM we're trying to help with providing templates so that the >executive and business >folks can work in step with the UML-heads together....because those >executive types >can be really slippery and evasive too - and there's often questions >they don't want to >answer either / responsiblity they don't want to sign-off on. > >It ain't easy though we are making stead progress.. > >Cheers, DW >======================================= >Rex Brooks wrote: > >>Hi David, >> >>I tend to think of the business needs in context, such as >>banking/financial/insurance in one bucket, with diagnosis, >>collaboration, treatment documentation and tracking in another and >>physician credentials, organization capabilities, etc in a third, >>but that's just me. UML does a good job of getting the classes >>ready to be plugged into the apps, at least for me. I don't usually >>ask for more at that point, but switch to a more business-centric >>toolsett. UML is right handy to disgram and look at workflows and >>model processes. Some tools can, of course, go much further, and >>depending on the client I might or might not continue on with a >>tool that extends beyond UML per se. >> >>However, at that point we should be able to formally define our >>requirements for the purpose of writing standards specifications. >>From there I generally only round-trip back to UML to make sure >>that we are following the methodology we set out with in order to >>verify our assumptions, or not and then make changes to that >>methodology and requirements based on what we have learned about >>that use case and those requirements. >> >>So, generally speaking, that gives us the basis for a reasonable >>specification or to evaluate existing specifications/standards. It >>then allows us to move forward into applying disciplines such as, >>well, BCM and UBL to move on into applications and the architecture >>in which those applications are aimed to work, such as web services >>in an Enterprise Architecture built of Service-Oriented Architected >>components. In fact, this is the point at which your BCM eService >>concept ought to do a good job of carrying the work on to >>completion. >> >>You are really good at setting me up, you know? This is exactly >>what you did at the combined IHC/BCM meeting, brief as it was. This >>is, of course, a generalization and simplification. Would that it >>were that simple, but someday maybe it will be.... y'think? >> >>Ciao, >>Rex >> >>At 10:19 AM -0500 11/29/04, David RR Webber wrote: >> >>>Rex, >>> >>>Of course we here at OASIS BCM are keenly interested in what >>>happens before the >>>development team starts writing use cases - and then - after - once the use >>>cases are done, what next? How do you determine if the business needs >>>are being met? >>> >>>While UML is a useful IT design tool - business implementations require more >>>and natural tools that fit the domain and industry norms / skillsets and >>>outcomes / controls needed that business stakeholders can interact with. >>> >>>I'm just here to pose the tougher questions... >>> >>>Cheers, DW >>>============================================ >>>Rex Brooks wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Humlers, and others >>>> >>>>I need to correct a misstatement. The International Health >>>>Continuum is going to vote on the proposal to use UML as the tool >>>>of choice for developing use cases. This is not a decision that >>>>has been made. My personal opinion and assessment that this is >>>>likely got ahead of me, there. I apologize. I'm just itching to >>>>get on to the work. >>>> >>>>It seems so important to build some momentum here, that I forgot >>>>for a moment that we need to dot all our 'i's and cross all our >>>>'t's. >>>> >>>>Sorry, I will keep a tighter rein on my nethusiam. >>>> >>>>Ciao, >>>>Rex -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com Email: rexb@starbourne.com Tel: 510-849-2309 Fax: By Request
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]