Skip to main content

Does Your Strategy Account For the Future?

"Your rearview mirror is so small and your windshield is so large because what lies ahead is much more important than the past." (@CHRISVOSS)

What can we say about the future? 
  • It's uncertain and the end is always near. (Jim Morrison) 
  • The future is much like the present, only longer.  (Dan Quisenberry) 
  • The future is here.  It's just not widely distributed yet. (William Gibson) 
Uncertain. As near as tomorrow. Long duration.  Limited (and uneven) distribution.

Think about how hospital strategic plans account for future competitor decisions.   If they do at all,  it's little more than simple extrapolation of past performance, a technique which, though understandable since that's where the data reside, is nothing more than crafting strategy in a vacuum.
It's much easier to track competitor performance retrospectively than to forecast future decisions.

Volume trends, market share, patient satisfaction, quality indicators, financial performance, major capital investments are all in the public domain if one knows where to look.  A strategist's job is to synthesize all that data so that a few important, future-oriented questions receive sustained attention:

1. The Benchmark Question: 
What is our competitive position relative to the competition?

2. The Trendline Question:
Are we improving? I.e. what's the slope of our trend line? How do we know?

3. The Speed To Market Question:
Are we improving as rapidly as those around us? Are our improvement cycle times fast enough?

4. The Marketplace Expectations Question:
Are we improving as rapidly as the market demands, now and in the future? I.e. is our projected performance sufficient to succeed as customer expectations grow and evolve?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved