|
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 68
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 43,618
|
Re: Britain outside the EU
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I understand that you have vast experience in IT, Hugh, and that you know so much more than the rest of us on this subject so we may as well just shut up  but I really do have to challenge you on this.
You seem to be confused about the argument I am making. The technology is there, otherwise the government would not have suggested it. What isn't there is the system they want to introduce to make it work. That can be devised using existing technology.
The example I would give you is this. There is an existing technology called 'blockchain'. Most on here will have heard of this, and it is already being used for cryptocurrencies. Hence, it should be obvious that it is a very secure way of monitoring and recording.
The way this would work is that a unique code would be generated for each item, and it would contain information on the product's origin and who has handled it on every step along the way. So by this method, the origin of all goods transported would be recorded and this would provide the guarantees required, including certificates of origin for everything passing thrrough the border.
I do not dispute that the system would need to be developed, and this would take time, but the technology is there already. For the transitional period, we would need an extension to the present arrangement.
Hopefully, I have made this clear enough for everyone to understand.
|
Nice ad hominem attack…
Anyway, back to your proposition that "The technology is there, otherwise the government would not have suggested it"…
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org...sasters/92990/
Quote:
|
the National Program for IT (NPfIT) was hailed to be the largest public-sector IT program ever attempted in the UK. The project was set to revolutionise the use of healthcare informatics in the NHS, with integrated electronic patient records, an online ‘choose and book’ service, and digital referral and prescription systems. But after ten years’ work on the project which was punctuated by delays, stakeholder opposition, and issues with implementation, the program was finally shelved in 2011, costing the taxpayer over a staggering £10 billion.
|
https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/st...grammes-it-nao
Quote:
The reasons government major programmes hit hurdles
The NOA identifies four key themes it sees repeated in major programmes that encounter problems.
Scope – the remit of the project is poorly defined or not aligned with overall objectives or strategy.
Cost and schedule – the limits of schedule and cost estimates are not taken into account, leading to unrealistic promises.
Interdependencies – many of these programmes include multiple objectives and contributors, which are often not managed effectively.
Governance and oversight – programme management doesn’t adapt or change as the project develops.
|
Quote:
Technology projects cited include the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) electronic tagging programme for offenders, which saw the government attempt to develop bespoke tags for criminals combing radio frequency and GPS tracking. The project was delivered six years late and more than £60m over its initial £130m budget, and was described by MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee as a “catastrophic waste of public money which has failed to deliver the intended benefits”.
Part of the reason the scheme stumbled was because interdependencies and roles were ill-defined, the report says. The MoJ expected Capita, its main contractor, to act as integrator for the different elements of the programme and manage three other suppliers, but “Capita was contractually not responsible for the work and performance of the other suppliers, and considered it lacked leverage to perform the integrator role”. This led to a lengthy dispute and delay, which eventually resulted in the MoJ taking the integration role back in-house.
|
Once again, it’s nothing to do with the "technology", it’s to do with understanding and agreeing requirements, it’s linking the "technologies" up and ensuring that they do all work together, and it’s doing this whilst in a period of constant pressure because of changing priorities.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the reimbursement & surveillance technologies don’t exist yet.
"Technology" is easy(ish), processes, people, & politics, and understanding the interdependencies are hard.
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Last edited by Hugh; 05-09-2021 at 11:50.
|