I see many hospitals building their competitive position around 'things' - bricks and mortar, shiny procedural technologies, robotics. Why might this be a really bad idea?
Because as competitive positions go, those based on so-called gadgets and gizmos go 'poof' the minute a deep-pocketed competitor writes a big check. Hospital 'A' may have had it first, but, worst case, they've now spent their time and money educating the marketplace on their new competitor's behalf. "You have a robot? Hey, so do we!" Back to the status quo ante, thank you very much.
'Things' are just means to an end, inputs to desired outputs. Achieve those ends, produce those outputs better and cheaper than anybody else and you've really got something on which to build.
Enduring competitive advantages are based on unique capabilities that cannot be purchased but must be developed through intense processes of learning and listening, innovating and experimenting. Otherwise you're just marking time until the next "spend and promote" cycle begins. And do you really want to compete on "relative cash position?" Really?
Because as competitive positions go, those based on so-called gadgets and gizmos go 'poof' the minute a deep-pocketed competitor writes a big check. Hospital 'A' may have had it first, but, worst case, they've now spent their time and money educating the marketplace on their new competitor's behalf. "You have a robot? Hey, so do we!" Back to the status quo ante, thank you very much.
'Things' are just means to an end, inputs to desired outputs. Achieve those ends, produce those outputs better and cheaper than anybody else and you've really got something on which to build.
Enduring competitive advantages are based on unique capabilities that cannot be purchased but must be developed through intense processes of learning and listening, innovating and experimenting. Otherwise you're just marking time until the next "spend and promote" cycle begins. And do you really want to compete on "relative cash position?" Really?
Comments