Operations | Organisation | People | Process | Resources | Strategy
STAY CONNECTED AND SIGNUP TO RECEIVE INSIGHT updates
All models are wrong. By definition, they simplify reality. The map is not the territory, but sometimes it’s exactly what you need. Imagine if you could isolate the root causes of problems in your organisation and map their connections on a single page.
[Listen to audio version, read by David Hodes]
This Part 3 of our series on the Logical Thinking Process: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
A Current Reality Tree (CRT) is a model of what exists in your system as examined in its present state. It seeks to take advantage of several features of systems and systems thinking. Firstly, everything’s connected, which implies that if you make a change to one part of the system, it will affect everything else. Secondly, there are very few reasons, at root, why a system behaves the way it does—indeed, there is sometimes only one. The idea of a single root cause for all subsequent effects is what attracted Goldratt to developing the CRT within his overall framework of the Theory of Constraints.
The CRT addresses the question ‘What to change?’ It is predicated on the idea that you have already defined your system boundary and have a clearly articulated goal. The CRT is, in some sense, a measure of how far off course you are, concerning your goal. Having a single, or very few, root causes allows you to understand what minimal intervention will have the most leveraged effects. In a way, the CRT is like a ‘five-why’ questioning tool or the Ishikawa (herringbone) diagram, but on steroids.
If we limit our example on this occasion to for-profit organisations, we can say that what all for-profits have in common is the goal to grow competitive returns for their shareholders, now and in the future. If earnings are lower than promised, or too much cash is tied up in investments without showing an acceptable return, then your organisation has a gap which you can analyse with the CRT as part of the Logical Thinking Process (LTP). The CRT is an example of those trees which use sufficient cause logic and the rigour of the logic checks to ensure that the reality model developed cleaves as close to the truth as is reasonable.
The tree is constructed from the top down but read from the bottom up. Let’s begin with a generic example of an independent business, or a strategic business unit of a larger concern. If their goal is, in Goldratt’s memorable phrase, to ‘make more money now and in the future’, then there are several reasons why they could be missing this goal—at least to the extent that they have to meet their shareholder expectations. Revenues may be below budget, margins less than expected, operating expense higher than planned, and inventory or investment too high relative to the hurdle rates of return. In a worst-case scenario, it could be that all of these drivers of profitability head in the wrong direction. How would we show this in our tree?
We start the tree with the big, red undesirable effect at the top. This is the statement which shows that our compass is pointing in the wrong direction. The longer we spend travelling in this direction, the worse the result will get. We read from the bottom left of the diagram: If [our margins are 15% lower than expected] then [our return on investment (ROI) fails to satisfy the demands of our shareholders]. It’s worthwhile interrogating these statements and the link between them using the logic checks from the Logical Thinking Process.
First, are the entities true? It’s good that the statement is specific, calling out 15% less than expected. But how do we know it is 15%? What do we mean by margins? Would that be gross or nett margins? How is each calculated and what, then, is the effect on the bottom line?
Second, we look at the arrow leading to the ROI failing to satisfy shareholder demands. Well, what are our shareholder demands, exactly? Is it the case, as illustrated in the diagram, and by the convention of the symbols used in the LTP, sufficient to cause the failure to satisfy the demands of our shareholders? In other words, if everything else was as planned, that is, the costs had not blown out and inventory was $10m lower, would we still have failed to satisfy our shareholder demands? What if costs had decreased in direct proportion to the drop in margins? And while we’re at it, what costs are we talking about? Is it the variable costs of inputs or the fixed costs of our operating expense?
“The only stupid question is the one that doesn’t get asked”
As we go to the right in the diagram, the statement claims that there is $10m too much inventory in the system. How do we know how much is too much? Perhaps there is a legitimate reason to hold more raw material if, for example, you are expecting a price increase and want to lock in a more favourable price. My aim here is not to solve the hypothetical problem, but rather to show the power of using logic and the process of the appropriately named Logical Thinking Process.
As an aside, I have consistently found this way of scrutinising the logic of this class of system dynamics valuable because it legitimises the asking of what we might sometimes characterise as ‘stupid questions’. I believe that the only stupid question is the one that doesn’t get asked. The logic checks provide a legitimate reason and a powerful rule-book for asking questions.
What happens, then, when we take a deeper dive? We’re striving to get to the root cause of the problem. The reason for that is quite sound. If we try and solve the problem at the level shown in the first tree, we don’t have much leverage, because we haven’t formed a hypothesis as to why these high-level entities exist. We need to go deeper with each of them in their turn and ask the ‘why?’ question, again and again. As per the unfolding logic of the CRT below, when we ask ‘why’ questions, we start to see some deeper truths. Reading the entities in the same way as before: if[entity at the base of the arrow] then [entity at the tip of the arrow] we can keep digging until, at the end of our analysis, we have hit bedrock.
In the central trunk of the tree is an ellipse with an ‘and’ binding the two arrows feeding into the entity immediately above it. This logical connector makes the claim that both entities bound by the ellipse must be present to cause the stated effect—in the language of the LTP, these are concurrent causes. Thus, if [our suppliers hit us with a 10% price increase] and [we had several unplanned breakdowns], then [costs are 10% higher than budgeted]. If you take away either of the entities bound by the ellipse, the effect at the tip of the arrows should go away. Thus, by the logic stated in the tree, whether you solve for the supplier increase or the unplanned breakdowns, either one will eliminate the cost problem without having to do anything about the other.
How likely is it that this would be the case? If the difference in the computation of the cost was 10% higher than budgeted, how could only one of those factors account for the difference? And again, what costs are we talking about? The supplier increase is most likely going to affect variable costs. In contrast, the unplanned breakdowns may have meant having to endure an increase in operating expense due to the payment of some hefty overtime bills to make up for lost production.
Once again, as we dig down, we find that the questions we ask are getting more powerful. What do we mean our competitors went to market with crazy offers? Were we competing just on price, or were they able to offer shorter turnaround time on orders and more reliable delivery, which the customer valued more than price alone? Why did the suppliers hit us with a 10% price increase? Were we late in ordering and thus had to pay the penalty for expediting orders? And why then were we late in ordering? What does it say about our people, processes and systems that we can’t, in a timely fashion, plan the work and then work the plan? And, have these same factors of people, processes and systems led to our production lead times being twice as long as planned, with all its consequence for inventory getting stuck in the supply chain?
A current reality tree is a beautiful tool for focusing a team on what matters. It can serve as a platform for what I call requisite conversations—those conversations we have to have, if we are to get unstuck from our deepest and most systemic blockages. By finding those few root causes amongst the complex, interacting chains of cause and effect, we know where to focus our efforts for high-leverage outcomes. It’s essential when having those requisite conversations that one is in an active-listening mode—empathetic to how, in most cases, it’s the system which produces the aberrant performance, not the people within it.
“Executives are so busy safeguarding today’s results that they neglect the work needed to secure their vision of the future.”
I’ll leave you with an example, which I have abstracted from a real CRT developed for a client. I show the full tree, albeit in miniaturised form to preserve confidentiality. I ask that you look at the entity in the middle of the tree, which I have placed within a red circle. For our purposes, it’s not important what the specifics are above the entity I have called out, but it’s worth noting that many of them emanate from that single cause in the middle of the diagram.
The entity says: ‘A significant amount of effort is reactive, unproductive and of poor quality, requiring rework’. Had we stopped there, we might have thought we needed a cultural intervention to address the behaviours associated with reactivity, low productivity and poor quality. However, as we dug deeper, you can see what we found when we reached bedrock.
In the many years I have been using these critical thinking tools, the chain of cause and effect at the bottom of this tree is amongst the most common and can be considered archetypal. The executives are so busy safeguarding today’s results that they neglect the work needed to secure their vision of the future.
Now that you have some understanding of the logic checks, why not take the thinking process out for a drive? See if you agree with my hypothesis of where the place/s of highest leverage is for the design of an intervention if you chase the tree down to its root.
Then take a situation within your own organisation and start gathering causes and effects that will let you make your own powerful hypothesis about how to improve. Remember, as the statistician George Box noted, ‘All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others.’
____________________________
This is Part 3 of our series on the Logical Thinking Process.
Part 1: Intro to the Logical Thinking Process
Part 2: Setting your goal
Part 3: Mapping your current reality
Part 4: Deciding with the evaporating cloud
Part 5: Realising the future
____________________________
What’s next?
The change from standard thinking to Theory of Constraints (TOC) is both profound and exhilarating. To make it both fun and memorable, we use a business simulation we call The Right Stuff Workshop.
We’d love to run it with you. To learn more:
- download the brochure (no email required)
- schedule a call
____________________________
[Background image: Tree on the hill, Gilly Stewart on Unsplash]
____________________________
Understanding the Jobs Patients Need Doing
A patient may ask for a smaller device, a clearer display or an easier app. Those requests matter, but they leave a deeper question unanswered: what is the person trying to accomplish, and why does the current approach make it difficult?
Someone using a monitoring device may want to understand whether their condition is changing, decide when to seek help or manage daily activities with greater confidence. The device is one means of achieving that outcome.
A powerful question asks how well your organization understands the jobs patients are trying to get done. A strong answer connects patient research with clearly defined outcome statements that become the formal user needs your teams use to build the design history file. Outcome-based user needs are easier to validate, flow more easily into design requirements, and result in faster time to market.
“A feature request describes a possible answer. Understanding the patient’s job to be done sets your design team up to deliver a better solution faster.”
Define the job from the patient perspective
A useful job statement describes an activity the patient needs to accomplish in a relevant context. It should remain understandable without naming your product or preferred technology.
“Use our app every day” describes behavior your organization wants. “Provide a way to recognize when a change in my condition requires professional advice” describes the outcome a patient actually desires.
The distinction affects research. If the team starts with the app, it will ask how to improve screens and interactions. Starting with the job opens questions about information, confidence, timing and support. The best solution may involve changes beyond the app.
Define a scope the team can investigate. “Live a healthier life” expresses an aspiration but is too broad to guide detailed engineering decisions on its own. “Minimize the time it takes to find a solution to my health concern without needing to talk to a doctor or call someone” gives a team a direction, a measure, an object of control and contextual clarifier(s).
Distinguish the job from the journey
Journey mapping shows how people move through a particular care pathway. Job mapping examines what they must accomplish to achieve their purpose, including the work surrounding the interaction with your solution.
The two perspectives complement each other. A journey may show that a patient waits for follow-up. The job perspective asks what they are trying to understand or decide while waiting.
This matters because current processes can become embedded in the team’s assumptions. Patients may need a reliable way to recognize an important change; they do not necessarily need the exact sequence of activities currently provided.
Use the journey to understand context and dependencies. Use the job to examine whether a different approach could help the patient achieve the desired outcome more effectively.
Study daily life where it happens
Patient research begins with observation and empathy interviews at the Gemba, the place where the activity actually occurs.
For patients, that place includes the home and the settings in which they manage health alongside ordinary responsibilities. Ask people to demonstrate routines, explain decisions and describe recent experiences.
Observe what they do. Immerse yourself in the circumstances surrounding the activity. Engage through questions that let them explain their purpose in their own language.
A person may say that managing treatment is straightforward while observation reveals multiple reminders, improvised storage or reliance on a partner. Those arrangements can reveal effort and uncertainty that have become familiar enough to go unreported.
The aim is to understand the why your solution will win before making any decisions about what your solution will do. Customers will want your solution because of the outcomes it gives them, not because of what you made.
Recruit for differences that affect the job
Patients with the same diagnosis may struggle with different parts of an activity. Differences in confidence, experience, resources and support can change how they define success.
Recruit participants whose circumstances reflect the population you intend to serve. Include relevant variations in health literacy, technology familiarity, physical ability and access to care. Are you targeting the tech savvy millennial, a busy parent trying to run a family with four kids or a retiree living in a managed healthcare facility?
Research should also examine emotional and social needs. A patient may want reassurance about managing a task alone or worry about drawing attention to a condition. Keep these needs visible alongside functional outcomes without assuming one design choice resolves them all.
Examine the complete job
The job mapping framework divides a job into eight recurring steps. These steps prompt investigation beyond the most visible interaction.
- Define. Establish what the patient needs to achieve and the circumstances that matter.
- Locate. Establish how the patient will find the information, materials or support required, including your solution.
- Prepare. Uncover how the patient will arrange the environment and resources for the job to be done.
- Confirm. Understand how the patient will make the decision to go forward with your solution and determine whether everything is ready for the intended next action steps.
- Execute. What outcomes matter to the patient as they get your solution and start using it. Often this is the ONLY job step the team looks at.
- Monitor. How will the patient assess and know for sure your solution is progressing successfully.
- Modify. Rarely do things work perfectly on the first try. Identify outcomes that are important to the patient when adjustments to the approach are needed when conditions or results require it.
- Conclude. Complete the set of outcomes by understanding how the patient completes the activity or prepares to repeat it.
Apply these prompts to actual patient work. Some steps may recur or overlap. The map should help the team discover needs, rather than force experience into an artificial sequence.
“The most useful innovation may help a patient prepare, recognize an exception or recover confidence before it changes the device itself.”
Turn patient language into outcome statements
Interviews generate verbatims: patients’ own descriptions of experiences, difficulties and expectations. Preserve that evidence, then interpret what each statement reveals about the job.
An illustrative verbatim might be, “I keep checking because I don’t know whether the reading matters.” The desired outcome may concern recognizing a meaningful change or understanding what action is appropriate.
A structured outcome statement identifies the direction of improvement, a measure, the object being controlled and relevant context. For example: “Minimize the time required to determine whether a change in a reading requires contacting my care team.”
Ask the team if there are uncovered outcomes that can set your solution apart related to how it is purchased, installed, received, set up, learned with training support, transported, maintained, upgraded, replaced or disposed.
This formulation gives research and design a clearer target. It does not establish a clinical threshold or promise that a device can safely make the decision independently, but often the features that will make your solution “easy to use” or set you apart will come from these outcome statements.
Preserve meaning as you organize the evidence
Several comments may describe the same need. One comment may contain multiple needs. Review the evidence carefully before combining it into a set of outcomes.
Remove duplication, separate distinct outcomes and retain links to the original accounts. Use plain language that patients can understand. Avoid embedding a particular feature in the statement.
Check the interpretation with participants or other appropriate reviewers. “I want fewer notifications” might mean reducing irrelevant interruptions while preserving important information. Treating it as a demand to suppress all alerts would misrepresent the need.
The output should be a coherent set of outcomes organized by job step. Completeness and clarity matter but typically it is ideal to have at least 100 and no more than 200 outcome statements for the team.
Measure importance and satisfaction separately
Qualitative research discovers needs and explains them. Quantitative research helps determine how widely they matter and how well existing approaches satisfy them.
Ask patients to rate the importance of each outcome and their satisfaction with their current ability to achieve it. Make the reference situation clear so respondents evaluate comparable experiences.
A high scoring importance outcome with low satisfaction deserves investigation. High satisfaction may indicate that the need is already well served so the team can use what already exists and put more time in creating innovative solutions to high importance low satisfaction outcomes. Low importance can reduce its priority, although clinical safety requirements cannot be dismissed through a popularity score.
Use a research design appropriate to the intended population. The outcome statements are easy to rate on a five point Likert scale. Choose population quantitative research in alignment with your target persona groups.
Identify opportunities within patient segments
The Outcome Driven Innovation approach uses importance and satisfaction to identify underserved outcomes. Its opportunity calculation adds importance to the positive gap between importance and satisfaction.
Use compatible scales and a clearly defined calculation. Interpret the result alongside the underlying responses, research quality and the clinical context.
Examine differences between groups. An outcome that appears adequately served overall may remain difficult for patients with less support or a different level of experience.
These differences can reveal meaningful segments based on unmet needs. They help the organization avoid treating demographic similarity as evidence that patients need the same solution. Prioritization should retain enough detail to explain whose outcome the proposed improvement will change.
Connect outcomes with development decisions
A target product profile brings the priority outcomes together with business goals, available technology and other relevant requirements. It helps the team agree what success should look like before committing to a concept.
Translate patient outcomes into design inputs and measurable requirements while preserving traceability to the evidence. Define which questions remain uncertain and what research or testing will resolve them.
Evaluate concepts against the outcomes they are intended to improve. Ask whether the proposed approach reduces effort, uncertainty or difficulty for the relevant patients and results in higher satisfaction scores than the baseline solution. A favorable reaction to an attractive prototype provides limited evidence unless the team can connect it with better execution of the job.
Keep patient progress connected to system performance
A priority patient need may involve work performed by a clinician, caregiver or service provider. Investigate those dependencies before deciding that a product change will solve the problem.
The Theory of Constraints helps identify where improvement can change the performance of the wider pathway. A better patient interaction can have limited effect if access to essential support remains constrained.
A Value Management Office can coordinate the initiatives needed to address these connected issues and keep investment aligned with patient outcomes.
“Patient insight becomes useful design evidence when the team can show which outcome matters, who struggles with it and how the solution improves it.”
What comes next
Use patient jobs to be done to review one priority patient job. Can your team state it clearly, map its steps and demonstrate which outcomes are highly important and poorly satisfied?
Start with observation and patient conversations. Build and validate the outcome statements, measure priorities and test concepts against them. That discipline gives Patient Centered Design a practical foundation for better products and more lives changed for good.
The healthcare professional: a hidden constraint in patient flow
A healthcare professional can recognize the value of a medical device and still struggle to incorporate it into care. The referral may be incomplete. Diagnostic evidence may arrive late. Preparation may require extra staff. Follow-up may introduce work that nobody has agreed to own. Managing the patients before and after may require additional staff which adds risk to the business side of the practice.
Those difficulties affect the clinician’s ability to help patients reach and benefit from your solution. They deserve attention during development and throughout deployment.
The purpose is to understand how professionals encounter, assess, recommend and use a solution, and what constraints they encounter in using your solution.
A useful map connects the professional’s experience with patient flow. It helps the organization identify where support, coordination or design changes can improve the delivery of care.
“Clinical enthusiasm cannot create the time, information or supporting capacity needed to deliver a therapy.”
Identify the professionals who shape the pathway
Healthcare professionals perform different jobs at different stages. A referring practitioner, diagnostic specialist, interventional physician, nurse and educator may all influence whether the same patient receives successful care.
Define which groups participate in your pathway and what each contributes. Who recognizes the need? Who establishes eligibility? Who performs the procedure? Who trains the patient? Who monitors outcomes and manages exceptions? Who manages insurance?
Include people whose work makes these actions possible. Coordinators, technicians and administrative staff may arrange appointments, prepare equipment or assemble records. Their contribution can govern whether clinical time is used effectively.
The map should make dependencies visible across roles. It should also clarify which actions fall within your organization’s influence and which require collaboration with care providers or other affected parties.
Distinguish roles from personas
A professional title tells you part of the story. Experience, setting, case volume, access to support, business acumen and familiarity with the therapy can change the work considerably.
An experienced specialist in a well-supported center may encounter different difficulties from a clinician who sees the condition infrequently or works in a rural area. A nurse coordinating a dedicated service may have options unavailable to someone balancing that responsibility with other duties.
Develop personas around these differences. Examine confidence in interpreting evidence, decision authority, available time, training needs and exposure to clinical or organizational risk.
Use research to test the distinctions. Personas should explain variations in behavior and requirements. They should help the team understand why an approach that works in one setting may fail to support another.
Map the journey from first awareness to continuing care
The professional’s journey may begin with awareness of an unmet clinical need or information about a potential solution. It continues through evaluating evidence, discussing alternatives and deciding whether the therapy belongs in their practice.
Adoption can involve local approvals, purchasing, training, changes to referral patterns and coordination with other teams. Clinical use then includes preparation, treatment, documentation, handover and follow-up.
Map these activities without assuming a single linear sequence. Professionals may return to evidence review after a difficult case or revise their approach when colleagues raise concerns.
Distinguish the journey of adopting the therapy from the recurring journey of delivering it to each patient. Both matter, but the barriers and improvement measures can differ.
Capture decisions and dependencies
At each stage, ask what the professional is trying to accomplish and what must be available before the work can proceed.
A decision may depend on diagnostic results, a complete patient history, clear eligibility criteria or advice from another specialty. A procedure may depend on staff, equipment and an appropriate location. Follow-up may depend on information that must be captured earlier.
Show the handovers between roles, including who supplies information and who receives it. Record where uncertainty is resolved and where work is repeated.
This reveals how a product can add burden beyond its immediate interaction. A useful output may still consume scarce clinical time if the professional must retrieve, interpret, reformat and document it through separate systems.
Measure the work and the waiting
The time required for a clinical activity can differ greatly from the time a patient waits to receive it. Both belong on the map.
Measure preparation, clinical work, documentation and recovery from problems where relevant. Record queues, appointment delays and time lost waiting for missing information.
Distinguish professional effort from elapsed time. Some delays consume little active attention but prevent patients progressing. Others require repeated chasing, rescheduling or explanation, drawing capacity away from care.
Define a common unit of work so comparisons remain meaningful. Cases with different complexity may require different analysis. Averages alone can hide the patients or professionals who face the greatest difficulty.
The purpose is to understand usable capacity and patient progress in the actual working environment.
Find the capacity that governs patient flow
A pathway may depend on a small amount of specialist attention surrounded by many competing demands. Headcount alone will not show how much of that attention is available.
Examine what professionals spend their time on, including avoidable administration, repeated assessments and interruptions. Determine whether the relevant constraint is clinical expertise, supporting staff, diagnostic access, equipment or a policy governing work.
The Theory of Constraints helps focus improvement on the factor limiting the whole pathway. Increasing referrals to a service already unable to process them can lengthen waiting without increasing treatment.
Investigate the apparent bottleneck before choosing a response. Better preparation or coordination may release capacity. In other cases, additional resources or changes to the operating model will be necessary.
“The measure of a design improvement is its effect on clinical work and patient progress, including the work it creates elsewhere.”
Observe clinical work at the Gemba
The Gemba is where the work actually happens. Direct observation helps teams understand how professionals use information, equipment and judgment under real conditions.
Observe preparation, interruptions, handovers and the work following the visible procedure. Ask what the professional expected to receive and what they had to obtain independently. Capture workarounds and job “cheat sheets” that are homemade to make working with your solution easier.
Workarounds deserve particular attention. A clinician may keep a private checklist because the formal process omits an important step. A coordinator may repeatedly contact another service because information arrives inconsistently.
These practices reveal requirements that interviews alone may miss. Discuss observations with the people involved so the team does not mistake an isolated event for a routine pattern. Include different settings and experience levels in the research.
Build the baseline from several sources
Gather organizational knowledge and assess technology and business perspectives before moving toward a solution. Apply that discipline to the professional journey.
Use existing clinical insight, training questions, support records and prior implementation experience to draft the map. Identify assumptions and gaps.
Assess the technologies already supporting the work. Consider compatibility with the environment, availability, maintenance, reliability and the practical resources needed for use.
Clarify the business conditions surrounding adoption. Purchasing arrangements, competing initiatives, staffing decisions and local policies may determine whether a clinically attractive solution can be implemented.
This baseline makes research more focused. It also prevents the development team from proposing changes that depend on unavailable capability or unacknowledged commitments from others.
Involve the people who can enable change
Voice of Business research asks leaders about desired outcomes, frustrations, risks and obstacles. It also identifies decision makers and influencers who should participate early.
For a healthcare professional pathway, this means understanding who can authorize changes to responsibilities, processes, resources and technology.
Ask which other initiatives could affect implementation. Identify the independent reviewers who can challenge the team’s assumptions. Agree what success will look like from the perspective of clinical work and patient outcomes.
Make the findings visible to the team members and relevant leaders. A professional may welcome a new approach while lacking the authority to secure the resources it requires. The project needs a realistic route from individual support to organizational adoption.
Use FOCUS to improve the journey
Apply the five-step FOCUS process to the evidence gathered through mapping.
Find the constraint. Identify the activity or resource currently governing the flow of suitable patients through care.
Optimize for it. Protect scarce capacity from incomplete information, unnecessary preparation, avoidable interruptions and repeat work.
Collaborate around it. Coordinate upstream and downstream roles so patients, information and resources arrive when needed.
Uplift it. Add capability or change responsibilities, processes and technology when existing capacity cannot meet the need.
Start Again. Review the pathway after improvement and identify its new limiting factor.
Automation can help when the task is understood and the proposed change supports clinical work. Evaluate its consequences, including review effort, exception handling and any burden transferred to another professional.
Turn the map into a shared improvement plan
The map should lead to a manageable set of changes with clear owners and measures. Test those changes in relevant settings and examine their effect on both professional effort and patient progress.
A Value Management Office can connect the initiatives with priorities, resources and project decisions. Clinical teams and other participants must remain involved in judging whether the changes improve work in practice.
“An effective professional journey supports a clinician through the complete job, from readiness to follow-up.”
What comes next
Use the healthcare professional journey to examine one priority pathway. Can your team explain who performs the work, where capacity is lost and what currently limits patient progress?
Build the map with the professionals involved. Establish the baseline, test an improvement at the constraint and review the result. Patient Centered Design advances when the solution and the surrounding system make beneficial care easier to deliver reliably.
“`
