Council member John Ellis, FIAP is a representative of the IAP to the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee (PITCOM). Here, he reports on a meeting he attended at the end of April.
It can be quite amusing to see Government at work and to observe the similarities with the ‘Real World’. At a recent meeting in the committee rooms in the Houses of Parliament the subject for discussion was the Health Service and its requirement to have implemented integrated IT systems by 2005.
The three speakers all gave interesting presentations. As with any corporate project, they all wanted the same thing – here, integrated systems allowing current information on patients to be seamlessly available at all levels within the NHS. Of course, they had different views on how this should or could be achieved and whether the 2005 deadline could be met.
As in any organisation, the people at the coal face have already done some of the work. In this case that’s General Practitioners. Many practices have purchased some software to do the tasks required in managing patient records and have even got 80% of the historical records inputted as well. They may also have data links to local pathology laboratories so that the information can be exchanged electronically. Systems are able not just to manage individual patients. They may also be used for proactive tasks like inviting for review patients taking particular drugs and providing statistical monitoring of a wide range of information. Users can get the same information in a variety of different ways to suit their individual needs.
That’s where it all stops.
There are no links between GPs (those that are computerised either use their own in-house written systems or have purchased software) and no links from them to the hospitals, other than by paper records. The Government wants integration between all levels of the NHS and some GPs believe that this could release an extra 30% in staff time to do other, more important things. It would appear that some GPs are on top of the problem at their level. However, they need a common data transmission medium (EDI or XML protocol) to exchange data between themselves and upward to the Trusts. This, in itself, should not be a problem provided a committee could specify the standard message structure. Unfortunately the priorities for what data could be shared or passed to the next level cannot be decided and, as ever, it would appear that everyone is getting bogged down in committees. User requirements cannot be agreed. Does this sound familiar to you? GPs, though, know what they need to integrate into their systems, fragmented as they are, so perhaps this should set the priority.
There is money for the project but it doesn’t necessarily get to those who need it. When it does get to a Trust or GP, it can be spent, not on the IT project, but directly on patient care. Or it may not be sent to where it is needed (we have all seen our budgets cut or borrowed from). We are talking of figures in the region of a billion pounds annually and it’s currently predicted that in excess of 2 billion pounds a year will be required just to support this initiative. Of course, there’s always a danger of money being diverted by people who have no idea of what the IT could do for them, especially when there is so much pressure on them to provide health care. So it’s proposed to ring-fence the funds to make sure they’re used as originally intended.
This sort of money obviously attracts the large software companies who are forming bidding groups to provide the whole range of what is required, even though no one seems to know what that is. At the GP end of the market, it should be possible to create off-the-shelf packages that cater for their requirements. The costs here could be quite low, although the large central systems will, by their nature, be expensive.
So here we are:
The management (the Government) wants a system. It’s willing to put in the money. The departmental managers and budget holders (Trust executives) are tasked to decide what is required but are not that interested and probably don’t understand the problem. The users (the GPs etc) are doing their own thing almost at odds with everything else. This must sound pretty familiar to project managers in organisations all over the world.
We need people who know what’s wanted to specify a set of initial requirements. These should be people from the coal face; the GPs seem to be the best place to start. Get the user requirements together and signed off, and get the thing underway. Then a planned series of projects should follow on (to avoid scope and feature creep), adding more functionality as required.
Who sets the priority will be the issue. But work, not political issues, should drive this. What the public see is improved (or not) services, not reduced costs. Using the system to predict future trends for political reasons is less visible still.
Finally, there’s security. While much of the information in a healthcare system is necessarily sensitive, individuals’ records are not of value to most people. Nevertheless, it’s important that any data being transmitted are encrypted by PKI and point-to-point email security will be a necessity.
[Interesting project or development? Let us know at eo@iap.org.uk!]

Council member John Ellis, FIAP says: The future’s not so bright, the future’s XP
As Microsoft’s latest offering, Windows XP, and the associated upgrades to the Microsoft Office application are rolled out with it later this year, controversy rages over the company’s new software licensing policy.
Gone is the simple idea of just entering a registration code from the box or the disk. Now we must either be online to register or telephone Microsoft for the second half of the registration code. With the present Web infrastructure, responses to such messages are often slow or non-existent, particularly as Denial of Service attacks seem to be on the increase. Telephoning Microsoft is almost as bad. Currently, it can take up to 30 minutes to get through to a person who can provide an answer on its restricted (8 a.m. – 6 p.m.) telephone support line in the UK.
Why the convoluted registration procedure? Well, Microsoft, like many other companies, has for many years been worried about software piracy. In the past we have seen dongles, registration keys and even “pick the 3rd word on the 6th line of page 10 of the manual” to stop piracy, but of course these have all been bypassed by cunning patches or just plain photocopying, among other ploys. Now, people simply publish the hacks or lists of registration codes on the Web. So the unscrupulous end-user can easily copy a disk and use it, simplifying the whole process.
I suspect that Microsoft is more interested in areas where wholesale piracy is seen as a way of life and are trying to clamp down here, particularly in countries where copying installation disks may not be illegal.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, Windows XP has already been hacked while in beta. Web-sites already publish the much-needed codes to save you registering. This means that it is more difficult to register legitimately than to use a bypass code! If you purchase a copy of XP and then use a cracked code to install it, have you broken the law?
How does it affect you and me?
Well, you can install Windows on a PC up to 10 times (contacting Microsoft each time). Then it’s a bit cloudy. Does the disk self-destruct? Does Microsoft send an assessor to interrogate you to see if you can continue to use the product?
If you replace the hard drive or change the motherboard the system may need to be reinstalled as Windows is keyed to a unique PC configuration. This might mean reinstalling your O/S every time you upgrade. What joy!
There are now also legal issues to be considered and the advent of XP has forced Microsoft to come clean. If you buy a copy of Windows (any version) you can install it on a single PC. You can transfer the licence to another PC or to another person if you sell the PC. However, if it is an OEM version it is licensed to the PC you buy. This means that, if you sell the PC, the licence goes with it, but if you upgrade it – add a new hard drive or replace the processor – you technically have a new PC and should now buy a new Windows licence for that PC.
Microsoft has played this down but many legal minds have identified it and, again, this is foot in mouth stuff for the Redmond crew. I am sure many people will ignore this factor when upgrading, but XP makes it more difficult just to pass over.
Will people upgrade? Well if they have a PC with 128MB of RAM spare they probably will, particularly if they believe the hype. Then again, those of us writing systems may wish to watch the service releases over the first 18 months before trying to deploy to the new environment. Many organisations and individuals may consider not upgrading just because it is such a hassle to roll out. New PCs may come with XP, but over the last 2 years most people have upgraded to PIIIs with Windows ME and are probably happy, so they may hold fire also. Others may reinstall their copy of ME or NT4 or 2000.
Technically the product may be the way forward, but Microsoft’s registration policy might actually help the other camps waiting in the wings. The large hammer to crack the small nut may not end up ruining Microsoft, but it could make a very large dent in its market share.
You can contact John at john.ellis@wellis-technology.co.uk
Interesting project or development? Let us know at eo@iap.org.uk!

Mike Ryan, the Director General, writes about the new IAP Council.
The IAP’s new administrative year starts on June 1st. That is when the five Council members who have completed their three-year terms of office have to stand down, and new people take over. This year two extra vacancies have arisen, due to the resignations of Alex Robertson and Ian Hargrave, who both had another year to go before their normal tour of duty would have expired.
Ian was Treasurer of the Institution for a time, and laid the foundations for our current accounting system – not the simplest of tasks. The IAP may not be a commercial company, but that does not seem to make the accounting any simpler!
Alex Robertson was a member of the Council, and Vice-president of the IAP, for seven years from its incorporation until just before Christmas last year. His support was invaluable; many of the benefits members enjoy today might not be there but for Alex.
Thus we were left with seven vacancies, but only five people who had come forward to fill them. So there was no need to ballot the membership this year. Those five people were automatically elected to the Council with effect from 1st June, and include two former members of the Council who have agreed to stand again:
Steve Cumbers
Selva Naidu
and three new recruits:
Raymond Butler
John Ellis
Phillip Hamlyn
We welcome all these people, who will serve the Council for the full three-year term. Vacancies created by the two earlier resignations will remain open until next year (unless filled by co-option).
The three Council members who completed their three-year terms and did not stand again are Cecilia Finnerty, Jennifer Edwards and Megan Robertson.  We thank them for their efforts on the Institution’s behalf. In particular, Cecilia did a great deal of work as Chairman of the Education Committee and Megan was a most able editor of IAPETUS, the precursor to these pages.
IR35: An Update
Most members will be aware that the judicial review of the IR35 legislation was completed in April. Mr Justice Burton concluded that the Inland Revenue had not acted improperly in applying IR35 measures to counter tax avoidance. He also confirmed that it was neither a breach of Human Rights, nor a cause of restriction of free movement within the EC. The general view appears to be that the amended rules adopted by the Inland Revenue last year altered the impact of the legislation sufficiently to make it robust and consequently able to withstand legal challenge. Nevertheless, the Judge did single out several areas of the Employment Status Manual for clarification.
The judgement has removed any doubt about the current position. However, the IAP will continue to press the Government to recognise that the allowable schedule D expenses of 5% do nothing to encourage entrepreneurial activity. It is also important that we press the case for allowing training expenses. There are few, if any, areas of economic activity that undergo such continual change as software development and the IAP is committed to the professional development of its members.
We need your help to carry out this lobbying as effectively as possible. Let us know about your experiences. Real case studies give us the most potent ammunition.
Don’t forget to email eo@iap.org.uk with items of news about you or your company.

John Ellis is standing for Council this year. Here he talks about his background and hopes for the Institution.

I am married with 4 children and have been a member of the IAP since 1992 and been involved in computing since 1977. My career began as a computer operator working on ICL and Honeywell mainframes for medium-sized computer bureaux and within a few years had progressed to programming primarily working in COBOL and RPG. I have been involved with systems ranging from Order Processing and Stock Control to Finance Systems in the retail/wholesale food industry. I spent 9 years in Local Government as an analyst/programmer and, finally, development manager. I was responsible for introducing Community Charge, Council Tax and Housing Benefit systems, plus most of the rest that goes with the territory. In later years I have been working on Insurance and Finance systems for software houses and financial institutions. Throughout my computing career I have been fortunate to be at the forefront of many new business applications, from the introduction of Barcodes in shops, introducing PCs to the business as a real tool to designing e-commerce solutions. In local government, I spent many years dragging them out of the dark ages into using desktop applications and VB to reduce costs and improve development times, opening the way for more efficient use of people and their time. While being currently employed by a financial institution, I also have business interests that include technical support, video-editing and software design companies and, of course, a Web design company. (They say the more you do, the more you can do.)
As I am primarily an application programmer I feel I am probably well in the mainstream of IAP membership. I would like to see the IAP grow in terms of its membership and would work to that aim by providing a timely information resource for members.
Don’t forget to email eo@iap.org.uk with items of news about you or your company.