John Moore, who blogs over at Chilmark Research, summarizes his visit to the recently-completed HIMSS conference (see: Another Year, Another HIMSS) in the following way:
Coming back from HIMSS and really scratching my head trying to think of what incredible new and novel thing(s) did I see, hear about or experience at the conference. Nothing stood out. Here it is just my third HIMSS and I am already getting a bit bored, struggling to find those truly exciting advances that get my juices flowing. me on vendors, I can’t be getting bored that quickly can I? Was there really nothing new on display at HIMSS this year? Or is it that I am still wet behind the ears and am unable to recognize the subtle differences occurring in the market that for others are truly significant? Tend to believe it is the former for the simple fact that after some 15 years as an IT analyst, ...I have developed a sixth sense, knowing intuitively when there are truly some significant innovations and introductions taking place in a market. There were none this year at HIMSS.
I trust John's instincts in this matter, which is to say that HIMSS, with displays by hundreds of exhibitors and myriad lectures and seminars, tends to be on the light side as a showcase for healthcare IT innovation. In a recent blog note, I commented on the "invisibility" of LISs, RISs, and PACSs at HIMSS (see: An Explanation for the "Invisibility" of LIS and PACS Vendors at HIMSS). Could it be possible that this lack of attention to "ancillary" systems at HIMSS could be an explanation for the dullness described by John? Both radiology and pathology are in the midst of convulsive shifts to new science and technology including molecular diagnostics, targeted therapy, teleradiology, molecular imaging, and digital pathology. Since the adoption rate for information systems in pathology and radiology (i.e., deployment of LISs, RISs, and PACSs) is nearly 100%, any major shift in these fields will require commensurate improvements in their IT support systems. The vendors of such systems always seem to be playing catch-up-ball with their products.
I published an article in 1994 discussing the differences between technology-driven vendors versus marketing-driven vendors of medical information systems (see: Differentiating between marketing-driven and technology-driven vendors of medical information systems). The former, frequently the smaller companies, invest their resources in new technology and wait for customer referrals through word-of-mouth. The latter invest less in new product development and more in sales and marketing. HIMSS is a very expensive show for a vendor. I provided some cost figures about it in a note more than four years ago (see: Cost of a Vendor Exhibit at HIMSS). I am sure that the cost has risen substantially since that time. My guess is that many of the exhibitors there may be placing a higher premium on marketing than technological innovation. Does this provide an explanation for John's observation about HIMSS?
Comments