Hosup posted a link about a large-scale electronic medical records implementation intended to streamline patient information sharing between hospitals in Massachusetts. Broadly speaking, the USAToday article touches on what I intend to in the foreseeable future and perhaps the rest of my life. Replacing paper processes in health care is a good idea for a multitude of reasons, and there is a huge federal initiative to get the job done. But the best technology isn't necessarily the answer. 50%-75% of information systems projects fail--and not because of bad technology, but because of people issues and the way they are managed.
The article I just referenced was written by Nancy Lorenzi, PhD., who I worked for the last two summers and plan to study under in a graduate program at Vanderbilt University. This class's emphasis has been on creating sound technology, which is a must, but it's also been on understanding concepts for use as a manager. If I may be so bold, I want to suggest to my classmates that an information system is only as good as the users in an organization who adopt it. Understanding organizational implications of information systems implementations is absolutely necessary, although it is often overlooked.
I will now get off of my soapbox. Is this an example of bloggerhea?
Comments