this could be more good new for ALC, page-8

It is to be expected that a new government would come in and declare the current situation to be a total mess and blame the previous government for all the failings.

That is how politics works isn't it? We have seen this time and time again, so no real surprises there.

How I see things, there are two sides to every situation - the good and the bad. I accept that there are good things about the new RAH and even the epas. But let's now kid ourselves, there are some serious issues as well. If you got the coroner, safework sa and etc expressing concerns, something is wrong.

For the epas, I have no doubt that the people on the ground knows what needs to be done to address the issues and have passed on this information to the vendor. It then becomes a question of whether the vendor can refine the system to incorporate the users feedback, and whether there are additional costs associated with this work
(also depending on how the contract is drafted).

My understanding is that extra features were sought, adding to the complexity of the project. Add in the implementation issues give rise to extra costs. Vendor is basically saying, it is going to cost you this much extra if you want this and/or we can fixed this issue but we need x and it is going to cost you $y. This has been going on for some time now, leading to the cost blow out.

For the new RAH, I have been there as well. It certainty looks like a billion dollar building. However, we can't deny the fact that there are some defects that are serious enough to result in the hospital losing its accreditation. In its current state, it is not meeting seven core standards, and a further 17 non-core standards. Did this non-compliance contributed to the claims of health and safety regulation breaches being investigated by Safework SA? I don't know. What I do know that it is extremely disappointing that the new RAH is at risk of losing its accreditation with it being newly built and etc. No doubt some of the issues can be fixed, but it would be paid for by taxpayers.

I am a proud South Australian and is generally supportive of the new RAH. But what good is a new hospital if it can't provide a safe environment for staff and patients? What disappoints me is the poor project execution, management and etc. Anyone who has follow the progress of the epas rollout and construction of the new RAH would not fail to notice the warning signs throughout their progress (e.g. Poor configuration of the operating warm and low hanging operating theatre lighting). Poor planning, project management and execution, union influence, conflict between the government and the builders have all contributed to sub optimal outcomes.

What I do agree with BigPlums is that Alcidion is not the silver bullet. The problems are much much bigger. Alcidion can solve some but not all the problems. Also, many of the problems are not specific to the current problems plaguing epas and the new RAH. It goes to the very heart of government procurement process, project initiation, management and execution. If the government has to employ an expert project management team on big bucks, so be it as it could potentially save taxpayers millions down the track in preventable errors and cost blowouts.

As I indicated a long time ago, what we need is an opportunity. Unfortunately, the procurement process in the public sector tends to be very risk adverse with a strong preference for sticking with established multinationals. Hence, I believe our projects with Monash and MidCentral District Health Board in NZ to be very important if we are ever going to meaningfully penetrate the public hospital sector.

Nothing else but runs on the board would open the door and give us the initial opportunity.