Organizations use their rankings primarily as public relations and marketing tools. As such, institutional efforts to improve rankings are often, but not always, made for their marketing impact. This opinion is based, in part, on my interpretation of countless billboards, newspaper advertisements, and TV and radio commercials across the country.
While rankings can function as organizational performance metrics, rankings are indirect measurements better suited to creating an immediate impression. They rarely provide the critical details necessary for iterative revision of tactics and strategies. While this is a disadvantage in their operational use as metrics, it is an advantage in marketing, where a ranking is often used to make the simple statement “We’re better than others.” Creating this impression through the aura of “ranking” adds an additional quasi-scientific credential to what is otherwise an advertisement.
A wise medical student once remarked, “rankings are important because Americans like lists.” Magazines promising to provide the low-down on the top 10 songs, best movies, most beautiful beaches, most talented chefs, the top colleges are guaranteed to sell. Lists provide a starting point for people to make decisions when they have many options to choose from. Americans want to believe that in a capitalist society, they should be able to find and pick the best value their budget can afford.
For rankings to be useful, two things have to be true. First, people have to have a choice they can make. Second, the rankings have to measure what is important to people making the choices. Beyond that are pesky details like validity and reliability of the data but let’s just deal with the high level assumptions. Choice and values in health care. Do rankings like US News & World Report’s Americas Best Hospitals help consumers make good choices? Continue reading →
“For me, goals and daily metrics are the key to keeping me focused. If I don’t have access to the right stats, every day, it is so easy for me to move on mentally to the next thing. But if I have quick access to key metrics every day, my creativity stays within certain bounds–my ideas all center on how to achieve our goals”.
Jim Collins in the book Good to Great found that the most successful companies have laser-like focus on finding what drives resources, what they can be best at, and what their team is most passionate at accomplishing. Discipline in execution and focus on core ideology is found most often in the most successful companies. Constantly measuring execution of these strategies is necessary to reach these goals, but measurements alone will not provide sustained competitive advantage – this is the job of culture.
Jay Barney, from the Fisher Business School at The Ohio State University, who is an expert in strategy, has told us that culture determines sustainable competitive advantage for the organization. Thus, a bridge must be built between strategy and culture to reach sustained success. This is reflected well in the entertaining YouTube video, Culture Eats Strategy for Lunch produced by the Coffman Organization, a consulting firm specializing in creating engaged cultures:
Most hospitals and medical schools pay attention to the rankings published by U.S. News and World Report, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and more recently the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. While there is debate about the criteria used to generate these rankings, it is clear that top ranked institutions fare better in the war for talent and in research funding. Moreover, the public is increasingly aware of these “scorecards.” There are upsides and downsides to using these rankings (see article, entitled Rankings¹)and we would like your thoughts about the following:
Are the criteria used to rank our institutions in patient care, research and patient satisfaction the right ones?
How do we prevent people from “gaming” the system to enhance their position?
How do we ensure reliable information so people can make good choices?
-Chip Souba, MD, ScD, MBA
VP and Executive Dean of Health Sciences
Dean, College of Medicine
The Ohio State University
Steven G. Gabbe, MD is Senior Vice President for Health Sciences and Chief Executive Officer, OSU Medical Center
Chip Souba is Vice President and Executive Dean, Health Sciences and Dean, The Ohio State University College of Medicine.
Pete Geier is CEO of the OSU Health System and
COO of OSU Medical Center
Michael Caligiuri, MD is Director, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center
and CEO, James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
E. Gordon Gee is the President of The Ohio State University.
Catherine Lucey is Vice Dean of Education at The Ohio State University College of Medicine.
Daniel Sedmak is Executive Vice Dean at The Ohio State University College of Medicine.
Clay Marsh is the Vice Dean of Research at the Ohio State University Collge of Medicine, and Executive Director of the Center for Personalized Health Care
Jerry Friedman is an Associate Vice President in the Office of Health Sciences and Advisor for Health Policy at The Ohio State University Medical Center.
Kathy Matney is Executive Director of Service Excellence
Quinn Capers is Associate Dean for Admissions in The Ohio State University College of Medicine.
