mandelbr0t's Journal: The Cost of Proprietary Government eSolutions

The Calgary Herald reports that a project to move Alberta to electronic health records will cost over CDN$1.4B. The project, which started in 1999 has suffered from "poor project management as well as shoddy oversight of users accessing sensitive patient information." The project has still not been completed, and neither the final delivery date, nor cost to taxpayers is known. And, Canada is now falling behind other governments in making these electronic health records available to institutions, allowing for increased efficiency in patient care. According to the Calgary Herald, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, the UK and the Netherlands have all implemented electronic patient records to the point where over 95% of doctors use them. In Canada and the United States, that number is less than 50%. Not surprisingly, it appears that at least the user interface component will be developed for Microsoft Windows, and that security of these Windows systems is being managed directly by the doctors, who are not generally certified IT security professionals (this last statement based on my observations over the last few years during patient visits).

Though the article does not specifically mention technologies, many Slashdot readers will recognize the Microsoft standard of poor project management and shoddy oversight of users accessing sensitive information. I strongly suspect that the reason the other countries named in the article have had more success with implemention of electronic patient records is that they are using open source alternatives, and hiring consultants who have not been corrupted by Microsoft's greed. It is clear that many governments in Canada have been seduced by the "simplicity" of Microsoft due to their lack of technical understanding, to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. I hope that public knowledge of the extravagant spending on these ineffective eSolutions lead to better processes surrounding awarding of government contracts, and more accountability for overspending and deadlines, as well as ensuring that a governement remains vendor-neutral.

It is the vendor neutrality part that does not seem to be considered when awarding government contracts. Were government officials more aware of the true cost of a commitment to Microsoft technologies, it is likely that less would be awarded, at least assuming that they haven't been bribed already. Far too many projects are approved without analyzing the long-run commitment to the vendor who provided the solution, and are then forced to buy a myriad of support and maintenance contracts, consultants, licensing fees, upgrade costs and development costs with no real results. In other words, good money after bad. I no longer wish to live in a jurisdiction who will gladly hand over my tax dollars to Microsoft. If Microsoft is now being dictated by the Alberta government, it is time to get the hell out of Alberta. This is not something I take lightly; I have waited for years for positive progress, but it is all negative. Microsoft has infiltrated into Alberta government, and municipalities will follow suit quickly. I will not work in that mismanaged environment, and I will go elsewhere to find an environment that has not yet been corrupted.