Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
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/
https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/st...grammes-it-nao
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. |
At last! That is what I was saying - the technology is there.
The fact that there is incompetence within the Civil Service to properly frame specifications, etc is an entirely different matter.
What I am not clear on, however, is whether the blockchain method would reduce or eliminate the need for surveillance. We do have drones, of course!
My thinking was that blockchain technology would record the movement of products at various stages of their journey, so it would be obvious if products went astray.
I do not dispute at all that introducing a system such as this will take time. I think the government would be better giving this project to one of the computer giants to put together. It would be far speedier and without the number of glitches that we normally expect from government computer contracts. The NHS one was a disaster.