Archive for September, 2007
I’m Bringing SexyBack?
Doug Hudgeon over at the Vendor Management blog posted a fun entry the other day, “Is Your Spouse Too Hot?,” in which he compared the selection of a long-term supplier with the selection of a long-term personal partner. His premise is that “each person has a base attractiveness requirement that, once met, permitted selection on other characteristics such as sense of humour, confidence, or skill at dancing the Macarena.” He speculates that in supplier selection, once a baseline acceptable price is determined among a pool of suppliers, the selection criteria can move to other factors.
If only I had understood this when I was dating! Sure on occasion, my buddies and I rated women we watched from across the room. But the scale was one dimensional — attractiveness. When I finally did select a long-term partner, it was based on a complex equation of variables just as Doug speculates. (Just in case she’s reading this, I’ll acknowledge: Yes dear, you ARE too hot for me!)
But I’ll take Doug’s analogy one step farther. A lasting relationship requires changing and adjusting to change. That’s as true between me and my spouse as between suppliers and buyers. Over time, what you need from your partner changes, and what you can give your partner changes as well. With your partner, those changes often can be assessed continually and implemented slowly.
With your suppliers, you need to be more direct. I think of times in business when I needed something different from my long-term suppliers, but I didn’t take the time to clearly articulate what had changed in my business. I just expected them to know. Then we found ourselves miles apart down the road. Other times, I moved into a new role and my old supplier started working with someone who had no context of the relationship or the “real” requirements that had slowly evolved over time, but weren’t openly stated. They couldn’t connect. Those are times when both sides lost.
Obviously, a better way to handle that would have been to take the time to discuss what was working and what was changing in my business/supplier relationship and to document changes. I’m not talking about one of those artificial, “let’s get together, plan the year, and then go to a nice dinner” meetings. But a true discussion — followed by documentation.
The documentation is key. And with the myriad of technical options available, there is no excuse not to leverage shared documentation. Vendormate VISION offers document sharing and storage as a feature. Yet, we find only a few clients using it. I thought perhaps this was endemic just to our healthcare vertical. But I’ve talked to friends of mine in other businesses with document storage or content management systems of one kind or another, and to a one, they agree that this feature doesn’t get the emphasis it deserves. There may be an initial spurt of usage, but it dies off quickly.
I think it’s a matter of perspective. Documenting your expectations — about ethical behavior, conflicts of interest, access, contract terms, or whatever — doesn’t mean you don’t trust them. Formal documentation is like a pre-nup. It doesn’t mean I don’t love you. It means I want us to be clear and honest with each other about what to expect.
Now, go give your supplier a hug.
1 comment September 26, 2007
Road Warriors
Vendormate’s been out on the road a lot recently as we go through the education and implementation of new hospital customers. We’ve enjoyed the usual thrills of travel — delayed flights, car rentals to drive through unknown cities, and late night arrivals at indistinguishable motels. It takes a lot for a business trip to be memorable now. And for some of us, it’s that occasional brush with celebrities.
Andrew Somoza, VP of Sales, thought he’d topped the office when he spotted Ralph Lauren on the street in Manhattan.
But Ashlyn Wadley and Ed Zunzunegui , Director of Operations, blew him away when their visit to Children’s Hospital Central California Madera, CA coincided with a visit by the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenneger. Not only did they see the Governor, but the day was captured on film. (Yes, that is Alan Autry, mayor of Fresno and formerly Captain Bubba Skinner from In the Heat of the Night, standing behind him.)
Alright, enough of the celebrity-stalking paparazzi blog entry. Nothing beats spending time with customers and seeing them think of new ways to engage all the capabilities of our Vendormate VISION(TM). A few other places we’ve been recently:
Swedish American Hospital in Illinois
Alamance Regional Medical Center in Burlington, NC
Covenant Health in east Tennessee
Vail Valley (Colorado) Medical
Houston Medical Center in Perry, Georgia
University of Chicago Medical Center
Wellstar Health in Kennesaw, Georgia
Keep an eye out for us on the road. We’ll see you soon.
Add comment September 18, 2007
The Buck Stops Here
A number of recent stories about outsourcing have me thinking about responsibility. A common theme in all these stories has been the question of who’s responsible with issues stemming from the behavior of the outsourcee. I’ve written before about the difficulty of defining exactly who is a “vendor,” and outsourcing only adds another layer to that dialogue. But for vendor management, outsourcing raises the question of determining responsibility for vendor compliance to any number of business practice standards. Who exactly is responsible for the actions of a vendor?
Both Disney and Mattel have responded to the American consumers’ concerns about Chinese manufacturing. The two companies are in different situations: Mattel is on its third recall in 3 months of toys manufactured in China. Disney hasn’t had a documented incident. But I believe their actions are telling.
Mattel is certainly a trusted toy provider to most American households. Mattel’s response is a well-communicated, straightforward recall of affected toys with a mechanism for refund or replacement. The company has explained how the lead paint got into the production chain. They simply stated that a supplier had violated policies and subcontracted paint from a unapproved supplier. They have announced actions to help prevent recurrance. Their response, while stopping just short of mea culpa, certainly doesn’t point the finger at anyone else and should go a long way in protecting the brand.
Contrast that with Disney’s action. The Disney brand is also a trusted provider to most American households. Parents associate Disney with wholesome, family-safe fun. Disney doesn’t directly manufacture toys with its characters and name and hasn’t had any manufacturing safety issues yet. Still, they have proactively announced a random independent testing program of testing toys sold under its name. But, Disney makes a point of stating that the ”ultimate responsibility for safety still lies with companies that license Disney characters for toys.“
For health care providers and their materials management professionals, the Disney response would be completely unacceptable. Whether it’s appropriate or not, it’s the health care provider and associated institution that are held responsible for the patient’s care and safety.
This article from Mo Taherzadeh, an attorney with Mayer Brown, suggests a second-level exposure for US health care providers.
This danger was particularly demonstrated in 2003, when a medical transcriber in Pakistan threatened to post patients’ private records online unless the University of California San Francisco Medical Center (UCSM) paid wages owed to her by the U.S.-based company that had sent the work to Pakistan. UCSM had outsourced the processing of the medical transcripts to a U.S.-based company that had, in turn, outsourced records to yet another domestic company. The second outsourcing company then sent the work to Pakistan for processing. It was the Pakistani company’s employee who threatened UCSM. In a similar case, an Ohio-based company, Heartland Information Services, received emails from its own employees in India (this type of arrangement is commonly called “offshoring” because while the task is being performed elsewhere, the same company is in charge of the process) attempting to extort cash from the company by threatening to publicly disclose confidential information.
The UCSM case illustrates the need for developing appropriate vendor monitoring policies. Several steps are essential. First is identifying all vendors that receive sensitive information. Second is developing contractual protections that hold the vendors liable for secondary outsourcing. And third is continuous monitoring and updating of these procedures. The Heartland case, while not involving outsourcing to a vendor, similarly stresses the need for oversight of outsourced processes.
Our Take: Honestly, I’m surprised by Disney — from a marketing/brand protection point of view, if nothing else. The Walt Disney Co. is a brilliant brand manager, but they are in denial of the risk exposure to their brand. If a licensee does something irresponsible, does Disney really think this pre-emptive caveat emptor statement will protect them from market fallout?
Yes, buyers must be careful. Buyers must be educated. But a free marketplace operates on a foundation of trust. A shared faith that each party will deal honestly and forthrightly with the other. Cries of “It’s not my fault” or ”I will not be held responsible for the actions of others’ in my name” can’t be sustained. Better to raise the old saw “The Buck Stops Here” as a claim of responsbility. It’s the complete opposite of ”It’s not my fault!” And it’s good business.
2 comments September 14, 2007
How’d That Get in Here?
I’d like to say I saw Lee Ann Runy’s article, Is That Product Safe?, in this month’s Materials Management in Health Care magazine, but honestly I’m a little behind in my reading. With that confession, in the August, 2007 issue, Ms. Runy outlines the steps hospitals need to take in assuring product integrity throughout the delivery stream. Her article thoughtfully documents the tiers of participants and their roles in handling product safety – from the manufacturers to the distributors to governments and providers. Take a moment to read her article. What seems like a straightforward issue has many twists and turns.
Now, I thought I knew all the ways our vendor information management services could be applied. But Ms. Runy wrote something that I hadn’t thought of:
Another challenge is addressing products that enter hospitals via other avenues—for example, items that vendors provide directly to physicians. These will not show up on the item master so recall notifications won’t be distributed. In many instances, clinicians believe they are saving the hospital money by accepting a free product, Holbein says. OSU Medical Center holds a class for sales representatives that sell certain types of products to address these issues and has a process in place for clinicians to request participation in product trials. At WellSpan Health, York, Pa., any products provided by vendors are considered to be gifts and the foundation sends a thank-you note to the sales representative. “That usually stops them in their tracks,” says Jim Smoker, the director of materials resource services.
Our recent post, Heads Will Roll, had suggested that the outcome of product safety issues would be additional government watch lists. But Ms. Runy shows how some hospital administrators are already closing the backdoor to product distribution from their vendors in the name of patient safety. What a great idea!
Our Take: As you set up your hospital’s unique compliance acknowledgments for your vendors, consider including a requirement that all free samples must be cleared with materials management before distribution. Your physicians are trying to do right by their patients by taking advantage of these samples, but you’re also trying to do right by your patients by knowing what materials are in use where.
And just in case you think this is an overreaction, I’ll pull one more fact from Ms. Runy’s article: The ECRI Institute reports that the number of medical device recalls grew from 241 in 2001 to 953 in 2006.
Add comment September 5, 2007
