Thanks to Cameron for pointing that out because all of what will need doing (whether VA abandons M or not) will be related to this effort. Right now it is focussed on HL7 RIM and V3.x based messaging but there is much more in the conceptual content that must be involved and coordinated among several federal depts and most certainly with a number health professional specialties. The VistA Community must build its relationships to encompass this scope and Robert Witkps idea of a "VistA Developement Committee - VDC" to orchestrate the work is a seminal one. It will help build clear targets for VistA configurations and evolution consistent with the VHIM that the VistA supporters (i.e. VSA) can effectively respond to. VDC would complement MDC. Those organizations must have an ANSI-accredited consensus based standards structure that draws on, and is coordinated with the other SDOs of the ANSI HISB. We must expect that that is the direction that ONCHIT promote and the VA will head. The Boston Meeting of the VistA Community must actively address and debate the alternatives to achieving this end and it must not dawdle. World VistA must be prepared to present its program of coordination with the health professional specialities and its own Education/Training activities as well as its "Configuration Projects" activities which are the
rightside/leftside of a real living body. Such a posture will get recognition from the VHA and both can benefit. Other healthcare IT suppliers will also benefit and their dialog with the VistA community will be beneficial, as can be reflected in the reactivated MDC and present NEMUG forums.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
One should always have a plan B.
What if in parallel to the "rehosting" effort there was a strategy for doing the 20% that will make VistA 80% better in the areas that are most painful....and that as far as I can tell it is not what the user sees but under the covers...the things that affect maintainability etc.. I'll bet there is an 80/20 solution that just needs to be articulated....if we knew what needed to be done those of us that are committed to a commercial open source model can start to tackle some of this work and make the improvements available.
BTW, I'll be if you looked under the covers of most of the commercial systems they would be no better....many if not most vendors have added functionality through acquisition and not development....and have the spaghetti code to prove it.
Along with this there must be increased training and capacity building capability.....this is beginning to be addressed by a number of folks including Arden's group.
Looking down the road a bit this approach would be a win win for all....for the VA...it would provide an alternative strategy that may in fact provide a better ROI and at the very least a fail safe option. For the global VistA community it would result in a better to maintain, improve VistA and capacity building to generate a new generation of experts. It would also create an even more robust open source alternative.
Joseph
Sowinski, Richard J. wrote:When did everyone get so dumb ? You learned M. I learned M. When did it all of a sudden get so difficult to learn it ?
Are you saying we were smarter than the upcoming generation ? I don't think so.
The real problem with Vista right now is not the language. It is the shear size of it, and the rat's nest of poorly documented code
under the hood, which is the result of years of patching already patched code. I liken it to a huge wad of gum.
A redesign in M is as valid as a redesign in any other language. In fact, it would be much simpler. VA already has the installed base,
and the in-house expertise.
We'll find out 10 years from now (maybe) when the current redesign is finished, how well it works , and how many people it takes to
support it.
Oh yeah, by the way, outsourcing has worked really well. CoreFLS was a grand success.
-----Original Message----- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of *steven mcphelan *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:06 AM *To:* hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net *Subject:* Re: [Hardhats-members] MDC Revival
I believe Cameron's statement about the VA management not being able to back off of migrating to a newer platform is probably very close to the truth. However, I am sure that there were some real business management decisions made (or at least I hope so). I saw an article recently that estimated that 40-50% of the current VA IT staff will be retiring in the next 5 years. If I was a manager of VA IT I would be very concerned about that. I would seriously consider moving my technology to a platform that enables me to recruit competent IT staff without having to rely on in-house training for the next generation of VA IT support. I would even consider technology that is inferior to my current technology as long as the new technology meets my needs and gives me greater flexibilty in personnel matters or provide me the opportunity to competitively outsource some IT functions.
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
