Health and life sciences payer high performance capability assessment

1. Technical Field

This disclosure concerns a system and method to identify the performance of an organization on a scale of mastery across representative capabilities of the organization's industry. In particular, this disclosure relates to an efficient and cost effective way to assess the performance level of key capability areas within the processes of a health and life sciences organization, and in particular a payer in a health and life sciences organization.

2. Background Information

Modern health and life sciences organizations operate in an increasingly challenging environment. To survive, health and life sciences organizations must adapt to this environment and execute in a clear, consistent, and efficient manner. Furthermore, the competitive nature, regulatory requirements, low profit margins, and competitive challenges of health and life sciences businesses greatly increase the complexity and difficulty of surviving on a day-to-day basis.

Despite the need for a health and life sciences organization to meet the challenges of the global marketplace, it is still often the case that the business lacks clarity, consistency, and well-defined execution of its core processes. These shortcomings severely constrain the business, and lead directly to inefficiencies and waste due to unnecessary complexity, process exceptions, and customer dissatisfaction. At the same time, it can be very difficult to identify specific processes to which improvements may be made, either because the business itself does not have the expertise to identify the processes or because the complexities of the business frustrate attempts to clearly delineate the processes to be improved.

Even if the health and life sciences business, on its own, could identify one of the many processes that it needs to improve, the business would not necessarily know how to improve the process or be able to identify a concrete and measurable improvement goal. Another difficulty exists in determining whether there are any intermediate goals that should be reached along the way. As health and life sciences businesses struggle to meet the demands of the modern economic landscape, they fail to identify opportunities for maximizing sales and margin improvement, category expansion, multi-channel execution, customer satisfaction improvement, and to reach other important goals.

Therefore, a need exists for an efficient and effective system and method to assess the performance level of key assessment areas within the processes of an organization.

A high-performance capability assessment (HPCA) model helps health and life sciences businesses meet the challenges of the global marketplace by defining a scale of performance mastery along which the current practices of the business may be located. The HPCA model accelerates the discovery of process and performance gaps within business operations. In addition, the HPCA model also helps the business to identify specific areas in which improvements may be made, how to make the improvements, and how to establish performance measures during the course of attempting to achieve an ultimate goal. As a result, the business can achieve the clarity, consistency, and well-defined execution of core processes that maximize the operating budget for optimum outcomes.

The HPCA model includes a key factor dimension and a performance mastery scale dimension. The performance mastery scale dimension defines multiple mastery levels. The performance mastery levels form a scale of increasing organizational performance. The scale includes a ‘Basic’ mastery level, a ‘Competitive’ mastery level, and a ‘Market Leading’ mastery level along a horizontal axis. Each performance mastery level includes criteria specific to a corresponding key assessment area. Each key assessment area identifies some aspect of a capability of a health and life sciences business with respect to a payer organization, such as for example, an insurance company when dealing with the private sector.

A business capability can be defined as a bundle of closely integrated skills, knowledge, technologies, and cumulative learning that is exercised through a set of processes and that collectively represents an organization's ability to create value by producing outcomes and results. Capability areas do not represent a delineation of organizational responsibilities as the business outcomes of a capability may be the result of a number of cross-functional teams. Capabilities of a business may be grouped into areas and/or platforms, including platforms and sub-platforms, depending on the organizational structure of the business.

For example, the HPCA model groups the capabilities of the health and life sciences industry for a payer into five main areas or high-level platforms, which may also be thought of as “business areas,” namely a direct and guide the organization platform, a develop and maintain market platform, a coordinate health care services platform, a manage operations platform, and a support the organization platform. Each platform includes multiple platforms and/or sub-platforms. For example, the coordinate health care services platform may include four sub-platforms, namely a perform health care management sub-platform, a develop and manage networks sub-platform, a service the networks sub-platform, and a manage pharmacy sub-platform.

Some of the platforms and sub-platforms may include additional or further sub-platforms or granularity, while others may not, and may also include capabilities at their lowest level. Examples of capabilities within the perform health care management sub-platform, include for example, design and incentives capabilities, segment and target capabilities, reach and engage capabilities, collaborate and support capabilities, evaluate and improve capabilities, and a cross-core functions capabilities.

The key factor dimension establishes a set of key assessment areas in which to analyze the capabilities of a business. Key assessment areas include performance capability criteria. Performance capability criteria populate the performance capability assessment model. The performance capability criteria may be specific to any one of many different business capabilities. Any number of performance capability assessment models and performance capability criteria may be defined and stored in a capability detail pool for subsequent retrieval and application to a business under examination. Accordingly, the HPCA model provides a flexible and adaptive scale of performance capability against which business practices may be compared to ascertain where the capabilities of a business under examination fall along the scale.

Other systems, methods, features, and advantages will be, or will become, apparent to one with skill in the art upon examination of the following figures and detailed description. All such additional systems, methods, features, and advantages are included within this description, are within the scope of the invention, and are protected by the following claims.

The health and life sciences industry high-performance capability assessment model and system may be better understood with reference to the following drawings and description. The elements in the figures are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon illustrating the principles of the capability assessment techniques. In the figures, like-referenced numerals designate corresponding parts throughout the different views.

FIG. 1 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with a performance scale of mastery and performance criteria shown for different capabilities showing multiple platforms, including a direct and guide the organization platform, a develop and maintain market platform, a coordinate health care services platform, a manage operations platform, and a support the organization platform.

FIG. 2 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for sub-platforms including a perform health care management sub-platform, a develop and manage networks sub-platform, a service the networks sub-platform, and a manage pharmacy sub-platform, all corresponding to the coordinate health care services platform.

FIG. 3 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with capabilities for design and incentives, segment and target, reach and engage, collaborate and support, evaluate and improve, and cross-core functions, all corresponding to the perform health care management sub-platform.

FIG. 4 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with further capabilities corresponding to design and incentives.

FIG. 5 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with further capabilities corresponding to segment and target.

FIG. 6 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with further capabilities corresponding to reach and engage.

FIG. 7 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with further capabilities corresponding to collaborate and support.

FIG. 8 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with further capabilities corresponding to evaluate and improve.

FIG. 9 shows a high-performance capability assessment model with further capabilities corresponding to cross-core functions.

FIG. 10 shows a capability detail pool providing a multidimensional health and life sciences industry performance reference set where multiple key assessment performance reference tables are collected and stored.

FIG. 11 shows a capability assessment system.

FIG. 12 shows a flow diagram for establishing high-performance capability assessment models.

FIG. 13 shows a flow diagram for retrieving and applying high-performance capability assessment models.

FIG. 14 shows a flow diagram for analyzing representative practice data to determine a health and life sciences industry and a health and life sciences key assessment area to which the representative practice data applies.

FIG. 1 shows a high-performance capability assessment (HPCA) model 100 . The HPCA model 100 specifies five platforms, including a direct and guide the organization platform 102 , a develop and maintain market platform 104 , a coordinate health care services platform 106 , a manage operations platform 108 , and a support the organization platform 110 . Each platform 102 , 104 , 106 , 108 and 110 may include sub-platforms. The HPCA model 100 is not limited to the form shown in FIG. 1 . Instead, the HPCA model 100 may be adapted and modified to fill a wide variety of analysis roles. Additional, different, or fewer platforms may be used in other implementations, with each platform defining additional, different, or fewer capabilities. Each platform and/or sub-platform includes one or more multiple <platform/sub-platform name> capabilities 130 .

The HPCA model 100 establishes a multidimensional health and life sciences industry performance reference set that includes multiple key assessment performance levels 138 , further described below in reference Tables 1-3. The performance levels 138 establish a scale of increasing effectiveness in delivery of each capability. The key assessment performance reference tables include a ‘Basic’ 140 delivery level, a ‘Competitive’ 142 delivery level and a ‘Market Leading’ 144 delivery level. The performance levels establish a scale of mastery 146 along which current business practices may be located and identified with respect to any platform and capability within a platform according to an analysis of performance capability criteria (PCC). The capability under evaluation may be assigned the performance level 138 based on a delivery effectiveness position 158 along the scale of mastery 146 .

The ‘Basic’ delivery level 140 specifies ‘Basic’ performance assessment criteria, the ‘Competitive’ delivery level 142 specifies ‘Competitive’ performance assessment criteria, and the ‘Market Leading’ delivery level 144 specifies ‘Market Leading’ performance assessment criteria. The HPCA model 100 receives input data that specifies a health and life sciences business platform (e.g., a health and life sciences industry area) and a health and life sciences industry key assessment area for analysis. The HPCA model 100 searches the multidimensional health and life sciences industry performance reference set for a matching key assessment performance reference table that matches the health and life sciences industry platform and corresponding industry capability within the platform and the health and life sciences industry key assessment area, and retrieves the matching key assessment performance reference table. The HPCA model 100 initiates analysis of the matching key assessment performance reference table to obtain a resultant performance assessment level for the health and life sciences industry key assessment area.

Tables 1-3 below provide an explanation of each of the capability levels 140 , 142 , and 144 .

For FIGS. 2-9 the capability under evaluation may be assigned a level of mastery 138 based on the business' position along the scale of mastery 146 (e.g., the ‘basic,’ ‘competitive,’ or ‘market leading’ delivery level). Performance criteria corresponding to the basic 140 , competitive 142 , and market leading 144 performance levels populate the HPCA model 100 . The performance criteria capture characteristics, and/or other features of the delivery of a capability at a particular performance level. Examples below illustrate performance criteria that provide analysis and benchmarking for health and life sciences organizations. The HPCA model 100 performance criteria provide a tool for determining where a platform and capability under examination falls along the scale of mastery 146 .

For example, business consultants and business process engineers may interview a business or receive data about the business to determine, measure, or otherwise ascertain the characteristics, criteria, and other features of a particular capability implemented within the business. The consultants and engineers may compare the characteristics of the business to the performance criteria in the HPCA model 100 and arrive at an assessment level 138 for the capability under examination. In doing so, for example, the consultants and engineers may identify where the capability under examination falls in terms of the performance level for each key assessment area of a capability and determine an overall position on the scale of mastery 146 for the capability under examination. Performance criteria may populate the HPCA model 100 in whole or in part. Multiple high-performance capability assessments may be collected and stored with the performance criteria for future retrieval and possible modification in a capability detail pool, discussed below.

FIG. 2 shows the coordinate health care services platform 106 divided into respective capability areas 202 . The coordinate health care services platform 106 includes a perform health care management sub-platform 220 , a develop and manage networks sub-platform 222 , a service the networks sub-platform 224 , and a manage pharmacy sub-platform 226 .

FIG. 3 shows the perform health care management sub-platform 220 (corresponding to the coordinate health care services platform 106 ) divided into respective capability areas 302 . The perform health care management sub-platform 220 includes a design and incentives capability 320 , a segment and target capability 322 , a reach and engage capability 324 , a collaborate and support capability 326 , an evaluate and improve capability 328 , and a cross-core functions capability 330 .

FIGS. 4-9 show the capabilities associated with the sub-platform entitled perform health care management 220 . The capabilities associate with the develop and manage networks sub-platform 222 , service the networks sub-platform 224 , and manage pharmacy sub-platform 226 are not shown in this document. FIG. 4 shows further capabilities 402 including a design and innovative products capability 420 , a design services capability 422 , and a design campaigns capability 424 .

FIG. 5 shows further capabilities 502 including a project population health and wealth indicators capability 520 , and an identify individual intervention opportunities capability 522 .

FIG. 6 shows further capabilities 602 including a perform proactive and reactive outreach capability 620 , a provide inbound advisory services capability 622 , a coordinate care capability 624 , a promote optimal lifestyle capability 626 , and a provide decision support capability 628 .

FIG. 7 shows further capabilities 702 including an engage provider capability 720 , and an engage employer/purchasers capability 722 .

FIG. 8 shows further capabilities 802 including a manage results capability 820 , a communicate value to stakeholders capability 822 , and an execute purchaser specific consultative services capability 824 .

FIG. 9 shows further capabilities 902 including a content management capability 920 , a transparency capability 922 , a quality management capability 924 , and a policy oversight capability 926 .

The tables provided in the appendix immediately following the abstract, which form part of this disclosure, provide an explanation of the capabilities and corresponding key assessment areas and performance criteria for some of the capabilities within the respective sub-platforms. Each capability may include one or more key assessment areas. Each key assessment area may include one or more additional key assessment areas. In other words, a business capability may include sub-capabilities, and therefore, key assessment areas corresponding to the multiple sub-capabilities. The tables in the appendix show specific criteria used to analyze each capability.

FIG. 10 shows a multidimensional health and life sciences industry performance reference set 1000 (“reference set 1000 ”) that provides a capability detail pool from which the system described below may obtain benchmarking tables for a health and life sciences business. The reference set 1000 includes multiple key assessment performance reference tables (“reference tables”), two of which are labeled 1002 and 1004 . Each reference table may provide the benchmarking criteria for a specific capability, such as those noted above with respect to FIGS. 2-9 .

One dimension of each table may establish the ‘Basic’ performance level 140 specifying ‘Basic’ performance assessment criteria, the ‘Competitive’ performance level 142 specifying ‘Competitive’ performance assessment criteria, and the ‘Market Leading’ performance level 144 specifying ‘Market Leading’ performance assessment criteria. Another dimension of each table may specify one or more key assessment areas (KAAs), several of which are labeled 1006 , 1008 , and 1010 . As noted above, performance criteria, e.g., the PCC 1012 , populates each key assessment performance reference table to provide benchmark criteria for ‘Basic,’ ‘Competitive,’ and ‘Market Leading’ characteristics.

The reference set 1000 represents the HPCA model 100 . Consistent with the HPCA model 100 , the reference set 1000 may organize multiple reference tables into a hierarchical structure defining discrete changes in granularity. In one implementation, the hierarchical structure includes reference tables, high-level platforms, platforms, sub-platforms, and models. FIG. 10 labels three sub-platforms 1014 , 1016 , and 1018 . The reference set 1000 may further organize the platforms, two of which are labeled 1020 and 1022 . Platforms aggregate into the HPCA model 100 and corresponding reference set 1000 . Additional, different, or fewer levels of granularity may be defined in the HPCA model 100 .

The reference set 1000 may dynamically populate the reference tables with the most up-to-date performance criteria, for example upon retrieval and presentation by a business analysis consultant. The performance criteria may be retrieved from a performance capability criteria database or other information source.

FIG. 10 also shows an example of a database implementation 1024 of a portion of a reference table. In particular, the database implementation 1024 includes records (e.g., the records 1026 , 1028 , 1030 ) that establish each PCC 1012 . In the example shown, each record includes a PCC field 1032 , a category specifier field 1034 , and a KAA specifier field 1036 . Other fields may be provided, such as a reference table assignment field or reference set assignment field. The records categorize each PCC into a specific category (e.g., ‘Basic’), into a specific KAA, and, optionally, into a specific reference table in a specific reference set for any particular HPCA model.

FIG. 11 shows a high-performance capability assessment system (“system”) 1100 . The system 1100 includes a processor 1102 and a memory 1104 . Several databases support the operation of the system 1100 , including a performance capability database 1106 , a performance measured database 1108 , a capability detail pool database 1110 , and an assessment results database 1126 . The system 1100 may include a local display 1112 and input/output interfaces 1117 (e.g., including a keyboard, mouse, microphone, speakers, or other device), and, through the communication interface 1114 and networks 1116 , may communicate with remote devices 1118 and remote displays 1120 . The networks 1116 may be any combination of external networks (e.g., the Internet) and internal networks (e.g., corporate LANs). The displays 1112 and 1120 may, for example, present performance capability assessment models 1122 that the system 1100 retrieves from the capability detail pool database 1110 for review, modification, and application by process engineers or other individuals. With regard to local access or access by the remote devices 1118 , the system 1100 may include a login processing program 1124 to authenticate and/or authorize access to the system 1100 . To that end, the login processing program 1124 may include username/password verification, private/public key encryption, or other validation and data protection capabilities.

In one implementation, the capability performance database 1106 stores performance criteria. As will be described in more detail below, the system 1100 may populate performance capability assessment models with performance capability criteria suited to any particular platform or sub-platform (e.g., a perform health care management sub-platform 220 ), and business capability at one or more capability levels across one or more key assessment areas. The performance measured database 1108 may store the determined, measured, or otherwise ascertained characteristics, criteria, and other measured data of a particular key assessment area as representative practice data 1148 . The representative practice data 1148 may be obtained through interviews with business consultants and industrial engineers, through online questionnaires, through manual or automated analysis of business data (e.g., year-end operating reports), or in other manners. The capability detail pool database 1110 stores the capability detail pool 1000 , which includes pre-defined performance capability assessment models 1122 . The assessment results database 1126 stores determined capability levels for specific capabilities that have been analyzed.

The system 1100 facilitates the review, modification, creation, and application of performance capability assessment models. In that role, performance capability assessment model manipulation logic (“manipulation logic”) 1146 within the system 1100 creates, retrieves, and stores capability assessment data 1128 in the memory 1104 . The manipulation logic 1146 may establish capability assessment data 1128 in the memory 1104 , including a capability assessment data structure 1130 with multiple capability levels (“CL”) 1132 organized along a scale of mastery dimension, multiple key assessment areas (“KAA”) 1134 organized along a key factor dimension, and performance criteria (“PCC”) 1136 that populates the performance capability assessment model 1130 . The manipulation logic 1146 may vary widely in implementation, and, as one example, may include data storage logic 1152 that saves data in memory and user interface logic that accepts capability level specifications, key assessment area specifications, and performance capability criteria inputs to create new performance capability assessment models, to modify existing performance capability assessment models, to delete performance capability assessment models, or to retrieve performance capability assessment models for review.

In one implementation, the manipulation logic 1146 establishes the capability assessment data structure 1130 to include a multidimensional health and life sciences industry performance reference set that includes multiple key assessment performance reference tables in which the key assessment performance reference tables include a ‘Basic’ capability performance level, a ‘Competitive’ capability performance level, and a ‘Market Leading’ capability performance level.

The capability assessment data 1128 may also include a capability position specifier 1138 . The capability position specifier 1138 may record the capability level along the scale of mastery 146 , as determined for any particular capability. Thus, the system 1100 may store the performance level in the assessment results database 1126 or elsewhere for future retrieval and review.

In one implementation, the data population logic 1140 may be a data population program executed by the processor 1102 that populates template performance capability assessment models. For example, the data population logic 1140 may include input logic 1150 that accepts input specifying a capability of interest that indicates a particular performance capability assessment model. The data population logic 1140 may include query logic 1145 that executes database queries and prompts a user for input to obtain the corresponding performance capability criteria for the capability of interest.

In another implementation, for example, the query logic 1145 may receive an input specifying a health and life sciences industry area and a health and life sciences industry key assessment area with the health and life sciences industry area for analysis. The query logic 1145 searches the multidimensional health and life sciences industry performance reference set for a matching key assessment performance reference table that matches the health and life sciences industry area and the health and life sciences industry key assessment area, and retrieves the matching key assessment performance reference table.

The data population logic 1140 may further include storage logic that adds the retrieved performance capability criteria to the template performance capability assessment model. The data population logic 1140 produces populated performance capability assessment structures 1142 that may be stored in the capability detail pool database 1110 .

In addition to the analysis process described above, the system 1100 may provide an automated analysis of representative practice data 1148 that identifies relevant performance capability criteria and determines the position on the scale of mastery 146 of each key assessment area corresponding to the performance capability criteria for the representative practice data 1148 . As one example, the system 1100 may implement capability assessment logic 1144 that includes comparison and/or matching logic that analyzes the representative practice data 1148 with respect to performance capability criteria to locate key assessment areas for which the system 1100 can determine capability levels to obtain a resultant performance level for each key assessment area.

Furthermore, the capability assessment logic 1144 may determine an overall position on the scale of mastery 146 as the capability position specifier 1138 for a capability under examination given the knowledge of where the key assessment areas corresponding to the capability under examination fall in each capability level. Thus, for example, the capability assessment logic 1144 may determine an overall capability level for a capability corresponding to the capability level for the majority of the key assessment areas, or it may apply a weighted analysis technique to give more emphasis to some key assessment areas than others in determining the overall position on the scale of mastery 146 for a capability. As another example, the capability assessment logic 1144 may implement an expert system (e.g., based on a neural network trained on prior determinations) that analyzes the determined characteristics with respect to the performance capability criteria and ascertains where the capability under examination falls along the scale of mastery 146 for each of the key assessment areas, or overall on the scale of mastery.

FIG. 12 shows a flow diagram 1200 for creating performance capability assessment models. The performance capability assessment model creator (e.g., the manipulation logic 1146 ) establishes a key factor dimension for the performance capability assessment model ( 1202 ). The performance capability assessment model creator also establishes a capability scale dimension for the performance capability assessment model ( 1204 ). The capability scale dimension may define a scale of increasing organizational capability. For example, the structure creator may create the ‘Basic’ level 140 , the ‘Competitive’ level 142 , and the ‘Market Leading’ level 144 . The performance capability assessment model creator also populates the performance capability assessment model with capability performance criteria ( 1206 ). A capability detail pool 1000 may be formed to hold multiple tailored key assessment performance reference tables ( 1208 ). The performance capability assessment model creator may store the populated assessment structure in the capability detail pool for subsequent retrieval and analysis ( 1210 ).

FIG. 13 shows a flow diagram 1300 for retrieving and applying performance capability assessment models. A selection of a capability to be analyzed is obtained ( 1302 ). In one implementation, the system 1100 receives input data that specifies a health and life sciences industry area and a health and life sciences industry key assessment area for analysis. For example, the system 1100 may accept input from a business consultant that specifies a capability for analysis. The system 1100 may query the capability detail pool 1000 for a corresponding performance capability assessment model ( 1304 ). The corresponding performance capability assessment model may be pre-defined in the capability detail pool 1000 , or the data population logic 1140 (or other actor) may populate a performance capability assessment model template that the system 1100 newly creates, or that the system 1100 retrieves from a data store, such as the capability detail pool database 1110 .

In another example, the system 1100 searches the multidimensional health and life sciences industry performance reference set in the capability detail pool 1000 for a matching key assessment performance reference table based on the input data that specifies a health and life sciences industry platform and a health and life sciences industry key assessment area. The system 1100 retrieves the matching key assessment performance reference table and initiates analysis of the matching key assessment performance reference table to obtain a resultant performance level for the health and life sciences industry key assessment area.

The system 1100 obtains representative practice data 1148 for the capability under examination in the specific business under review ( 1306 ). For example, a business consultant may interview the business to determine how the business currently executes the capability under review. As another example, a representative from the business may complete a questionnaire, submit business data for analysis and parameter extraction, or otherwise provide the characteristics of their current capability execution. As a further example, the system 1100 may retrieve the representative practice data 1148 from a database of previously obtained representative practice data.

The system 1100 compares the representative practice data 1148 to the performance criteria in the performance capability assessment model ( 1308 ). For example, a business consultant may use his or her expertise to arrive at a determination of level for the business and the capability under examination ( 1310 ). Alternatively or additionally, the capability assessment logic 1144 may perform an automated analysis of the assessment results data in the assessment results database 1126 and ascertain the performance level on the scale of mastery 146 . The system 1100 may store the assessment results, including the determined performance level, for future reference in the assessment results database 1126 or other location ( 1312 ).

FIG. 14 shows a flow diagram 1400 for analyzing representative practice data 1148 to determine a health and life sciences industry and a health and life sciences key assessment area to which the representative practice data applies. The system 1100 receives representative practice data 1148 as input data ( 1402 ). The system 1100 may receive the representative practice data 1148 from a database query performed by the query logic 1145 that the query logic executes periodically, when instructed by an operator, and/or automatically against any number of available database sources that store representative practice data 1148 . The capability assessment logic 1144 analyzes the representative practice data 1148 to identify performance capability criteria in the capability detail pool 1000 that the capability assessment logic 1144 determines relevant to the representative practice data 1148 ( 1404 ). For example, the capability assessment logic 1144 may compare and/or match the content of the representative practice data 1148 with the performance capability criteria using natural language processing (NLP), text string, and/or substring matching, by comparing tags linked to the representative practice data 1148 and that specify that any portion of the representative practice data 1148 is applicable to a specific PCC, by querying for a manual classification of the representative practice data 1148 to a PCC, or other matching technique. The capability assessment logic 1144 may score and/or weight a performance capability criteria and compare the score and/or weight to a user specified relevance threshold to rank the relevance of the performance capability criteria to the representative practice data 1148 ( 1406 ). The user may specify particular terms and/or phrases to search and match between the performance capability criteria and the representative practice data 1148 , in order to score the performance capability criteria.

The capability assessment logic 1144 may determine, based on the number of performance capability criteria that meet or exceed the relevance threshold, that the capability assessment logic 1144 has identified a sufficient number of performance capability criteria for a specific key assessment area in order to determine a performance level for the capability as a whole or any key assessment area within the capability ( 1408 ). As one example, where at least 51% of the performance capability criteria for a particular key assessment area meet or exceed the relevance threshold, the capability assessment logic 1144 applies the performance capability criteria to the representative practice data 1148 . In another example, the performance capability criteria for a particular key assessment area may be ranked in importance and/or designated as mandatory in order to assess the key assessment area. In the event the capability assessment logic 1144 identifies the mandatory performance capability criteria for a key assessment area, the capability assessment logic 1144 applies the performance capability criteria to the representative practice data 1148 .

The capability assessment logic 1144 may apply the performance capability criteria meeting or exceeding the relevance threshold to the representative practice data 1148 to determine whether any particular PCC is met. Accordingly, as the capability assessment logic 1144 analyzes the PCC, the system 1100 tracks the best fit of the representative practice data 1148 to the PCCs in the key assessment performance reference tables. In other words, the system 1100 determines how the representative practice data 1148 meets (or does not meet) each PCC, thereby gaining insight into whether the representative practice data 1148 is indicative of ‘Basic,’ ‘Competitive,’ or ‘Market Leading’ practices.

The system 1100 may also gauge the position on the scale of mastery 146 of each key assessment area corresponding to the performance capability criteria ( 1410 ). The capability assessment logic 1144 may further determine an overall position on the scale of mastery 146 for a capability ( 1412 ). The capability assessment logic 1144 may establish that a desired number and/or designated mandatory performance capability criteria for the key assessment areas have been identified as relevant to a capability and sufficient to determine the position on the scale of mastery 146 for the capability. For example, the capability assessment logic 1144 may determine an overall performance level for the capability based on the performance level determined for the majority of the key assessment areas. The capability assessment logic 1144 may apply a weighted analysis technique to give more emphasis to some key assessment areas than others in determining the overall position on the scale of mastery 146 for the capability. Although selected aspects, features, or components of the implementations are depicted as being stored in computer-readable memories (e.g., as computer-executable instructions or performance capability assessment models), all or part of the systems and structures may be stored on, distributed across, or read from other computer-readable media. The computer-readable media may include, for example, secondary storage devices such as hard disks, floppy disks, and CD-ROMs; a signal, such as a signal received from a network or received at an antenna; or other forms of memory, including ROM or RAM, either currently known or later developed.

Various implementations of the system 1100 may include additional or different components. A processor may be implemented as a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a DSP, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), discrete logic, or a combination of other types of circuits or logic. Similarly, memories may be DRAM, SRAM, Flash or any other type of memory. The processing capability of the system may be distributed among multiple system components, such as among multiple processors and memories, optionally including multiple distributed processing systems. Parameters, databases, and other data structures may be separately stored and managed, may be incorporated into a single memory or database, may be logically and physically organized in many different ways, and may be implemented in many ways, including data structures such as linked lists, hash tables, or implicit storage mechanisms. Programs may be combined or split among multiple programs, or distributed across several memories and processors.

The HPCA 100 model provides unexpectedly good results for a performance capability assessment model, particularly in the health and life sciences industry. In particular, the combinations of key assessment areas and particular assessment criteria of the HPCA model, including the criteria noted in the Appendix of Tables, provide significant advantages over other assessment models. The unexpectedly good results include clearly identifying and delineating from among multiple related complex processes the specific processes to improve, how to improve the process, and identifying concrete and measurable improvement goals.

While various embodiments of the invention have been described, it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that many more embodiments and implementations are possible within the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not to be restricted except in light of the attached claims and their equivalents.