Analysis Information Technology Peachtree Healthcare - Case Study Example

Peachtree Healthcare IT Case Study number Publish Introduction Peachtree Healthcare has expanded rapidly within the last decade to assume control of 11 network healthcare facilities and to employ over four thousand people. In addition, the organization is responsible for the healthcare of around a million patients a year with most patients shifting between various Peachtree Healthcare facilities for treatment (Glaser, 2007). The management of the organization is under increasing pressure to update their existing IT infrastructure in order to come at par with other industries. The current pressure stems from standardization in other sectors such as banking that cannot be fully afforded to more critical areas like healthcare without great thought. Moreover, recent failures at new Peachtree Healthcare acquisitions are pressuring management to go for an overhaul of the current IT infrastructure. Change of Opinion Before looking into the commentaries, I was more focused on the technical aspect of the problem with regards to implementing either SOA or a monolithic system. The human aspect of the problem as advocated by Kastor was not under consideration while framing recommendations. Moreover, my approach to problem solving for Peachtree Healthcare was more dependent on deriving a fitting monolithic, SOA or hybrid monolithic SOA framework for Peachtree Healthcare but as advocated by Halvorson, such a resolution would not be possible without considering the objectives that require achievement. Creating and maintaining an effective corporate strategy requires that objectives are taken into primary focus before any other implementations are considered (Johnson, Scholes, & Whittington, 2008). Ranking Commentator Opinions George C. Halvorson Paul Lefler’s standardization approach will not be able to deliver results for all parts of the healthcare sector in the case of Peachtree Healthcare. However, it would be false to say that standardization could not be admitted at any level at all. The best approach would be to standardize certain areas where research supports standardization but to leave out other more complicated areas such as “colon cancer treatment” in the words of Max Berndt (Glaser, 2007). Halvorson is also right when he stresses that SOA may not be the only solution for Peachtree Healthcare as per the CIO’s suggestion. Another notable aspect of Halvorson’s approach is his critique on trying to use tools without realizing what objectives require achievement. In this respect, Halvorson is totally justified in commenting that Peachtree Healthcare should tabulate its needs and requirements and should then proceed to procure fitting tools. Monte Ford Ford essentially raises an important point and then fails to see through it – risk management. Ford suggests that Peachtree Healthcare should tabulate the available risk but this is not really possible given the eclectic nature of operations at any healthcare institution. He further suggests that Peachtree Healthcare should follow Candace’s opinion of implementing a “modular SOA” structure (Glaser, 2007) while keeping in mind areas where such a solution would work and where it would not. Again, the recommendation provided by Ford is largely vague and unrealizable since risk tabulation for what would work and what would not work requires taking risks that might entail patient’s lives. Providing analogies for an airline reservation system and a clinic’s basic systems is also illogical since clinical operations are too varied to be standardized this simply. For example, a patient requiring treatment for a common cold would differ significantly from a patient requiring treatment for tuberculosis. Randy Heffner Randy Heffner’s ideas are best summarized by his last line in the commentary when he states that Candace should “redo her decision analysis and strategy planning, looking at SOA through a business lens” (Glaser, 2007). Heffner is right at declaring the rising popularity and efficacy of SOA but fails to realize that their penetration into the healthcare sector is minimal at best right now. Rather than being over enthusiastic and ending up with a long term problem in terms of a puritan SOA architecture, Peachtree Healthcare should look for objective oriented solutions rather than solution oriented objectives. Overall, Heffner’s opinion is too highly biased to be relied upon given his overt emphasis on SOA alone. John A. Kastor Kastor is the only commentator who realizes that the IT infrastructure problem is essentially two pronged – on the one hand there is software and on the other hand there are the people who will utilize it daily. His observations regarding the human resource potential failure are highly well founded whether considering a monolithic system or trying to realize a SOA experiment. Moreover, Kastor’s observations in regards to “regimentation” are highly well founded especially in relation to older doctors who are not as tech savvy as their younger colleagues (Glaser, 2007). Other than these observations, Kastor provides no other ideas or clues in regards to administering a new IT infrastructure at Peachtree Healthcare. Commentator Recommendations Use Halvorson’s comments regarding a hybrid SOA monolithic structure for use at Peachtree Healthcare based on objective tabulation must be taken as the key to Peachtree Healthcare’s IT future. Ford’s comments regarding standardization require looking into but should not be taken as the blueprint of IT infrastructure for Peachtree Healthcare’s future. Heffner is overly enthusiastic in regards to SOA and it should be kept in mind when penning a new strategy since over enthusiasm without the right justification is only about inviting failure. A balanced approach between monolithic systems, SOA and any other possible solutions is a must to ensure success for Peachtree Healthcare’s future. In addition, Kastor’s focus on human resources and their adaptability and independence from regimental systems requires due consideration since this could easily become a large reason for failure even if the technical IT aspects were a success. Recommendations cum Road Map for Peachtree Healthcare IT Services The first issue at hand is to resolve what Peachtree really requires from its IT infrastructure. The best place to begin probing is the current IT system in place. Senior management should probe into areas where the current IT system is lacking such as the recent failure at one of Peachtree Healthcare’s newest acquisitions. This form of a probe would allow Peachtree Healthcare to tabulate its current wants and needs as per the IT system that could then be translated into a workable and realizable IT framework (Olsen, 2012). Once the wants and needs are tabulated using the current system, the next step would be to segregate these through a two step strategy. In the first step, it would be pertinent to classify what needs and requirements could be standardized and which ones could not be standardized. Such critical decision making would require the direct involvement of management, IT staff and medical staff that will be using the new system. The contention in composing a varied team is to ensure that no areas are left out at the lowest possible cost using reasonably achievable objectives. The end contention is to reach a compromise between all involved parties to derive SMART goals (Johnson, Scholes, & Whittington, 2008). Once the goals have been tabulated, the next step would be to classify the method of implementation using pure human input from the end operators of the proposed software changes. It would be pertinent to develop surveys and questionnaires to classify the available IT skill set for all employees interacting with the IT system at all levels. Based on the outcomes of these surveys, it would be clear what standardized and non standardized operations could be implemented without irking the end operators. The IT staff should then move ahead to classify SOA, monolithic and other software structures for possible implementation. Modular implementation would be highly recommended since it would provide for flexibility and feedback during the implementation process. In addition, once the initial phases of deployment are complete, it could be expected that the hybrid IT system could be expanded to encompass other areas as staff IT skill sets expand. Bibliography Glaser, J. P. (2007). Too far ahead of the IT curve? Harvard Business Review , 1-9. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy (8th. Edition). Essex: F. T. Prentice Hall. Olsen, E. (2012). Strategic Planning Kit for Dummies (2nd Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Read More