To quickly recap, there are two types of tables in stakeholder analysis:
1. Effect versus Impact
2. Support versus Influence
The effect-impact table qualitatively assesses the contribution of a particular stakeholder to a quality improvement goal. The vertical axis represents the impact of the stakeholder, in measurements of "low", "medium", or "high". The horizontal axis represents the effect of the stakeholder's impact, in measurements of "negative", "neutral", or "positive".
Are admissions committees subconsciously making effect-impact tables when they predict the effect of an applicant's impact on their program? If so, how easy is it to make an accurate table? If not, what must tablemakers consider to ensure accuracy?
The support-influence table qualitatively assesses the contribution of a particular stakeholder to a quality improvement project. The vertical axis represents the influence of the stakeholder, in measurements of "low", "medium", or "high". The horizontal axis represents the support of the stakeholder's influence, in measurements of "negative", "neutral", or "positive".
Are patients subconsciously making support-influence tables when they evaluate the support of a provider's influence on their health? Since physicians are stakeholders in the quality of patients' lives, what can we learn from putting ourself in someone else's table?
The difference between these two stakeholder tables is subtle. One difference is the ability to specialize the impact-effect table by defining the impact according to the quality improvement goal. For example, when a physician is the target stakeholder, the particular impact may be defined by years of clinical experience, effectively creating a clinical experience-effect table. Or, maybe the impact is defined by average patient-encounter time, effectively creating an encounter time-effect table. Furthermore, multiple definition metrics can be used simultaneously.
-Brian Blaugrund
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the nature of the effect/impact table is the ability to predict obstacles and create solutions to those obstacles before they arise. Admissions committees are a great example because they have to extrapolate from minimal data to predict the future abilities of the applicant.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the power of prediction, anticipation, and preparation is what makes the stakeholder map such a useful tool. This leads to better results because it makes the process more efficient. Potential champions and leaders are identified early and adversaries or naysayers can be neutralized before the project goes into full swing. Groups like the one that hindered Dr. Thomas’s survey project are the exception rather than the rule. But, having his allies in place beforehand facilitated the bypassing of the obstacle.
Unfortunately for medical schools, unlike QI projects, is that their decisions have a little more permanence and can’t be amended as easily in the future.
Brian, interesting question re: admissions. High test scores may achieve only medium impact on a school's ability to train quality doctors. Those with a unique story, with potential to emerge as leaders, may have greater impact. The same is likely true when applying to any degree program or job.
ReplyDelete