Fhir Scorecard

Scorecards are useful and limited. The limits are worth naming before the decision, because the categories a scorecard cannot answer are usually the categories where deployments fail. Trusting the number without the context turns a...

Every FHIR scorecard eventually converges on the same six categories. Different buyers weight them differently; some buyers rename them; a few add a seventh. The six themselves are stable, and using them as the default composition saves...

A FHIR scorecard without weights is a spreadsheet. Weights turn it into a decision instrument, and the weights that produce useful decisions are the ones that reflect the actual clinical use case rather than a generic average of every...

Gartner-style comparisons are useful and misleading in equal measure. The quadrant plots look decisive; the underlying methods are opaque; the axes are generic; and the vendors they cover are usually not the whole FHIR market. Reading...

Every FHIR vendor claims strong conformance. The claim is the easiest thing on the pitch deck; the evidence is often the hardest thing to find. Quantifying the claim before the contract signature is the shortest path to knowing whether the...

Scorecards and Requests for Information look like the same evaluation instrument at a distance. Both collect information, both compare vendors, both produce a decision artifact. Up close they answer different questions, and picking the...

The criteria that decide a FHIR product purchase are not the criteria that decide the year-two experience. Year one is about landing the integration and passing the acceptance test. Year two is about operating the product without...

An honest FHIR product scorecard is the shortest path to a decision that survives contract signature. A dishonest one, the kind that reflects sales conversations more than technical evaluation, is the shortest path to a rebuy conversation...