At the recent HIMSS 2016 conference in Las Vegas, Robin Schroeder-Janonis, Wellpepper’s VP of Business Development, and I were up early for cross-fit. Not the total body workout you may expect, but a workout nonetheless in the session “Innovation Cross-Fit” facilitated by Leslie Wainwright, Molly Coye, Gregory Makoul, and John Kutz. The cross-fit in this session referred to cross-organizational teams, the type required to implement innovation in healthcare and the workout took the form of a workshop where participants determined how big of a lift it would be to implement a new innovation.
Each table was comprised of a cross-section of senior healthcare leaders including CIOs, CEOs, business development, innovation leaders, IT, and marketing/communications. As a warm up, we were asked to evaluate the effort to implement a new innovation from a number of axes including user experience, implementation, stakeholders, path to scale, and opportunity. Our table was asked to evaluate the Proteus Discover Platform, a new category of ingestible medicine. We were given a high-level brief of Proteus and set loose.
In evaluating the “lift” for Proteus our group took into consideration a number of factors. First, while the population that would receive the ingestible medication would be relatively small, the legal and privacy impacts could be huge. As a result, we ranked higher complexity on user training and stakeholders, particularly with respect to medical users who would need to explain how the medication worked. Implementation costs were low as there was no IT involvement and no new hires, and only some new hardware required.
Here’s an example of the scorecard from our table:
The next step was to map the implementation journey by adding steps in the process and stakeholders involved at each step. Our group started with the process steps and added stakeholders after the initial process was mapped out. Others fully explored each step before moving on to the next in the process. We found that there were a few stakeholders missing from the provided stack, for example although this was a medication we didn’t have a sticker for pharmacists, and that we had stakeholders participating in multiple process steps: patients and end users for example were seen at multiple stages.
In this stage the interdisciplinary teams brought their own experiences and filters to the table, which resulting in a more inclusionary process. For example, marketing representatives suggested that although the board of directors was not required to approve the implementation because the budget was so low, that they should be on an FYI list before any press releases related to using the new technologies. Operations people pointed out that procurement was left out of the process initially, and yet they’d have to sign the contracts and issue the POs.
Here’s what the process looked like from my group:
Finally, groups presented to each other, and this is where things got really interesting, as you can see the approach differed significantly across groups. Our group heavilty weighted the beginning of the process while another used iteration to get the same effect. Another group’s results showed that organization was the driving principle.
For me, the top takeaways from the session were:
- Don’t be surprised how quickly a group of individuals with completely different backgrounds and experiences can coalesce to get a job done.
- Innovation takes a cross-disciplinary team.
- Making sure the right stakeholders are involved at each step is important, and consider that stakeholders aren’t necessarily decision makers, but they can also be people who need to be informed about the project.
- The more time you spend in the first part of the process the easier the actual implementation
- Conferences need more interactive sessions like this but it would also be an easy activity for a team within a health system