Posts Tagged Open source

Collaboration Means Sharing Intellectual Property

My Google vs Facebook analogy from yesterday was rhetorically useful, but I think it’s misleading.  There is way to much me-too-ism on the web right now, and I don’t want to suggest that clone of something from the pure-web world will be of any significant benefit to healthcare.  I think what I was getting at though was that the problem solvers in healthcare need their version of the Open Source, collaborative infrastructure that is currently driving the web.

A small, but very interesting, development on the web that I’d like to explore further is GitHub.  GitHub is a very niche operation that is doing something that probably would have been considered impossible a few years back: commercial source code hosting.  For a small fee, the promise to maintain the intellectual property of software shops.  For an established company, this idea is ludicrous.  They are asking their customers to move their most valuable asset outside the walls of their company and put it in the hands of this little startup.

GitHub seems to be making money so it seems that enough organizations are willing to trust their IP to this small software shop.  What really makes GitHub interesting though is how they’ve used Open Source technology to build not just a for-profit company, but a vibrant community around their service.  The GitHub website is actually a social networking site.  Instead of throwing sheep at each other though, they’re trading code.  This is one social networking site that has figured out how to enable valuable intellectual and commercial activity.

So what does this mean for healthcare?  Can their be a healthcare github?  I think sage might be on the right track.  This article from xconomy has some more info on sage.  They’ve already signed up some big names, but they’re also running into some of the same problems that you’d expect when you ask big companies to share IP.  While I hope they’re successful and I think that they’re structured appropriately for what they want to accomplish, the barriers to entry still seem to high.

I still don’t know what the right approach is to deploying mass creativity and the wisdom of the crowds to the healthcare problem.  It will, however, need near zero friction toward sharing ideas and data.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

, , ,

No Comments

A Vision for Open Healthcare (v0.1)

Yesterday, I used the term “Open Systems” when trying to understand Haque’s four pillars, but I didn’t really explore why I find open systems so interesting.  The topic, and whole purpose, of this blog is to figure out how to hack the modern healthcare system so that creative users can find ways to improve healthcare for themselves and for everyone.  Open Systems are one way to achieve this goal by making the system hackable.

When we make a system hackable, uses emerge that the designers and administrators never intended.  Sometimes those uses exploit the system (think email spam), and we must actively manage against them.  However, these novel emergent uses often add considerable value.  My hope is that open healthcare can save more lives at lower cost because it can recruit and deploy so many more participants than a closed, top-down system would even consider.

There is a lot of effort going into standardizing healthcare in every way from electronic medical records to treatment protocols.  What these standards have in common though is top-down specification and increasingly complex implementations.  Not only do these forces generally inhibit mass creativity, they actively discourage it.  Mass creativity is a threat to traditional hierarchies.

Healthcare is the epitome of complexity.  Not only is it a very hard problem requiring extreme amounts of talent to carry out even the most basic functions, there is so much money involved that the politics and red tape put every action under the microscope, thus regimenting the whole practice.  There is not an open system in sight.

The problem, though, is that bureaucracy doesn’t scale and it doesn’t adapt.  Past a certain point, it takes more effort to maintain the bureaucracy than it does to do the actual job.  To make matters worse, the bureaucracy is too slow to adapt to change.  It can’t evolve and improvise.  But how do we ensure quality of care while at the same time harnessing mass creativity?  The answer is in a little slight of hand.  What we really want is complex behavior, not complex systems.

Dee Hock, founder of Visa observed that:

Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple and stupid behavior.

~ Dee Hock Quotes

The problem is in finding the right set of simple rules.

Coming from the technology world, I have a lot of faith in the lessons that the web has taught us.  In this realm, simple, open architectures and a philosophy of information sharing have lead to a vast ecosystem that simply didn’t exist 20 years ago.  While I have no illusions about silver bullets and quick fixes, applying some of the lessons of the web should get us a long way towards the goal of a fair and effective healthcare system.

There are two important lessons from the web that I want to address in the near future: Open Source and Standards Based APIs (call it Open Data?).  Individually and taken together, these areas of the web have made contributions on the same scale as many multi-billion dollar companies.  And they’ve done it on a shoestring.  Of course, I doubt that such a thing as an open source surgeon will ever exist, but adding billions of dollars of value (without billions in costs) on top of the existing healthcare infrastructure would be simply revolutionary.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

, ,

No Comments