>>After spending billions
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8397854.stm
>>
>>Why do I feel a small team could have delivered 90% of what they wanted at 10% or less of the cost. (And no I'm not saying it could have been done in Fox :-) )
>
>I certainly agree that the scale of the over-run is preposterous and that the aims were probably over-ambitious.
>But the cost of software development is probably only a small part of the total (can't find coroboration of this tho :-{). It also involved the whole hardware infrastructure, digitizing billions of medical records etc. That's not something you can do with 'a small team'
>
>Best,
>Viv

OTOH maybe you could just look forward and say from now records are digital or existing records could simply have been scanned and be available in that form and billions ?, I thought the UK population was about 70 last time I counted. Hardware etc should come to nowhere near that. Most medical facilities have equipment already and a solution that was flexible to allow the use of that equipment could have been found.