OK - Sunday morning, before Coffee, time to dig in here.
The question is where to start? I need to share a bit of caution, I am in the middle of this discussion on a daily basis, but from a domain perspective, I have a lot to learn. Then there is the 'where does digital fit into this discussion, a topic for another day'.
Starting in the middle, it seems like a good place to start, hey why not.
How do we best define a Job in this complicated space? What exactly is a Job? Is "Maintain Health" good enough? But in order to define the Job, do we need to be clear on the Market (upstream) or do we need to go further down and figure out who the key constituents are - People (well that was easy :-) - Patient is too narrow, opinion. - what is the commonality here?
If we have time to jump into the solution space - How do we help the industry, Market focus on -people-focused-objectives, wrapped in experience (I know you love that term). What is the connection from Jobs to experiences? How is success measured?
As for measurement, Jobs (objectives) are modeled like processes, and each step (sub-objective) will have performance metrics associated with them. They measure how well a customer believes they are able to avoid problems or errors and/or how quickly they can accomplish the goal.
================================
Side note: Jobs statements are not job stories. Job stories are a solution-space construct that attempts to assign some aspirational assumption to a feature. Jobs are not BE goals.
================================
Since no two groups will value sub-objectives the same way, you have to measure this along dimensions of importance (how important is it that you are able to reach this objective) and satisfaction (how satisfied are you that you are able to reach this objective given your current approach/solution).
Getting this metrics quantified for the core job will provide the data you need to segment the job into groups of people that struggle differently when trying to get the same job done.
To touch on the experience question, successful solutions are designed to address a groups' core objective. The way the solutions is delivered and consumed is the realm of experiences. That's why I say wrapped in experience. The experience is tied directly to current solutions, so my experience playing music on a turntable is completely separate from my experience listening to the Beck channel on Pandora. I'm still listening to music, that hasn't changed.
And I'll add one more thing. You absolutely CANNOT design experiences that do not adequately address the core objective. Therefore, CEX (Customer Experience) has to include the ability to reach the objective. UX (user experience) is a component of CEX. You can't have an experience with no customers.
I'm a big believer that trying to solve problems locally, without understanding the larger objectives leads global sub-optimization. So, while a particular constituent/solution-provider may not have authority, or competency across the "patient" value chain, they should certainly understand it.
Graham has a good point, there are instituations that see no value in changing the status quo. But, what if a disruptor did just that, indirectly? It happens. What if fewer people were getting sick?
If we look at "Maintain Lifelong Health" as the core objective, then there are opportunities across all lifestages for providers to offer services. Graham has brilliantly plotted this concept in another industry, by the way.
* Insurers will still provide insurance, it may cover different things, and costs may change.
* Suppliers will still supply things, but they may be components for new digital health tracking networks, supporting integrated gadgets and apps
* Service providers will still help sick people, and they may also be available in different modes to more effectively consult remotely/digitally with non-patients who are trying to stay that way.
* Regulators are always going to be the thorn in our side, but as I mentioned in the piece, there was (at least couple of years ago) some loosening of contraints
The Patient/Non-patient, their overall objective, and each sub-objective/decision-journey across their lives should be the focus of analysis, not what cool things we think they would like to buy or use.
If there is any hope to reform healthcare from a "fix sick people" focus to a help people "get sick less" we need to focus on the objective(s) of the people at risk and apply our resources accordingly. I believe people want to live more productive, and longer lives. People already spend a lot on staying healthy (health clubs, personal trainers, nutrition guides/apps, supplements) but they are one-offs and dis-integrated, and therefore not as effective as they could be.
Perhaps we'll see a reduction in what insurance currently pays for (hopitalizations, prescription drugs, chronic diseases, etc) and a shift to more integrated preventative solutions that actually work to reduce the portion of the population that gets sick (at various lifestages).
While there is a lot of talk, the incentives in the industry are not necessarily aligned to that transformation (be careful what you measure). As well, a realignment could re-stack the deck against incumbants who very much like the status quo (it's only natural). Helping those incumbants see opportunities for successful and profitable change early, in a way that is in balance with their customers/patient will be key.
I still feel as though the ultimate job is to maintain lifelong health. There are a lot of "sub" jobs (I call them sub-objectives sometimes) that support that, like:
* Detect a disease early
* Maintain healthy joints
* Maint physical fitness (stamina)
I haven't mentioned physicians. They are a key constituent in their role of fixing sick people. That isn't going away, but I think we can all agree we'd like to see less of that.
Either way, I believe the key theme to "digital transformation" is the integration that facilitates new levels of abstraction. As I pointed out, the little one-offs are either not adopted by patients, or they add additional work for the medical practice. I believe the non-patient/patient job should be the central backbone of any larger digital road map. The jobs and solutions for providers need to align to the "patient" and be reflective of their life stage.
What's true for any innovation initiative is just as true in the healthcare field. The problems will be tackled at a lower level of abstraction out of practicality. However, it's always good to know where the group you're innovating for is ultimately trying to get.
OK - Sunday morning, before Coffee, time to dig in here.
The question is where to start? I need to share a bit of caution, I am in the middle of this discussion on a daily basis, but from a domain perspective, I have a lot to learn. Then there is the 'where does digital fit into this discussion, a topic for another day'.
Starting in the middle, it seems like a good place to start, hey why not.
How do we best define a Job in this complicated space? What exactly is a Job? Is "Maintain Health" good enough? But in order to define the Job, do we need to be clear on the Market (upstream) or do we need to go further down and figure out who the key constituents are - People (well that was easy :-) - Patient is too narrow, opinion. - what is the commonality here?
If we have time to jump into the solution space - How do we help the industry, Market focus on -people-focused-objectives, wrapped in experience (I know you love that term). What is the connection from Jobs to experiences? How is success measured?
How is that for a start? Happy Sunday!!
As for measurement, Jobs (objectives) are modeled like processes, and each step (sub-objective) will have performance metrics associated with them. They measure how well a customer believes they are able to avoid problems or errors and/or how quickly they can accomplish the goal.
================================
Side note: Jobs statements are not job stories. Job stories are a solution-space construct that attempts to assign some aspirational assumption to a feature. Jobs are not BE goals.
================================
Since no two groups will value sub-objectives the same way, you have to measure this along dimensions of importance (how important is it that you are able to reach this objective) and satisfaction (how satisfied are you that you are able to reach this objective given your current approach/solution).
Getting this metrics quantified for the core job will provide the data you need to segment the job into groups of people that struggle differently when trying to get the same job done.
Easy peasy.
To touch on the experience question, successful solutions are designed to address a groups' core objective. The way the solutions is delivered and consumed is the realm of experiences. That's why I say wrapped in experience. The experience is tied directly to current solutions, so my experience playing music on a turntable is completely separate from my experience listening to the Beck channel on Pandora. I'm still listening to music, that hasn't changed.
And I'll add one more thing. You absolutely CANNOT design experiences that do not adequately address the core objective. Therefore, CEX (Customer Experience) has to include the ability to reach the objective. UX (user experience) is a component of CEX. You can't have an experience with no customers.
I'm a big believer that trying to solve problems locally, without understanding the larger objectives leads global sub-optimization. So, while a particular constituent/solution-provider may not have authority, or competency across the "patient" value chain, they should certainly understand it.
Graham has a good point, there are instituations that see no value in changing the status quo. But, what if a disruptor did just that, indirectly? It happens. What if fewer people were getting sick?
If we look at "Maintain Lifelong Health" as the core objective, then there are opportunities across all lifestages for providers to offer services. Graham has brilliantly plotted this concept in another industry, by the way.
* Insurers will still provide insurance, it may cover different things, and costs may change.
* Suppliers will still supply things, but they may be components for new digital health tracking networks, supporting integrated gadgets and apps
* Service providers will still help sick people, and they may also be available in different modes to more effectively consult remotely/digitally with non-patients who are trying to stay that way.
* Regulators are always going to be the thorn in our side, but as I mentioned in the piece, there was (at least couple of years ago) some loosening of contraints
The Patient/Non-patient, their overall objective, and each sub-objective/decision-journey across their lives should be the focus of analysis, not what cool things we think they would like to buy or use.
If there is any hope to reform healthcare from a "fix sick people" focus to a help people "get sick less" we need to focus on the objective(s) of the people at risk and apply our resources accordingly. I believe people want to live more productive, and longer lives. People already spend a lot on staying healthy (health clubs, personal trainers, nutrition guides/apps, supplements) but they are one-offs and dis-integrated, and therefore not as effective as they could be.
Perhaps we'll see a reduction in what insurance currently pays for (hopitalizations, prescription drugs, chronic diseases, etc) and a shift to more integrated preventative solutions that actually work to reduce the portion of the population that gets sick (at various lifestages).
While there is a lot of talk, the incentives in the industry are not necessarily aligned to that transformation (be careful what you measure). As well, a realignment could re-stack the deck against incumbants who very much like the status quo (it's only natural). Helping those incumbants see opportunities for successful and profitable change early, in a way that is in balance with their customers/patient will be key.
I still feel as though the ultimate job is to maintain lifelong health. There are a lot of "sub" jobs (I call them sub-objectives sometimes) that support that, like:
* Detect a disease early
* Maintain healthy joints
* Maint physical fitness (stamina)
I haven't mentioned physicians. They are a key constituent in their role of fixing sick people. That isn't going away, but I think we can all agree we'd like to see less of that.
Either way, I believe the key theme to "digital transformation" is the integration that facilitates new levels of abstraction. As I pointed out, the little one-offs are either not adopted by patients, or they add additional work for the medical practice. I believe the non-patient/patient job should be the central backbone of any larger digital road map. The jobs and solutions for providers need to align to the "patient" and be reflective of their life stage.
What's true for any innovation initiative is just as true in the healthcare field. The problems will be tackled at a lower level of abstraction out of practicality. However, it's always good to know where the group you're innovating for is ultimately trying to get.
And it's not a Fitbit fitness tracker.
Looking forward to sharing some thoughts on this one - close to home; past, present, and future!