Hospital & Health Care - Bridgewater, New Jersey, United States
Over the years, I have heard many people talking about the struggles they have had with making meaningful changes in their processes, while using various productivity or comparative reporting products. The most common theme I have heard is that productivity monitoring reports to one person, while benchmarking is the responsibility, and process improvement lives in another part of the organization. This disjointed approach, while not uncommon, leads to organizations optimizing (or sub-optimizing) one phase of the resource management model, at the expense of the other parts. When organizations take this approach, each part of the model is not strong enough to stand on its own, so they often fail.The three phases of the resource management model must be designed to function together, with a common purpose, goals, and articulated vision. The pieces – Monitoring Productivity, Comparing Performance, and Improving Processes – must be viewed as equal parts of an Active Productivity Model to gain the advantages of your efforts. I use the term Active to emphasize that this process must be active and proactive, and not just retrospective. Staff scheduling and resource scheduling need to be parts of this model and are integral to driving sustainable results.I would be very happy to talk with you about how we can help you to develop a comprehensive approach to Active Productivity Management, or to help you optimize the use of any one of the phases of the model. Active Productivity Advisors are not affiliated or committed to any one Productivity System, Comparative Data Tool, or Process Improvement Philosophy – we want to help you to get the most out of what you currently have.
Outlook