Here is an interesting article that relates to chapter 3.
http://technology.inc.com/networking/articles/200809/contacts.html
With chapter 3 focusing on data, databases, data mining, and data storage I thought this article was appropriate although not exactly in the formal spirit of the text. The article focused on personal contact databases and posed some interesting questions and observations. The article focused on the number of personal contacts that one should have, stating that you can only manage about 150 friends or contacts according to Dunbar's law, named after Robin Dunbar who posed the hypothesis, although there were exceptions mentioned. The article then talked about how contacts can be an efficient tool for job hunting and or sales leads if properly maintained. Mention was made as to how expanding personal contacts digitally could give feedback information about who was looking at your profile while at the same time promoting your qualities and talents. The article ended with a story of how one web contact led to a job with the then startup company YouTube where he was worth 6 million plus within six months joining that startup.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The position of our debate team (Tim, Joe, Brandon, Ted) is that IT doesn’t Matter. Nicholas Carr is initially taking a “devil’s advocate” pose but upon closer examination he actually has several valid points which logically support his position. Here are those key points:
IT is expensive:
IT removes competitive advantage:
Carr calls it the “Corrosiveness” of IT. His viewpoint is that the same IT is available to all (keep in mind that it is hardware, software, and network) thus the first to buy the hardware only has an advantage for a little while until the next competitor buys it. Now, everyone is equal. It’s like a phrase from the Incredibles movie…. “Once everyone has the weapons to make them a Super(human), then suddenly, no one is a Super(human)”.
IT is misunderstood:
This is perhaps the biggest argument poised by Carr. He says that too many hear him say “IT doesn’t matter” and in misconception they interpret that to be “IT can be eliminated”. Actually, Carr proposes a reduction in the reliance of IT. A reduction in IT being the top concern and factor of success. Once people understand what Carr is promoting (less dependency on IT) then they will become more acceptable to the concept.
Summary:
IT is a factor of a business, but it shouldn’t be the dominant factor. IT is a means to an end, not the driving force. There is a misconceived mindset that IT will make the difference between success & failure of a business when in fact IT may be as much of a constraint as a contributor. Proper balance of IT’s role is needed for a company’s growth and success.
IT is expensive:
IT removes competitive advantage:
Carr calls it the “Corrosiveness” of IT. His viewpoint is that the same IT is available to all (keep in mind that it is hardware, software, and network) thus the first to buy the hardware only has an advantage for a little while until the next competitor buys it. Now, everyone is equal. It’s like a phrase from the Incredibles movie…. “Once everyone has the weapons to make them a Super(human), then suddenly, no one is a Super(human)”.
IT is misunderstood:
This is perhaps the biggest argument poised by Carr. He says that too many hear him say “IT doesn’t matter” and in misconception they interpret that to be “IT can be eliminated”. Actually, Carr proposes a reduction in the reliance of IT. A reduction in IT being the top concern and factor of success. Once people understand what Carr is promoting (less dependency on IT) then they will become more acceptable to the concept.
Summary:
IT is a factor of a business, but it shouldn’t be the dominant factor. IT is a means to an end, not the driving force. There is a misconceived mindset that IT will make the difference between success & failure of a business when in fact IT may be as much of a constraint as a contributor. Proper balance of IT’s role is needed for a company’s growth and success.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/135131.php
Here is an article concerning the future of digital health records
Here is an article concerning the future of digital health records
I found an interesting article about the future of health care records. Here's a linkhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/135131.php
The article is titled “US Will Have Digital Health Records In 5 Years Says Obama”. The article went on to discuss the plans that president Obama stated in a speech, Thursday January the eighth, where as part of his stimulus plan he wants to “reduce cost and improve the quality of health care” by rolling out a project that will digitize and computerize all health records in America. This project is estimated to cost 75 to 100 billion (yes billion with a B) dollars. The plan is supposed to streamline medical records and make them universal. This will be a major undertaken and according to the article not everyone is in agreement with how this should be done if it can be accomplished at all.
This will take an enormous effort including tremendous IT support especially knowing that only 8 percent of hospitals and 17 percent of doctor’s offices are currently using this kind of medical record system. The article went on to mention that there will need to be an influx of IT personnel to pull of a project of this magnitude.
One other very important point of the article was that there will most likely be fierce competition for the rights to provide the software needed for such an undertaken as the monetary stakes and rewards will be so high. Microsoft and Google currently have or are working on software solutions to nationalize medical records. Stay tuned as this story is just in its infancy.
The article is titled “US Will Have Digital Health Records In 5 Years Says Obama”. The article went on to discuss the plans that president Obama stated in a speech, Thursday January the eighth, where as part of his stimulus plan he wants to “reduce cost and improve the quality of health care” by rolling out a project that will digitize and computerize all health records in America. This project is estimated to cost 75 to 100 billion (yes billion with a B) dollars. The plan is supposed to streamline medical records and make them universal. This will be a major undertaken and according to the article not everyone is in agreement with how this should be done if it can be accomplished at all.
This will take an enormous effort including tremendous IT support especially knowing that only 8 percent of hospitals and 17 percent of doctor’s offices are currently using this kind of medical record system. The article went on to mention that there will need to be an influx of IT personnel to pull of a project of this magnitude.
One other very important point of the article was that there will most likely be fierce competition for the rights to provide the software needed for such an undertaken as the monetary stakes and rewards will be so high. Microsoft and Google currently have or are working on software solutions to nationalize medical records. Stay tuned as this story is just in its infancy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
