Category: Innovation

Design Principles Must Flow Across OrganizationI’m the co-owner (with my wife) of a los angeles catering company, Bite Catering Couture.  As I straddle the gap between strategy, understanding, and execution, I’m increasingly aware that “Design” is a fundamental skill any company requires to make its efforts efficient and effective.  The gap between great design and new initiatives is often where I’ve seen customers lost and initiatives fail.

To build this foundational capability, I wrote the following memo that will be used (in some evolving form) to evaluate every initiative we launch from this point forward.  Would be great to hear if others of you out there have come across better examples I can borrow/ steal to improve my team’s understanding of great design from a business / systems standpoint.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Summary: Bite’s systems are the bedrock that enables us to scale our operations while guaranteeing that each customer will experience the extraordinary events that our brand stands for.  Good design ensures that our systems will be:

  • easy for our people to understand,
  • execution will occur automatically (post-implementation)
  • results-oriented and self-correcting

 

Objective: Lay out the key design principles that will be used to evaluate every process proposed at Bite.

Goal: To eliminate predictable delays and errors in implementing Bite processes.  We will always start with:

  • a clear vision of the desired future state
  • a clear metric for how we will track and measure success
  • a solid understanding of the likely challenges we will need to solve for
  • an understanding of the interdependencies with other existing initiatives and operations at Bite
  • an understanding of the resources required to execute on an ongoing basis and those required to plan and implement

Criteria utilized to evaluate design:

  1. Clear vision of the desired future state:  What does the successful implementation and execution of this system enable Bite to do?  What will it look like?  How is this different from today?  What choices or tradeoffs were made in selecting this vision for the future?    What is the business case/ expected return on investment?
  2. Clear metrics for tracking and measuring success:  How will we measure success? Do we currently track this metric today?  If not, what needs to be done to track it and who needs to be involved?  How will we ensure we’re accurately tracking results?  What is an acceptable score?
  3. Understanding of the likely challenges to be addressed: Where is this initiative likely to fail?  How will the planning and implementation steps reflect the difficulty of successfully reaching automatic execution?  What elements can be utilized to mitigate likely failure points?  What tracking/ piloting needs to take place to improve the likelihood of success/ key learnings. What checks and balances exist to ensure successful implementation?
  4. Interdependencies: What existing processes and initiatives does this system need to incorporate to work at Bite? Are we asking people to be in different places at the same time?  Does the proposed process reflect the connections to other operational requirements or realities?  Does this work for the Bite operating model and facilities? How will this be assigned to accountable individuals in a way that fits in with how they receive instructions today?
  5. Resourcing: Is there a clear and realistic (bottoms up)  projection for the resource impact to execute on an ongoing basis?  Is there a realistic timetable and resource requirement for planning and implementation/ piloting?  What is the cost and is it worth the return?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Terrific Clay Shirky talk on how the reducing cost of communication will change the dynamics of institutions — namely that the coordination cost of large institutions will become higher than the connecting and collaboration costs of small teams and volunteer individuals.

How does an institutional model (thinking in the world of FTEs) begin to understand the contributions of individuals on a power law curve? Competing organizational structures are going to be interesting…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Been attending a terrific Health Evolution Partners conference.

One panel that really brought home the challenges of making a better system discussed whether providers would be able to bear risk successfully.

The assumptions of the Accountable Care model are that providers are going to want to take risk.  At some level, you can gain share and the provider would see a bonus for better performance.  At a deeper level, the provider may capitate or truly create a risk-bearing entity that enables it to truly win or lose based on the management of total costs.

A few things hit home:

  1. Providers (with a few exceptions) don’t know how to manage risk or even measure exposure.  They’re used to cash being paid for services.  Adding negative risk on already thin margins is likely to bring bankruptcy or bail out as soon as the first misteps or uneven catastrophic loss hits the balance sheet.  Insurers have much more padded balance sheets for a reason.  A strong reinsurance market that understands the risk to these risk-taking health entities will need to be created (which then limits the risk to providers)…making the scheme of providers bearing risk only partially relevant
  2. There is no objective metric for sharing risk.  A “currency” type metric similar to Nielsen scores (television) or FICO scores (credit history) will need to be put in place to enable the providers and payers to trade appropriately (and at scale) on the basis of risk adjusted individuals or populations (and risk reduction through better care).
  3. Almost no new entity (not already very far down the path before the legislation) should want to become an ACO in the near future based on the current regs.  The economics aren’t clear in a positive direction and there are too many requirements vs. projectable upside.  I find this sad.

More to come soon.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Salmon Khan offers an inspiring TED Talk highlighting his approach to transforming education through technology.  He founded Khan Academy after realizing that his cousins preferred his YouTube video interaction over his actual interaction.  By enabling students to learn at their own pace and review things they didn’t quite get, his platform give students the flexibility to achieve mastery in every topic before moving on.  In a normal classroom, you get your grade and move on regardless of your mastery of the subject covered.

By focusing on proven mastery of a subject (get it right 10 times in a row) over one-size-fits all, Khan has leveraged technology to create a disruptive model of education.  I think it’s a great starting point and I look forward to seeing competition around student mastery of education over the current metrics we use today.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This is the 4th post in the Health Information Economy series.  We are outlining a number of elements outlining a vision for a robust health information economy as we put together a submission for the Economist-Innocentive Health Information Economy Idea Challenge

In our previous post, we outlined the rationale for having a Personal Vitality Score.  Here, we will outline the components that could be used to create one.

Objective of the Personal Vitality Score

The goal for the Personal Vitality Score is to create an objective, up-to-date score that summarizes the health of an individual.  Much as a FICO score measures credit-worthiness, an objective individual-level Vitality Score can deliver a snapshot of where a person is and what services/ products will most help them to improve their health.  We believe that a Personal Vitality Score -type currency is required to create the metrics for a health system that would focus on improving the health of an individual (and populations).

Components of the Personal Vitality Score

A Personal Vitality Score would summarize the health status of an individual.  It would need to combine multiple elements:

  1. Current state of an individual’s health, based on their individual health information
  2. Programs and treatments the individual is enrolled/ engaged in
  3. Projected health of the individual given (1) and (2)

1. Individual Health Information

The Individual Health Information dataset provides a current picture of the individual’s health.  For it to do so, it must combine what is known about the person’s current status with a mix of how they live and their medical history.  Far beyond the hospital-centric EMR, this dataset is a synthesis of all the factors known about this individual that impact their health.  It combines information across:

a) Daily Activities and Lifestyle

b) Personal Characteristics and Abilities

c) Medical History

For this snapshot to be relevant, this information must be updated in a regular fashion.  A data collection infrastructure to capture and synthesize relevant information must be put in place for this comprehensive snapshot to come together.  We’ll give some examples of what this may look like below:

1a. Daily Activities and Lifestyle

This category captures the day to day “healthstream” of choices made by an individual and activities they participate in.  We know that things like diet and exercise have a tremendous impact on health status, and this category enables us to capture that information.  Likely sources for this information include:

  • Quantified Self  and Activity tracking websites like DailyBurn, Nike+, BodyBugg, diet logs, etc
  • Health profile updates from profiles on medical sites like PatientsLikeMe
  • Wireless health data including sensors, scales, and monitors
  • Grocery purchases logged on credit cards or store loyalty cards
  • Health club visits and digital workout logs

1b. Personal Characteristics and Abilities

We must know an individual’s baseline to appropriately understand their risks and their potential.  This category captures the underlying characteristics of the individual and their current capabilities, including:

  • Genome and genetic markers
  • Physical and mental capabilities: IQ test, reading levels, abilities to perform activities of daily living, fitness, visual acuity, etc
  • Molecular performance: activity levels or protein expression of various enzymes and protein markers
  • Life skills
  • Weight/ body composition

1c. Medical History

The presence of disease markers or diagnosed conditions can significantly impact health risks and future capabilities.  This category captures diagnosed conditions, disease markers, family history, and other relevant components of the medical history.  Sources could include things like:

  • Personal Health Record
  • Electronic Medical Record
  • Aggregators like Microsoft HealthVault or Google Health
  • Profiles from disease communities like ACOR or PatientsLikeMe

2. Program / Treatment Enrollment and Engagement

The programs and treatments being utilized or considered are elements that can change the trajectory of someone’s future health.  They may impact the individual by improving their capabilities or reducing their risks.  Today, programs and treatments are often reviewed in isolation.  In tomorrow’s world, the total impact of the program to the individual, which may be measured by the Personal Vitality Score, is what will matter.  Impact will depend on the:

  • potential improvement and side effects of the program or treatment chosen
  • context of the individual
  • degree of engagement
  • interaction with other programs or treatments

As we better understand the relative impact of various programs and treatments on individuals, we will finally begin to tap the potential of comparative effectiveness research and understand the opportunity cost of choosing one program over another.

The set of data captured in this database includes:

a) Participation in programs and treatments: CPT codes for procedures, prescription data, use of herbal medicines, treatments by allied health providers, etc

b) Engagement and adherence: Prescription fill data, office visits, program specific metrics, self-reported participation, etc.

c) Options considered: List of alternatives under consideration

d) Treatment interaction: Likely interactions between treatments and programs in which individual is enrolled, cumulative burden of all treatments and programs enrolled, etc.

3. Projected Individual Health Outcomes

Creating a personalized projection for future health capabilities and risks must mine what we know from longitudinal studies and treatment databases and combine it with what we know about the individual.

The approach required to create a projected individual health outcome is the opposite of the one used to create a clinical trial.  In the clinical trial, we look to isolate a variable across a number of people.  In this projection, we look to drill down into the segment specific data for all the conditions and treatments pertaining to the individual and synthesize them.

This category will require development of detailed, individualized algorithms that can mine deep datasets including:

  • Segmented population databases enabling projection for the individual based on a number of relevant factors (e.g., Framingham)
  • Deep longitudinal datasets from disease-oriented communities (e.g., PatientsLikeMe, ACOR), clinical trials, payers, and providers
  • Segmented or individualized clinical trial data (e.g., enabling drill-down by various factors)
  • Provider-specific and treatment-specific outcome data

Vitality Algorithm

The Vitality Algorithm pulls these three disparate streams of information together into one comprehensive score with a number of sub-elements.  The algorithm is likely to be a work in progress — updated as information needs and relative importance change over time — and so a structure that balances an accepted standard that may be replaced with disruptors is likely to be required.  It is unlikely that a structure based on consensus or a scoring system based on a monopoly held by a nonprofit or government will be dynamic enough to keep up with the advances.  Therefore, a dedicated scoring model that gains share but faces multiple disruptors (e.g., FICO) is likely to become the best answer over time.

Synthesis

The Personal Vitality Score creates a synthesis of a person’s health by combining in one score: 1) a personalized view across all known health data, 2) what we know about the individual, and 3) what actions the individual is taking.

By packaging all these elements together, we get a robust picture of an individual’s health, where it is going, and what can and is being done to improve it.  Abstracting a level, we can create a Vitality Index across a population, which would help to allocate resources in the most effective way.

The creation of this Personal Vitality Score enables us to measure value creation in health and could create an ecosystem with the appropriate incentives to improve health in a given individual or population.  What that new ecosystem looks like is the subject of our next post.

Enhanced by Zemanta