Healthy Barbapapa

During the last contact session for this second Systems Thinking course we spent most of the time finishing the group work projects. After a discussion in the morning about how to proceed on the course, and how to structure it, I met with my group, and we focused on how to present our improvement ideas for the current health care system. We evaluated the ideas we came up with during the previous sessions, and categorized them in how they would best approach the established system. Certain ideas would work best when implemented top-down, others were especially suitable for a bottom-up approach. Discussing within the group how to present, we evaluated the content and impact of the new concepts, and figured that most ideas would probably get adopted the best when they were tested thoroughly at forehand. By doing so, you have space for failure. Not every concept is viable, and those that aren’t can prove their incompetency to function in a safe environment, where the consequences can be regulated. An environment that would suit this kind of approach could be a kind of ‘concept hospital’. Within this institution new ideas can be tested, and reports will be kept to keep track of the progress. When there are some measurable results or outcomes to the test phase these can be published. Not only does this give the institute the opportunity to communicate to the outside world what they have been doing, but also it can serve as a way to educate healthcare institutions globally on their progress and failure. This way not every country has to go through the same problems.
In presenting this, we visualized the cloud in which these ideas currently float, and explained the need for a facilitator to structure the plans, and to forward them to the best suitable institution. This facilitator could also function as an initiator for bottom-up ideas. He or she could call for cooperators, and together work out the details and arrange the actualization of it.
Through this way the healthcare system would slowly but steadily transform from rigid to more amorphous, and become more suitable for the people using it.
Watching the other presentations I noticed many different approaches to the task, and the variety of outcomes. Some groups made thoroughly thought through systems, ready for implementation, other groups kept it at a more conceptual level, and mainly focused on the current situation and identifying this to such extent that the actual problems would become visible.

What do you think?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s