Author Archives: Arlen Meyers

About Arlen Meyers

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA is an emeritus professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, an instructor at the University of Colorado-Denver Business School and cofounding President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs at www.sopenet.org. Follow along onSubstack.

Myths About Physician Entrepreneurs

Myths About Physician Entrepreneurs

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

Physician entrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity by doctors and other health professionals under VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) conditions. The goal is to create user/patient/stakeholder defined value through the design, development, testing, deployment and harvesting of biomedical and clinical innovation using a VAST business model. Unfortunately, in my view, only about 1% of doctors and biomedical scientists have an entrepreneurial mindset and there are several misperceptions about those that do.

There are many myths about entrepreneurs. Here are some about physician entrepreneurs:

  1. They are egotistical, self centered and greedy. Some might be , but most are generally interested in moving forward biomedical innovation to help patients and leverage their skills. Most physician entrepreneurs practice the belief that you can do well by doing good. They try to be compassionate capitalists , resolving the ethics of medicine with the ethics of business.
  2. They are mostly 24-35 year old techies. In terms of medical education, people that age are just completing their residencies and just starting to practice independently. A few dabble in entrepreneurial ventures during undergraduate, medical school or residency, but most have their hands full with medical training and have little time, money or energy for anything else. In addition, many physicians start their entrepreneurial careers later in life as part of a portfolio career or an encore career after retirement from clinical practice. There are three main demographics.
  3. Physician entrepreneurs have an inherent conflict of interest that makes them all suspect. All physicians, particularly those in private practice billing fee for service, have a conflict of interest and always have throughout the history of medicine. The world has become more complicated, further clouding the air. The idea is to declare, manage, mitigate or eliminate conflicts of interest, not ignore them.
  4. Physician entrepreneurs have to quit the practice of medicine. In fact, there are many ways clinicians can practice entrepreneurship, adding value at a profit, by engaging in part time or transitional activities. The decision to engage in physician entrepreneurship should not be and either/or decision, but an “and” decision. There are many kinds of physician entrepreneurs and almost every doctor has the potential to create user defined value at some stage of their career. In fact, the ACGME should make practicing medicine using a viable business model a 7th competency.
  5. Most physician entrepreneurs are millionaires. Like other entrepreneurs, most will fail if they create a new venture. In fact, most doctors make mid to high six figure salaries and the opportunity cost of pursuing an entrepreneurial venture is a barrier to participation.
  6. Doctors think that the business of medicine is as important as the practice of medicine. In fact, most medical schools don’t teach it and very few medical students and postgraduate trainees learn it. Doctors learn it when they have to after graduation as a simple matter of survival
  7. Entrepreneurship is about creating businesses. No it is not. Rather, it is about creating user defined value through the deployment of innovation and there are many ways to do that, including , but not limited to creating a business. For example, there are independent professional service providers (private practitioners), social entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs-employed physicians trying to act like entrepreneurs, physician investors and physician service providers. They all are trying to get ideas to patients or help someone who is. Doctors who say, “I didn’t go into medicine to be an entrepreneur” i.e. learn medical practice entrepreneurship, are misguided, partly due to the messaging of the academic and biomedical industrial complex that medicine is just about taking care of patients.
  8. Innovation is the same as practice management. Practice management is like any other operations management function. It is done to maximize outputs/unit input. Innovation is done to create the future. For those in clinical practice, we should be emphasizing medical practice entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship.
  9. You need a certain personality to be a physician entrepreneur. Most research indicates almost anyone can be creative, imaginative or innovative with the right coaching. Innovation starts with a mindset. Unlike personality traits, a mindset is malleable.
  10. Things are staying the same. Quite the contrary. There are many in diverse educational, training, coaching and organizational ecosystems that are doing extraordinary things despite big obstacles to change how we do biomedical and health innovation and entrepreneurship.
  11. Physicians are better entrepreneurs than anyone else. I doubt it. While it is true that end users are market perceivers, very few are technopreneurs, business developers, story tellers, score keepers or money finders that are necessary skill positions on the startup team
  12. Physician entrepreneurs play nice with others. No they don’t. Here’s why.
  13. It’s a “good old boys” network. About half of medical students are women. Yes, it is still true that minorities are underrepresented. Here are the numbers about women in medicine. My experience is that women physicians are just as entrepreneurial as men. Immigrants are more entrepreneurial.
  14. Doctors make lousy business people. Here are some reasons why doctors have the potential to make great businesspeople or entrepreneurs. No, doctors are not lousy business people. Don’t be fooled by the cynics.
  15. Doctors who don’t see patients are not “real doctors” . In fact, in my experience, the vast numbers of physicians who stop seeing patients continue to do things that benefit patients. In many instances, with much bigger impact on much larger numbers of patients that they did when they were seeing 40 patients a day working for the Man.

Here are some other facts about entrepreneurs that might surprise you.

Our sickcare system of systems is sick and the prescribed treatment needs to be multimodality therapy. One treatment is biomedical, digital health, care delivery and process innovation. Physician entrepreneurs will play an increasingly important role in making sure that the patient takes their medicine. Taking care of business is an essential part of taking care of patients. If doctors don’t care of business, they have no business practicing medicine.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Should intrapreneurs really ask for forgiveness and not permission?

Should intrapreneurs really ask for forgiveness and not permission?

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

Intrapreneurs are employees trying to act like entrepreneurs, i.e. pursuing opportunity in their organizations with scarce resources with the goal of creating user defined value through the deployment of innovation. Many run into a brick wall.

The intrapreneur’s Ten Commandments include:

  1. Remember, it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
  2. Do any job that needs to make your project work, regardless of your job description.
  3. Come to work each day willing to be fired.
  4. Recruit a strong team.
  5. Ask for advice before resources.
  6. Forget pride of authorship, spread credit wisely
  7. When you bend the rules, keep the best interests of the company and its customers in mind.
  8. Honor your sponsors
  9. Underpromise and overdeliver
  10. Be true to your goals, but realistic about ways to achieve them.

We’ve heard #1 a lot and it has become part of the lore of intrapreneurship and organizational behavior. But, is it really a good idea? It depends, and here are some reasons why:

  1. Every organization, hospital and university has a culture of risk. Some cut you some slack. Some don’t.
  2. It depends on the risk involved. Andrew Gove of Intel advised to ask for foregiveness, but don’t drill holes below the water line.
  3. Sometimes, it ‘s better to keep what you are doing secret so as not to expose your idea too soon to the organizational immune system or people who are out to torpedo your success.
  4. It takes a while to get your idea ready for prime time and validate assumptions. Better to fail early and off the radar than flop big.
  5. Getting the resources you need will require imagination and political savvy. Sometimes that requires stealth and cunning.
  6. Most organizations have archaic systems for prioritizing innovation or a new product portfolio. Asking for permission just puts you in dysfunctional queue.
  7. Better to deliver your idea with as much value added as possible.
  8. You are not the only one with the responsibility of moving your idea forward. Think about your team members and sponsors who have their necks out too.
  9. One swallow does not a summer make. Even if you roll out a successful idea, people are going to want to know what you have done for them lately. Better to have a pipeline of products in development before launch. Platforms are more attractive than products.
  10. Building sustainability takes time and is sometimes done better off the radar. Once you have a successful internal venture, people will come to you to take credit.

Getting “escalated” is not pretty. Here are some ways to manage it.

There are two kinds of innovators. Permission seekers start with the rules, create ecosystems that conform to them, create business models that are new or different and that foster innovation. Forgiveness seekers, do the same, but in reverse. They use technologies that have reached a coherence tipping point to create business models and ecosystems and then drive to change the rules to allow them to scale.

There is a lot to recommend stealth innovation. Beware of making too much noise and make it low impact at the beginning. Don’t use words, like “center”, “institute” or “innovation” that are likely to mobilize hostiles with competing interests. Practice digipreneur guerilla tactics. Watch out for snipers.

Arming yourself with anti-radar technology is usually a smart move. However, if you get shot down over enemy territory it might be hard to find you and you will be placing your search and rescue team members in jeopardy. Think twice before flying over hostile territory without a survival plan.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Lead Innovation, Don’t Manage It

Lead Innovation, Don't Manage It

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

Chief Innovation Officers are growing like weeds. Some think their job is to manage innovation.

Some even go so far as to define their desirable traits.

Here is yet another article on how to manage innovation.

Here are some ideas on what it takes to be an innovation manager.

You can tell the CHINOs (Chief Healthcare Innovation Officer) in your office by the chinos and polo shirts they wear. But, just because they wear the same uniforms doesn’t mean they think and work the same. You see, there is no CHINO school.

They might as well quit since managing innovation will take them in the wrong direction. Instead, they should be leading innovators. Here’s why:

1. Everyone seems to have a different definition of innovation. Be sure you are leading people who have the same understanding and objectives.

2. Managing innovation implies that the core competence of an innovative enterprise is their system or culture. While that is important, successful innovation comes from living, breathing humans who innovate or try to repeatedly despite big obstacles.

3. Managing is about optimizing the efficacy and efficiency or resources. Entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs, some of whom are innovators, pursue opportunity with limited resources with the goal of creating user defined value through the deployment of innovation.

4. Leaderpreneurs are different than managers and have a different role. They provide vision, direction and inspiration. Unfortunately, most “leaders” provide motivation, not inspiration. Here are the differences:

  1. External vs. Internal: The first key difference is while motivation is typically accomplished through external factors, inspiration is an internal force. Wayne Dyer puts it this way: “If motivation is when you get hold of an idea and carry it through to its conclusion, inspiration is the reverse. An idea gets hold of you and carries you where you are intended to go.”
  2. Duration and Effectiveness: Since inspiration is an internal force, it lasts longer and is more effective. Motivation, particularly when connected to a system of external rewards, is only effective as long as you are able to keep the system of rewards consistent. Inspiration has deeper roots; its influence sticks with you and propels you further than mere motivation can.
  3. People’s Responses: People respond to inspirational leadership exponentially better than they do to compensation or coercion. People are always more eager to do something when it is an idea they feel connected to and invested in. While external forces can be a key motivator, people will react far better to a personal investment.

The goal is to release the innerpreneur, not use carrots and sticks.

5. Managing is about preserving or building the status quo. Innovating is about making the status quo obsolete.

6. Managers rarely assume the roles of intrapreneurial sponsors. Leaderpreneurs have to to be successful.

7. Managers get in the way by controlling. Leaderpreneurs get out of the way by inspiring.

8. Leaderpreneurs create innovation management systems that can be scaled with the goal of making themselves obsolete as quickly as possible. Managers create systems to protect their jobs.

9. Leaderpreneurs organize chaos and serendipity. Managers strive to standardize.

10. Managers think short term costs. Innovation leaderpreneurs measure things as longer term investments.

A recently released Conference Board report showed a strong link between leadership and innovation. The authors identified nine behaviors that are key to getting results:

  1. Leaders jointly created a vision with their colleagues.Some have thought leadership to be about coming up with a grand strategy, and then enticing the troops to follow you up the hill. But our data showed leaders creating a vision collaboratively, not in a directive manner.
  2. They build trust. We interviewed leaders who were in the top 1% of their organization on creativity. One quality stood out. These leaders trusted their people and in turn their colleagues had an enormous trust in them. One person noted, “To take a risk demands that you feel really safe.” “She always has our back,” said another.
  3. Innovation champions were characterized by a willingness to constantly challenge the status quo.People described innovative leaders as fearless and doing what’s right versus what may be politically correct. Some highly effective leaders of innovation were characterized as being “inverse to the environment.”
  4. Leaders who fostered innovation were noted for their deep expertise.Colleagues noted that it was this “T” quality that defined these leaders. These leaders had a wide range of intellectual curiosity on a horizontal axis, while at the same time were grounded deeply in their knowledge of the technology at the center of what their group did.
  5. They set high goals. Leaders who created innovative teams were noted for setting the bar extremely high, and giving their colleagues the challenge and opportunity to achieve what they believed would be beyond their reach.
  6. Innovative leaders gravitate toward speed. These leaders move at a quick pace. They believe things can be accomplished sooner, not later. They gravitate toward the quick prototype that is put together with duct tape and paper clips in one day over a more perfect result they could create in six months. The graph below shows 360 results for 57,113 leaders who were rated on their speed of execution and their ability to innovate. Note that leaders who move slowly are on average rated at the 12th percentile on their ability to innovate while those who are in the top 10 percent are at the 89th percentile.
  7. They crave information. Innovative leaders keep the team on the same page by flooding them with relevant facts. They excel at asking good question and then being exceedingly good listeners. The combination of “catch and pitch” helps the team to excel at innovation.
  8. They excel at teamwork. The next characteristic of the most innovative leaders was excelling at teamwork and collaboration. It was never about “me.” It was always about the team creating something of value.
  9. They value diversity and inclusion. The most innovative leaders recognize that the creative process feeds on bringing people together who possess sharply differing views and experience. It is the blending of these elements that creates highly innovative solutions.

Here are five strengths of innovative leaders.

Here are some other thoughts on what it takes to lead innovators.

In general,  successful innovators primarily focus on four areas: creating a vision, building an organization that can achieve that vision, leading and empowering their team to succeed in that, as well as ultimately adapting their approach based on what they’ve learned along the way.

No alt text provided for this image

Here are 10 tips on how to create a lead successful innovation teams.

One author noted that “the first step in creating meaningful, long-term, sustainable innovation in any organization is to recognize that cultures cause outcomes.  And if this is true, bad cultures will cause bad outcomes. And if this is true, it further follows that bad leadership causes bad cultures, which in turn cause bad outcomes.”

Harvard Business School Professor Gary Pisano reminds us , though, that the innovation culture must balance easy to like behaviors with some that are less fun and designed to address the main dysfunctions of teams: an intolerance for incompetence, rigorous discipline, brutal candor, a high level of individual accountability and strong leadership.

There are many myths about organizational innovation cultures and how to create them. The truth is that cultures are the result of innovation strategy, structure, processes and people, not the cause. They are created by organizational leaders.

Another problem is that traditional approaches to leadership development no longer meet the needs of organizations or individuals and personal learning clouds are filling the gaps.

Innovation is not a nebulous concept tucked some where in a strategic plan. Like any combat team, it has a face, a heart and a soul and needs to nurtured and led, not managed. In the end, it’s the people, stupid.

Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Being Too Focused on the Test is Dangerous

Being Too Focused on the Test is Dangerous

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

Like most premeds, I got into medical school, mostly, because I am good at taking standardized tests, I can memorize lots of information , I had some cultural and economic advantages and I knew what to say to interviewers who did not know how to interview. It certainly was not about my being creative or imaginative.

Fortunately, for this generation, that is gradually changing.

As more and more medical educators try to reform the structure, process , goals, learning objectives and outcomes of medical undergraduate and post-graduate education, they run into some recurring questions:

  1. How do we find the right people to teach new subjects?
  2. How do we find the time to teach all of this new information when we are already constrained by the explosive growth of new basic science and clinical information?
  3. How do we make sure that our students and residents pass the tests required to graduate and get board certified so that they can practice and so that the education and training programs get accredited? In other words, how do we practice educational ambidexterity
  4. Should we change how and who we admit?
  5. How do we bridge the now, with the next with the new?

The latest trend in management theory is what’s called organizational ambidexterity. It’s the social scientists take on being a switch hitter, and is defined as an organization’s ability to be aligned and efficient in its management of today’s business demands while simultaneously being adaptive to changes in the environment. In other words, being able to simultaneously lead the now, the new and the next. Some describe it as bimodal people management.

While some are very vocal about eliminating standardized tests, it is unlikely they will be eliminated. The rate of growth of scientific and clinical information will increase. New faculty develoment is always a challenge. So, what are some answers?

  1. Faculty development programs that are people-centric and expand their knowledge, skills, abilities and competencies about introducing and integrating new subjects into their existing subject matter expertise. Engage the champions, build innovation teams around them, set the standards and goals then get out of their way. Identify the skeptics and either convert them or just let them do what they do best now. Sabateurs should be quickly exposed and “rehabilitated”.
  2. Recruit, develop, promote and reward for skills, like innovation, entrepreneurship , data analytics and artificial intelligence
  3. Create interdisciplinary and cross functional teaching teams
  4. Encourage industry collaboration
  5. Decrease, don’t increase, lecture time and give students the flexibility to learn when and how they do it best.
  6. Focus on competencies, while at the same time making it clear to students what they will be tested on to practice medicine
  7. Reform the standardized test and maintenance of certification process
  8. In the age of search, teach students how to learn, not what to memorize. Take advantage of how students learn, not how you think they learn.
  9. Accelerate up the hierarchy of learning from recall to interpretation to problem solving to creativity
  10. Take small steps in integrating the new subjects into the traditional four year/three year curriculum
  11. Test new ideas and incorporate the results into the next iteration
  12. Encourage students to be prosumers (producer/consumers) and help you build the product
  13. Rethink how and who you admit to medical school. In one recently opened school, 75% of the first year class have engineering or computer science degrees.
  14. Integrate and continue to build medical school education with post-graduate education and training
  15. Change and define GME required competencies and accreditation standards to meet contemporary needs.

Here are themes/motifs that are becoming part and parcel of the practice of medicine and are incrementally being intergrated into the medical school curriculum:

Some new schools are leapfrogging the old ways and launching entirely new curriculum maps from the start.

We should strive for educational ambidexterity and evolve from teaching and learning to the test and forgetting about all the rest.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

How to Scale Your Culture

How to Scale Your Culture

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

Facebook, Apple, Boeing, McDonald’s and Starbucks are not the only high profile companies that have lost their way as they just got bigger and bigger. Experts and pundits will offer many reasons, some organizational and some more personal about the CEO and the leadership team. Just read the transcripts and review the videos of Congressional hearings about companies breaking bad as they are conducted, seemingly, on a more regular basis. Or, you can see the highlight reel on 60 Minutes or YouTube.

Most would agree, though, that a main cause of a company loosing its bearings during explosive growth is a loss of culture. The term “company culture” is something of a nebulous concept, but most culture professionals can agree on the very basics of a definition. In short, company culture is defined as a shared set of values, goals, attitudes and practices that make up an organization. How an organization goes about crafting its own culture is totally up to them .

In other words, culture is mostly about “how we do things around here”.

The US “healthcare” system is actually a dysfunctional sickcare system of systems masquerading as a healthcare system that includes academic medical centers, community hospitals, government hospitals and other health service organizations. Recent entrants include retailers, online vendors and pharmaceutical companies.

I have worked in many of these kinds of organizations. They all have a unique culture. Working in a VA hospital is much different than working in a for profit community integrated delivery network. In fact, one of the main causes of failed mergers, acquisitions or hospital consolidations is “cultural mismatch”.

The average tenure of a hospital CEO is 5.6 years with a median of 3.6 years. Very few (3.4%) had continuous tenure of 20+ years. Half (51%) had previously been a CEO at another hospital. First-time CEOs were often (57%) promoted from within their organizations.

So, how do you scale culture when the music stops for one CEO and starts for another as consolidation relentlessly surges forward?

Here is an anthology of culture continuity hacks:

  1. Forbes
  2. Harvard Business Review
  3. Bob
  4. 15five
  5. Inc
  6. What about scaling culture during the pandemic?

Some have observed that company culture is a reflection of the founder or leader. But, once the founder goes, pong, pool and picnics will only get you so far. Instead, many will get lost in the wilderness next to where you are holding your koombaya event including your investors and bankers.

I once worked with a Dean who remarked, “The problem is that we have no soul”

Rounding up stakeholders and getting them back to base camp is not something you will learn in scaling school ,medical school or your health adminstration degree program. 

Not learning how to scale culture, however, is career suicide.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

How to Go From Nail It to Scale It

How to Go From Nail It to Scale It

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

The startup journey is about going from fail it to nail to scale it to sale it. You have to:

  1. set up and fail at conducting the right business model and experiments to find a profitable and scalable business and economic model (fail it)
  2. fix what’s broken (nail it)
  3. then feed the machine so that when you put customers in the top, profits come out the bottom (scale it) or you create value for more and more patients.
  4. Then you decide whether and when to exit (sale it).

Peter Thiel, in his book, Zero to One, suggests that going from nail it to scale it will take having a:

  1. proprietary technology and barriers to entry, now and in the future
  2. networking effect
  3. branding
  4. economies of scale

Can you answer these questions?

  1. Can you create proprietary, breakthrough technology instead of incremental improvements?
  2. Is the time right to start your business?
  3. Are you thinking big and starting small, capturing a big share of a small market? Market share is the key to profitability.
  4. Are the right people on the bus?
  5. What is your innovation to market plan?
  6. Will you still be around in 10 years? Why? How good are you at seeing around corners?
  7. What’s your unique selling proposition, or, are you just trying to be the best of the rest?

What else? How do you get from nail it to scale it? How do you cross the chasm? How do you traverse the traction gap?

  1. How to build your personal brand.
  2. How to kill your brand
  3. Connect to the connectors
  4. Find customers one at a time
  5. Why coldLinking does not work
  6. What you won’t learn from Sales Navigator
  7. Build robust internal and external networks
  8. Partner up.
  9. Measure everything
  10. Have a digical sales and marketing strategy and execute it.
  11. Startup website basics
  12. The 7Rs of content marketing
  13. Why doctors are losing the branding wars
  14. The ABCDEs of technology adoption
  15. What you should know about dissemination and implementation
  16. How to sell your digital health product
  17. Barriers to AI dissemination and implementation
  18. What physician entrepreneurs don’t get about sales and marketing
  19. So, if patients are customers, how do you sell to them?
  20. What is the next minimal viable category? Have you identified a unique opportunity others don’t see?

As you can see, getting customer #2 (early adopters) is harder than getting customer #1 (innovator/evangelist). It takes people and systems, a sense of urgency, money and metrics. With so many employees quitting their jobs, don’t forget about the people who stick around.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Academic Intrapreneur Dossier

The Academic Intrapreneur Dossier

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

Entrepreneurial universities and medical schools, as rare as they are, require intrapreneurial faculty i.e. faculty who are trying to act like entrepreneurs in their institutions. One way to recruit, develop and promote faculty intrapreneurs is to recognize their entrepreneurial inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes as part of the promotion and tenure process, which typically requires submitting a dossier to the promotion and tenure committee.

There is national and international recognition of the importance of innovation, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship for sustained economic revival. The Office of Budget and Management cites rising healthcare costs and the associate deficits to deal with it as a matter of national security.

With the decline of industrial research laboratories in the United States, research universities are being asked to play a central role in our knowledge-centered economy by the technology transfer of their discoveries, innovations, and inventions. In response to this challenge, innovation ecologies at and around universities are starting to change. However, the change has been slow and limited. Some researchers, myself included, believe this can be attributed partially to a lack of change in incentives for the central stakeholder, the faculty member. They have taken the position that universities should expand their criteria to treat patents, licensing, and commercialization activity by faculty as an important consideration for merit, tenure, and career advancement, along with publishing, teaching, and service.

Most dossiers require candidates for promotion and tenure to describe their activities in four areas: research, teaching, clinical care and service to the community. Most exclude entrepreneurship or do not give credit for entrepreneurial activities and that is a mistake, since innovation and entrepreneurship has become the fifth mission of academic medical centers. The new academic triple threat demonstrates leadership, innovation and entrepreneurship. However, there is a disconnect between how academic leadership is defined and recruiting, developing and promoting faculty with an entrepreneurial mindset.

The intrapreneurial dossier might include the following in areas of entrepreneurial research, practice, education and service:

Materials from Oneself

  • Materials that show your entrepreneurial activity
  • Statement of entrepreneurial responsibilities (course titles and numbers, enrollments, required or elective, graduate or undergraduate)
  • A reflective statement describing personal entrepreneurial philosophy, strategies and objectives
  • Representative entrepreneurship course syllabi detailing content and objectives, methods, readings and requirements
  • Description of curricular and instructional innovations such as new course projects, materials, and class assignments and assessment of their effectiveness
  • Steps taken to evaluate and improve one’s entrepreneurial outputs and impacts.

Materials from Others

  • Materials from outside sources commenting on your development as an entrepreneur
  • Statements from colleagues who have either observed the entrepreneur in action
  • Student course or teaching evaluation data
  • Distinguished entrepreneurship awards or other recognition of entrepreneurial abilities.
  • Invitations to organize or present at a conferences, seminars or workshops

Products of Good Entrepreneurship

  • Materials that demonstrate your effectiveness as an entrepreneur or innovation and entrepreneurship opinion leader
  • Patents or evidence of other intellectual property
  • Licensing agreements
  • Spin out or startup metrics
  • Economic development metrics
  • Failures and how you applied lessons learned

Other Items that Might be Included

  • Testimonials
  • Community service and ecosytem activities and accomplishments
  • A statement by the dept. chair assessing the contribution of faculty entrepreneurship and innovation to the department

Creating an academic entrepreneurship portfolio documents accomplishments, satisfies policy mandates and is a excellent tool for pacing personal development and entrepreneurial progress. Fundamentally, it should explain and document the value you have created for your institution by your entrepreneurial efforts.

On many academic medical center campuses, the emphasis and metrics revolve around publications and research grant numbers. However, the difference between discovery and value creation has little to do with money. Instead, it has to do with leadership, culture, strategy, alignment, coordination and execution.

Barrier to participation by academic faculty, particularly clinical faculty, in the scholarship of entrepreneurship are:

  1. They do not get promotion and tenure credit for doing it
  2. The main message is they need to generate clinical revenue or find a way to buy out their clinical time
  3. The other faculty in the department get resentful and see non-clinical activity as dumping more work on them
  4. They are seen as trouble makers and bad rebels
  5. Lack of institutional support, infrastructure and resources
  6. Rigid policies and procedures that are anti-entrepreneurial
  7. “entrepreneurship” is a dirty word. The scholarship of innovation goes down easier.
  8. There is little or no alignment with department chairs
  9. Lack of strategic vision
  10. No one is leading innovators. Everyone seems to want to manage innovation

In addition, edupreneurs, i.e. those education intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs developing and deploying educational technologies, are critical if we are to change how we educate students and change an unsustainable education business model at all levels of education, but particularly for higher education and graduate and professional levels..

Maybe, some day, promotion and tenure committees will include your intrepreneurial accomplishments and actually give you some credit for achieving them.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Innovation Ecosystems and Information Rheology

Innovation Ecosystems and Information Rheology

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

Rheology is the study of flow. There are many ways to measure flow. For example, Volume Flow is defined as the volume quantity that flows through a given section at a considered time interval. The most common volume units are:m3/s, m3/h, l/h, l/min, GPM (gallons per minute), Nm3/h (normal cubic meter per hour), SCFH (normal cubic foot per hour), among others.

Information rheology is the study of how information passes from the sender to the receiver, the resistance to that flow, and how to address it.

The concept applies also to how products and services flow from one place in the world to another.

A reverse innovation is any innovation that is adopted first in the developing world. To be clear: What makes an innovation a reverse innovation has nothing to do with where the innovators are, and it has nothing to do with where the companies are. It has only to do with where the customers are.

Historically, reverse innovation has been a rare phenomenon. In fact, the logic for innovations flowing downhill, from the rich world to the developing world, is natural and intuitive. After all, it is the richest customers in the richest countries that will always demand the newest technologies. In due time, the costs of new technologies come down, and incomes in the developing world rise. As a result, innovations trickle down. Right?

Be careful. The intuitive assumption that poor countries are engaged in a process of gradually catching up with the rich world has become toxic. It is a strategic blind spot that has the potential to sink an increasingly common aspiration: to generate high growth in the emerging economies. The assumption can even inflict long-term damage in home markets. That is because surprisingly often, reverse innovations defy gravity and flow uphill to the rich world. As a result, a defeat in a developing country half a world away can lead directly to a stinging blow in your own back yard.

How information flows, like on cell phones during riots and protests, is not an exact science. Percolation theory illuminates the behavior of many kinds of networks, from cell phone transmissions to the COVID R number.

Most discussions of innovation ecosystem creation and growth focus on the anatomy i.e. the components necessary to be successful. For example, one author describes the 5P’s of human capital:pillars, patrons, pioneers, professionals and partners.

However, equally as important is the physiology of clusters -how the cluster elements work together .One of the key determinants of an innovative organization or cluster is information rheology. There are three basic elements to the equation.

The first has to do with the number of nodes in the network, both internally and externally. Network theory tells us that the more nodes, the more value. Having one fax machine in the world added nothing. It took a lot to unleash the value , as the development of social media has exemplified.

The second has to do with how the nodes are connected. Some are robust and some are not. The connections between the nodes are called edges.

Finally, and most importantly, the two previous parts are not nearly as important as the velocity, relationships, acceleration and lack of resistance to the flow of information from one node to the next. We usually refer to this as a cluster or innovation district being “user friendly” and is typified by the free and rapid flow of information from one place to the next. Malcolm Gladwell described facilitators in the process as mavens, experts and connectors.

There are many causes of poor information flow, but, fundamentally, they come down to :

  1. 1. The sender does not communicate effectively or in a an appropriate way
  2. The receiver is unaware that the message was sent or does not understand it
  3. The systems for transmitting information and verifying receipt are inadequate
  4. Third party interference muddles the message

Poor information flow in sickcare results in dropped handoffs and referral leaks which are the primary causes of medical errors and waste. The lack of data interoperability is one of the root causes.

There are several kinds of intermediaries that facilitate information flow in an ecosystem.

  • Architects engage in strict agenda-setting and coordination activities
  • Gatekeepers support the knowledge extraction and dissemination of the information
  • Conductors take care of information acquisition, transmission, and task sharing
  • Developers create concrete assets for the network based on knowledge mobility
  • Auctioneers set the agenda and joint vision for the innovation network
  • Leaders motivate and foster the voluntary collaboration and identifying roles of network members
  • Promoter support ecosystem members to work towards the same goal
  • Facilitator bring together quite different, even competing, parties to work together

Whether it is making clinical handoffs better or improving the flow of information in an ecosystem or cluster, the obstacles are substantial and the systems for preventing information flow blockage need to constantly be maintained, which can be costly and time consuming.

If you want to accelerate regional innovation clusters and communities, don’t concentrate so much on connecting the senders and receivers. Focus on removing the barriers to the flow of information and how to push and pull it through the pipes.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

How to Close the Sickcare AI DI Divide

How to Close the Sickcare AI DI Divide

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

The digital divide describes those having or not having access to broadband, hardware, software and technology support. It’s long been acknowledged that even as the digital industry exploded out of this country, America lived with a “digital divide.” While this is loosely understood as the gap between those who have access to reliable internet service and those who don’t, the true nature and extent of the divide is often under-appreciated. Internet infrastructure is, of course, an essential element of the divide, but infrastructure alone does not necessarily translate into adoption and beneficial use. Local and national institutions, affordability and access, and the digital proficiency of users, all play significant roles — and there are wide variations across the United States along each of these.

There is also a sickcare artificial intelligence (AI) dissemination and implementation (DI) divide. Infrastucture is one of many barriers.

As with most things American, there are the haves and the have nots. Here’s how hospitals are categorized. Generally, the smaller ones lack the resources to implement sickcare AI, particularly rural hospitals which are, increasingly, under stress and closing.

So, how do we close the AI-DI divide? Multisystems solutions involve:

  1. Data interoperability
  2. Federated learning Instead of bring Mohamed to the mountain, bring the mountain to Mohamed
  3. AI as a service
  4. Better data literacy
  5. IT infrastructure access improvement
  6. Making cheaper AI products
  7. Incorporating AI into a digital health whole product solution
  8. Close the doctor-data scientist divide
  9. Democratize data and AI
  10. Create business model competition for data by empowering patient data entrepreneurs
  11. Teach hospital and practice administrators how to make value based AI vendor purchasing decisions
  12. Encourage physician intrapreneurship and avoid the landmines
  13. Use no-code or low-code tools to innovate

We are still in the early stages of realizing the full potential of sickcare artificial intelligence. However, if we don’t close the AI-DI gaps, a large percentage of patients will never realize the benefits.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Dreaded Perfect Entrepreneur

The Dreaded Perfect Entrepreneur

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

“Perfect is the enemy of good” is a quote usually attributed to Voltaire. He actually wrote that the “best is the enemy of the good” (il meglio è nemico del bene) and cited it as an old Italian proverb in 1770, but the phrase was translated into English as “perfect” and made its way into common parlance in that form.

Perfectionism is a problem. Here are some reasons why.

  1. It drives other people you interact with, who are not perfectionists, crazy
  2. We live in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world where there is no definition of perfect. There are only solutions we test until we find out whether they work or not and then change if they don’t.
  3. Defining something as perfect is a value judgement, not an absolute, Perfection is a pipe dream. As Psychology Today explained, “‘perfect’ may exist as a concept,” but it’s not a reality. After all, its definition is entirely subjective. “Achieving perfection” is entirely a judgment call, depending on who’s trying to achieve it and who’s watching.
  4. It could be a symptom of a more serious psychiatric problem like obsessive-compulsive disorder which is a personality disorder characterized by excessive orderliness, perfectionism, attention to details, and a need for control in relating to others. It is one of many entrepreneurial syndromes that are characterized by entrepreneurial psychopathologies
  5. Meeting the expectations of others to be perfect is bad for your mental health. It will make you unhappy.
  6. There is reason why the Golden Mean has been around for several thousand years
  7. Innovation starts with mindset Being a perfectionist is not consistent with revising the “good” with evidence based business idea testing results
  8. There are reasons why we say doctors, actors, athletes, lawyers, entrepreneurs and other service providers practice their craft. You never get it perfect, even if someone gives you a 10, or a Facebook like or an Oscar for your performance. There is always room for improvement, but almost never perfection. Failure is part of the drill and inevitable. What’s on your failure resume? That’s why, when it comes tapping into a source of entrepreneurial internal motivation, you should make it personal, but don’t take it personally.
  9. The goal of making something perfect or doing something perfectly will get in the way of starting something, like:
  • Business Idea: Instead of waiting until you have a complete airtight business plan, simply start your business.
  • Software: Instead of ironing out every last bug, release your beta.
  • Products: Instead of adding every conceivable improvement and feature, ship your product. Release improvements later.
  • Health: Instead of finding the right gym, selecting the right outfit and picking the right workout, just go for a walk.
  • Website: Instead of finding the best server, CMS, theme, appearance and font, just get a landing page up and start selling.
  • Email: Instead of trying to create a well-written and grammatically impeccable email, just get the message out and click “send.”
  • Value proposition and business model canvas: Define your underlying assumptions and validate them with evidence. It’s called minimal viable product, not perfect product, for a reason.

10. Underbidding everyone by making something “good enough for government work” and then submitting endless add-ons leading to cost overruns is a tried and true profitable business model and there is little or no chance you will go to jail or get fired doing it.

If you want to know how to get to Carnegie Hall, it’s just easier to practice, practice, practice and focus on the journey, not the destination.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.