User:Martinvl/LondonAmbulance

right|LAS Logo

The London Ambulance CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) failure of October 1992 was a computerisation project that has become a text-book example of mis-management. The project's purpose was to computerise the existing pen-and-paper ambulance dispatch system that was in use by the London Ambulance Service (LAS). When the system was put into service, the dispatch of ambulances was thrown into chaos and after three weeks running the computer that was driving the system crashed, leading to the withdrawal of the system. The inquiry into the failure catalogued a series of management errors. Newspapers allege that patients died as a result of the chaos, though this was never proved.

System development
The London Ambulance Service was the largest ambulance service in the world, employing about 4000 staff (equivalent to 2700 full-time staff) at 70 centres over an area of 620 sqmi. It carried over 5000 patients a day in a fleet of 750 ambulances and received between 2000 and 2500 calls a day, two thirds of which were emergency calls. The dispatch of ambulances was managed using pen-and-paper system where forms were filled in by the dispatch centre call taker and physically passed to the dispatcher who allocated a particular crew and then on to the radio operator who gave instructions on to the crew. This process would typically take three minutes.

In the 1980's it became apparnent that this process could be improved and the project initiated. The project's objective was to speed this process up and to reduce costs by reducing the number of staff needed to run the dispatch centres.

Choice of contractor
The Chief Executive of the LAS commissioned the Management Consultancy firm Arthur Andersen to advise on the best way forward. Arthur Andersen produced a report which stated that the LAS should expect to pay £1.5 million for a packaged solution (if such a solution could be found) and that they should expect the project to take 19 months. If no package could be found, the costs would be significantly greater. When the LAS put the project out to tender, they specified a strict deadline of 6 months and awarded the contract to a consortium consisting of Apricot, Systems Options and Datatrak whose tender was £937,000, some £700,000 less than the next bidder.

System development
dfdf

Chronology of failures
sds

Inquiry findings
ere

Aggersive timetable and financial constraints
wew

Poor selection of contractor
wew

Poor management
ere Finkelstein (a number of other references)

Somerville