I found this paragraph interesting from not just a Health IT perspective but from an "understanding Google" perspective...
“If I were not doing what I’m doing and I wanted to do something in health care … I would go to all of the research universities and would try to figure out where the best, interesting IT software is that can be open-sourced,” he said at a health-IT panel discussion. “My guess is that a platform like that would be remarkably different from the platforms that we are using today,” he said.
He wouldn't go to the patients to find out what they want or to the Hospitals to find out what they need he'd turn to the research community. I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad thing. It probably has aspects of both.
But it's instructional because that's not what normal software company's tend to do. For example, when Microsoft wants to build a health platform they go to hospitals and do usability tests with doctors and nurses.
I don't think it has anything to do with an engineering response. The issue is in defining the problem where as engineering is about applying knowledge to a problem.
The theory I'm putting forth is that Google tends to see things in the abstract. "The world needs a web based office package" vs "Company X has 100,000 employees and they want this feature". The later response is how a traditional software company like Microsoft thinks.
So for Google solving the problem of medical records for the world means going to people they perceive as deep thinkers (like researchers) and devising a system in a vacuum. Where as Microsoft would go to the line-staff level and design up.
(and for the record I'm not necessarily condemning either strategy. In fact I think the best possible scenario is to have two companies with those philosophies competing with each other)
I interpreted his quote differently. The difference is not in abstract vs concrete but in open vs closed.
Presumably, the researchers building open-source EMR systems do talk to patients and hospitals rather than building abstract software in a void. They don't, however, need to worry about profitability and would be more free to integrate with other systems and not try to create lock-in.
Also, he is simplifying the problem. I agree with him - but there are some major factors in this problem that are more than just the simple "go open source" solution he seems to propose.
Namely, it's about how organizations have made decisions and their ENTIRE WORKFLOW is designed around the EHR app they use.
We have got to stop talking about VistA. It casts a cloud over the whole conversation. Look at what's coming out of the Regenstrief Institute. They built some of the original VistA components (like CHCS) and have built other systems from the ground up, like OpenMRS.
“If I were not doing what I’m doing and I wanted to do something in health care … I would go to all of the research universities and would try to figure out where the best, interesting IT software is that can be open-sourced,” he said at a health-IT panel discussion. “My guess is that a platform like that would be remarkably different from the platforms that we are using today,” he said.
He wouldn't go to the patients to find out what they want or to the Hospitals to find out what they need he'd turn to the research community. I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad thing. It probably has aspects of both.
But it's instructional because that's not what normal software company's tend to do. For example, when Microsoft wants to build a health platform they go to hospitals and do usability tests with doctors and nurses.