Ensemble Ensemble
Menu
Home
  • SOLUTIONS
  • Method
    • A Systemic Approach
    • Theory of Constraints
    • Working with us
  • RESOURCES
    • Productivity Scorecard
    • Articles
    • MedTech
    • Subscribe
    • Our book
  • Results
  • ABOUT
    • The Just Work Manifesto
    • Our Story
    • Location
  • MedTech
Book a call
loader

Culture | Operations | Organisation | Process | Strategy

View all articles SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER to get articles and more

STAY CONNECTED AND SIGNUP TO RECEIVE INSIGHT updates

Subscribe

Productively safe where the worker meets the work

David Hodes

Zero harm is a universal aspiration. But you can be perfectly safe and go perfectly broke. How can we ensure the best chance of achieving zero harm while providing a sustainable and competitive return to our shareholders?

This is Part 4 of a series. Read the other parts here:

Part 1: Work is Work
Part 2: Integrating Work
Part 3: Quantum Work Management
Part 4: Productively safe where the worker meets the work

[ Listen to the audio version, read by David Hodes]

Boards must ensure that the corporations they govern have every chance of keeping their staff safe for the best life they can lead. Injuries affect employees, their families and their colleagues; fatalities are devastating. A high injury rate stains both the organisation and the reputations of individual leaders who failed to prevent such incidents from occurring. It is unethical not to care about the safety and wellbeing of the people who work with you and for you, not to mention the criminal liability that accrues up the chain of accountability when occupational health and safety systems fail.

But, like all things in life, safety is not absolute. People are injured, people are maimed, and people are killed at work. If you wanted to keep people perfectly safe in industrial environments, you’d have to stop doing work. It’s no different to thinking that if you wish for no car accidents, then take all cars off the road. But, if we don’t have anyone turning up to work because of the risk of an accident, our companies and whole economies would quickly grind to a halt.

How to maximise safety and productivity?

So how do we come as close as possible to delivering zero-harm workplaces when we need to remain competitive? If we want to win over customers, we must demonstrate that we can win on price and availability without taking expedient shortcuts with our ethics. As employers, we must be fair dinkum regarding the value we place on our employees’ occupational health and safety.

Let’s start by framing how we think about safety practices at work as something we do to keep us safe for the best life we can lead—whether at work, at home, or in the community—rather than safe from dangerous equipment, hazardous environments, or risky practices. In doing so, we provide more motive power to enterprise-wide efforts to achieve zero harm. We must put the individual—where the worker meets the work—in the best possible position to be safe to live their best life. The individual worker becomes the locus around which all health and safety efforts are organised.

“The individual worker becomes the locus around which all health and safety efforts are organised.”

From the place where the worker meets their work, enormous effort has been applied to build out systems of safety that scale up through supervisors, superintendents, managers, general managers, vice presidents, and presidents. Processes are developed to incorporate safety protocols, and controls are put in place for every conceivable activity one might undertake that has a safety element. Consultants and government agencies help to build out and audit the systems. Colleagues are encouraged to look out for each other, and slogans such as ‘we all guarantee everyone goes home safe and well’ help to spread the word that safety is everyone’s business.

To make these controls come alive and gain increasing relevance, leaders try to bring safety awareness into the everyday habits of the workplace by, for example, starting all meetings with a safety moment. Posters are placed on the walls urging you to hold a handrail when climbing or descending the staircase, and disciplinary action can be taken even if you are caught outside work crossing a public road against the lights.

Senior leaders most want to achieve three things: that processes are fit for the purpose for which they have been designed; that everyone is fully present and aware to doing their work in such a way that they can come as close as possible to the aspiration of zero harm; and finally, that the cost impost of these health and safety controls are not so burdensome that it robs the organisation of their ability to sustain their competitive edge.

Let’s look at those needs and see if the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) can help make a material difference in accomplishing superior health and safety outcomes while simultaneously lowering the cost to the business of doing so. In other words, can we square the circle of safety and productivity?

Squaring the circle of safety and productivity

One of the issues surrounding safety controls is that they vary over time between different parts of the organisation. Many large corporations, in whose head office ultimate accountability for safety resides, have multiple divisions, often the result of mergers or acquisitions. Each has brought to their health and safety practices their own way they run controls and generate documentation, making it very difficult to make comparisons and see patterns across the enterprise.

When it comes to analysing incidents, a Pareto analysis could yield critical information about which controls are working and which need improvement. But, too often, incidents are recorded in various ways. Comparing apples with oranges means you don’t know which controls are effective in reducing what type of incident.

“Comparing apples with oranges means you don’t know which controls are effective in reducing what type of incident.”

Addressing this problem of standardising safety controls is the first place where AI and ML can make a huge difference. With the advent of natural language engines, it is possible to import the original control documents into the system and have the AI agent return results that are normalised across all instances. In other words, the AI engine looks for recurring patterns of words and phrases and ‘learns’ how to group them.

So, for example, if there are 100 documents across the organisation which address how best to be safe when working at heights, you can relatively quickly create a master document that encompasses everything unique and nothing that is duplicated when it comes to working at heights. In one case I’m associated with, the AI engine has addressed over 10,000 separate documents to create a single, normalised corporate library of unique safety controls.

The next step is to normalise all the incidents. We humans can recognise that when we read a report that says, ‘meter reader bitten by the dog’, it’s the same as saying, ‘the dog bit the meter reader’. However, trying to query these results traditionally wouldn’t work, as the data is not sufficiently structured to do so. With an AI agent, these problems can be relatively easily solved, right down to the level where you know that 2 pm on Wednesdays is not a good time for meter readers to wander through suburbia unless they take the risk mitigation step of carrying around a packet of dog biscuits.

The three prerequisites for success

Once the controls have been reduced to a standardised set and incidents are recorded in a standard way, it becomes possible to address the first of the safety prerequisites demanded by executives: that the processes they have are fit for the purpose for which they have been designed. One can see which controls have affected which incidents. A method such as the 5-Step FOCUS can be used to repeatedly zero in on the actions necessary to eliminate the worst offenders and move systematically to the next and the next, ad infinitum.

But how do we deal with the second prerequisite: that everyone is fully present and aware to doing their work in such a way that they can come as close as possible to the aspiration of zero harm? Once again, AI and ML can help. It is of the nature of human learning that we forget what we’ve learned. Different people have different ‘forgetting curves’ for different topics, and we all see the sharpness of our recall deteriorate over time.

“It’s human nature to forget what we’ve learned.”

One way we can deal with this forgetting is to adopt the use of spaced repetition of the learning. Let’s say you have been through a site safety induction, which included some learning modules along with an assessment. Some weeks later, you are asked to recall something specific from that induction, and you have forgotten. The AI-powered system learns what you forget, comes to know the time duration between your last test and your forgetting, and serves up targeted microlearning refresher courses for you to complete before the following assessment. What the AI agent can do that a traditional spaced-repetition learning system cannot is to tailor the intervals and the topics precisely to your needs.

But that’s not all. We can connect the worker to where they meet the work, for example, through a mobile notification of an upcoming job. Then, we can attach to the work order all the safety controls necessary to be fully kitted to complete it without injury. At a suitable time before the job starts, the worker can be assessed on the steps needed to safely complete the job, considering their personalised forgetting curve about the topics at hand.

At the next level up, the supervisor can review a ‘heat map’ of their team’s readiness to safely perform the job, either in advance or at the work front. Let’s say the supervisor had two boilermakers, a rigger, a fitter and a couple of trade assistants in their team. With individual assessments for each team member, and an automated check of their formal qualifications, the supervisor could easily see significant risks areas. So, for example, let’s say that the job involved working at heights in a confined space. The supervisor looks at the heat map of the knowledge in the team and sees that it’s red (bad) when it comes to working at heights and blue (good) when it comes to confined space. They then know what additional training and coaching they need to make sure everyone goes home safe.

Team learning and ML helps the apprentice

The constantly updated information on every employee can be used proactively in assembling teams. Let’s say we have someone who is strong on a particular safety control required for a given piece of work. The team also has a novice who is yet to learn the correct way to stay safe on a job of that nature. The system can ensure that when the team is put together, the novice is always paired with a master to ensure the transmission of good health and safety habits.

And, of course, the assessments and spaced-repetition learning doesn’t stop at the level of the supervisor. All the way up the management accountability hierarchy, microlearning courses, spaced repetition of learning, and appropriate assessments can be developed that help superintendents, managers, and executives understand, at their level, their legal and leadership obligations.

What about the third prerequisite: that the cost impost of these health and safety controls are not so burdensome that it robs the organisation of their ability to sustain their competitive edge? Using such a system that zeroes in on the individual worker meeting their work and its task-relevant safety knowledge within the horizon of their personal and empirically derived forgetting curve must mean that the worker is far less likely to get injured.

Finally, when targeted and efficient alternatives are available, you don’t have to take people out of work to give unfocused refresher courses and validations of competency. Best of all, through such a system, we learn how to focus on those safety protocols which make the most significant difference to the most consequential of incidents, thus foregoing the vastly more costly and less effective option of the shotgun approach. Which ensures we are focusing on the constraint.

This is Part 4 of a series. Read the other parts here:

Part 1: Work is Work
Part 2: Integrating Work
Part 3: Quantum Work Management
Part 4: Productively safe where the worker meets the work

____________________________

What’s next?

The change to using Theory of Constraints (TOC) as an underlying operating system is both profound and exhilarating. We’ve developed the Systems Thinker Course to bring the ideas into your organisation.

  • View the Systems Thinker Course Guide (no email required to download)
  • Join us for the Systems Thinker Foundations Workshop (we run this FREE workshop once each month)
  • To find out more about these, or any of our services, simply schedule a call
    ____________________________

    Human and robotic arm

    ____________________________

  • MedTech

Validating medical device concepts before major investment

David Hodes

Concept validation

A concept can look convincing in a presentation and still make an important task harder. A patient may misunderstand an indicator. A clinician may need information the design does not provide. A promising workflow may depend on support unavailable in the intended setting.

These problems become more expensive when the organization discovers them after committing to architecture, tooling or a launch plan.

We must ask how effectively concepts are validated before significant resources are committed. Patient Centered Design treats this as a learning discipline: turn ideas into testable solutions rapidly using low fidelity prototyping, put them in front of relevant users and gather evidence about whether they improve the outcomes that matter.

“A convincing presentation shows what the team hopes will happen. A useful test reveals what people actually do.”

Begin with a question that can change the decision

A prototype without a learning objective can generate interesting comments while leaving the key decision unresolved. Start by identifying what must be true for the concept to succeed.

Does the patient intuitively understand the required action without explanation? Can the professional recognize when the result is ready to use? Does the proposed approach fit the work surrounding the task? Will people take meaningful steps toward adoption?

State the assumption and the evidence needed to assess it. Agree what would support proceeding, what would require revision and what could make the concept unviable. Gather quantitative data along with qualitative verbal feedback.

Prioritize questions with substantial consequences for the investment. An attractive enclosure deserves less attention than an unresolved issue that could prevent safe or practical use of the whole solution.

Choose the simplest useful representation

A picture is worth a thousand words. A simple user experience prototype is worth a thousand pictures. Choose artifacts that maximize learning with the least effort. The appropriate artifact depends on what the team needs to discover.

A sketch may help users explain how they interpret a proposed interaction. A physical mock-up may expose handling difficulties. A simulated interface can support a sequence of tasks. A more complete prototype may be necessary to examine timing, feedback or combined interactions.

Build enough realism to test the assumption accurately. Excessive detail can consume resources without improving the evidence, while insufficient fidelity can conceal the issue being investigated.

Make limitations clear to participants and observers. A manually simulated function may help test an experience, but it does not establish that the technology can deliver that function reliably.

Recruit people who represent the intended use

Patients and healthcare professionals can differ in experience, confidence, physical ability, responsibilities, and access to support. Those differences influence whether the concept helps them complete the job.

Define the participants and contexts relevant to the test. Include people whose circumstances could expose difficulties the development team has overlooked.

A familiar expert may work around a confusing interface that challenges a new user. A clinician from a highly supported center may assume resources unavailable elsewhere. Research needs to reveal these dependencies.

Match the study to its purpose. Exploratory sessions can identify problems and guide iteration. They do not automatically establish population-wide performance or replace the evidence required for later design validation.

Create an Experience Café around real tasks

An Experience Café gives participants a structured opportunity to encounter concepts and talk about their experience. Its value comes from the quality of the scenario, observation and follow-up questions.

Set up situations that reflect what the person is trying to accomplish. Let participants interact with the artifact rather than rely solely on a demonstration by its designer. Build rough and rapid.

Assign roles to facilitators and observers. Agree how comments, actions and difficulties will be captured. Keep the session focused on learning rather than defending the proposed solution. Hold a conversation around the prototype. “Can you show me how you would use this?” “Tell me what you are thinking here.”

Ask participants to explain what they believe is happening and what they would do next. Observe where the concept supports that understanding and where they hesitate, improvise or seek help.

Listen without teaching away the problem

A facilitator can unintentionally make a weak concept appear successful by explaining each step or supplying missing information.

Use neutral prompts and allow participants to reveal their interpretation. When assistance is necessary, record it along with the point at which the person became stuck.

Follow observations with questions about purpose and reasoning. What did the participant expect? Which information did they look for? Why did they choose that action?

Separate a preference from evidence about task performance. “I like this one” may reflect appearance or familiarity. Successful completion, appropriate interpretation and manageable effort provide a stronger basis for assessing whether the concept addresses the need.

“Every explanation the facilitator must supply is a question about what the design expects the user to know.”

Examine the complete experience

The product interaction belongs within a wider job. Test preparation, readiness, execution, monitoring and what follows, wherever these activities affect the concept’s value.

A device may work well once configured while setup introduces avoidable complexity. A result may be easy to view while the professional still needs to transfer it manually before acting.

Include relevant dependencies on caregivers, staff, information and other systems. Investigate whether the concept reduces burden for one participant by increasing it for another.

Use realistic scenarios appropriate to the development stage. Important exceptions and recovery steps deserve attention alongside routine success. An incomplete or interrupted task can reveal weaknesses that a carefully guided demonstration leaves hidden.

Make cognitive burden visible

Ease of use involves what a person must notice, understand, remember, decide and physically do. A tidy interface can still demand substantial mental effort.

Human performance depends on limited attention, working memory and feedback. Examine how the concept supports those processes during a task.

Does it make the relevant information perceptible? Can the user understand its meaning? Is the next action clear? Can they recognize whether that action succeeded?

Look for unnecessary steps, demands to remember information across screens and alerts that interrupt without helping a decision. The best change may simplify a sequence or improve feedback rather than add another feature. Confirm its effect through observation and appropriate measures.

Measure effort alongside task success

Choose measures that reflect the priority outcome and the study’s purpose. These may include completion time, errors, requests for help, repeated actions or failure to notice important information.

Subjective workload measures can complement observed performance. NASA Task Load Index can help structure participants’ assessment of workload, while PURE provides an expert assessment of the effort required to complete tasks. Satisfaction ratings on a Likert scale can be used to compare concepts directly with each other and a baseline solution.

Do not treat one measure as a complete account of usability. Faster completion may accompany misunderstanding. A participant may complete the task correctly while reporting effort that makes repeated use impractical.

Interpret results together and examine the conditions under which they occurred. Record the limitations so decision makers understand what the test has established.

Test demand separately from technical feasibility

Pretotyping examines whether people take meaningful action toward using or adopting an idea before the full solution exists. It addresses a different question from whether a working product can be engineered.

A clearly described concept, service simulation or expression-of-interest process may provide evidence about engagement. The strength of that evidence depends on the action required and the conditions surrounding it.

A click demonstrates less commitment than a substantive implementation conversation. Neither establishes clinical efficacy or successful device use.

For medical concepts, keep representations accurate and make the test status clear. Interpret behavioral evidence alongside clinical appropriateness, access requirements and the responsibilities of the people making adoption decisions. Interest alone cannot establish that the solution should proceed unchanged, particularly when workflows in the clinical setting are involved.

Refine the value proposition with evidence

A value proposition explains which customer the concept serves, the job it supports and the difficulties it intends to reduce. It should connect directly with the outcomes identified through research.

Compare that proposition with the evidence from concept tests. Did participants experience the intended benefit? Did another difficulty become more important? Did the concept require assumptions that the intended setting cannot support? Did the concept do something better than a competitor’s current solution?

Capture both positive and negative findings. Use them to revise the concept, the proposition or the team’s understanding of the need.

Then test the important changes. Iteration should answer a question left open by the previous round. Repeating sessions without changing the artifact or research objective can accumulate comments while leaving uncertainty untouched.

Keep early findings within their proper limits

Early concept validation supports decisions about direction and investment. It does not establish all the evidence needed for a finished medical device.

Technical performance, reliability, clinical benefit and intended-use safety require appropriate subsequent work. A convincing simulated experience may depend on functions the team has not yet demonstrated.

Make these boundaries visible in the decision record. State who participated, what was tested, the conditions, findings and unresolved issues. Explain how those findings affect the next commitment.

Overall, having a “winning concept” in hand, backed by user Experience Café data along with user needs in the form of outcome statements formally structured with a direction of improvement and unit of measure, sets a development team up for success. The outcome statement user needs provide a solid foundation for the design history file.

Rapid prototype experience testing gives the team answers to key decisions and sets a target to pursue early on. This results in faster development cycles, more robust regulatory submissions, and better returns on investment spending.

A Value Management Office can connect this learning with resources and stage decisions. Testing should help the organization commit at a pace justified by evidence and concentrate effort on the uncertainties that govern progress.

“Early validation creates value when it changes the concept or the commitment before an unresolved assumption becomes expensive.”


What comes next

Examine one proposed investment. Which assumption could defeat the concept, and what is the least costly credible way to test it?

Prepare an appropriate artifact, involve representative users and observe meaningful tasks. Review the evidence, revise the concept and record the next learning decision. This gives Patient Centered Design a practical route toward solutions people can successfully use and organizations can responsibly develop.

READ MORE

  • MedTech

Developing medical device concepts around patient needs

David Hodes

A development team can become committed to a concept before it has seriously considered an alternative. The idea is familiar, a senior sponsor favors it or an available technology makes it attractive. Detailed engineering begins while the reason for choosing that approach remains largely untested.

Concept engineering provides a more disciplined basis for commitment. It develops several viable approaches, compares them against important needs and combines their strongest elements where doing so improves the solution.

Within Patient Centered Design, the purpose is to identify a concept that can help patients and healthcare professionals accomplish their jobs successfully. Question 2.1.1 examines the effectiveness of that work.

“A winning concept earns its place by addressing important needs and surviving comparison with credible alternatives.”

Start with a problem the team agrees on

Concept work begins with a concise problem statement and an agreed objective. Both should describe the progress the intended users need, rather than assume the answer.

An illustrative problem might concern a clinician’s difficulty identifying whether the information needed for a treatment decision is complete. “Build a new dashboard” commits to one response before exploring the problem.

Clarify the users, operating context and desired outcome. Review the patient journey and the clinical work surrounding the interaction. Establish which unmet needs the concept must address.

Resolve major differences in interpretation before the selection exercise. A mechanical engineer, clinician and commercial leader can otherwise compare ideas while quietly applying different definitions of success. Shared language makes their conversation more useful.

Bring priority needs into the criteria

Concept selection needs criteria grounded in research and requirements. Include the outcomes patients and professionals consider important, particularly those existing approaches satisfy poorly.

Then identify necessary capabilities and constraints. Relevant considerations may include safety, reliability, usability, manufacturing, service requirements, implementation and the resources available to develop the solution.

Separate mandatory conditions from characteristics that permit tradeoffs. A concept that cannot satisfy a necessary safety condition needs resolution or rejection; attractive performance elsewhere cannot compensate for that failure.

Define the criteria clearly enough for consistent comparison. “Easy to use” leaves the team guessing. The number of required actions, time to complete an activity or ability to recognize readiness can provide more concrete grounds for conversation, depending on the need.

Generate options before narrowing the field

Concept engineering encourages broad idea generation, with constraints applied more deliberately during selection. This gives the team room to consider alternatives before familiar solutions dominate.

Use sketches and short descriptions to make ideas visible. Invite different functions to contribute approaches, concerns and connections the team might otherwise miss.

The concepts should represent meaningful alternatives. Several versions of the same preferred design may leave the underlying assumptions untouched.

Explore how the required function could be achieved differently. Could information arrive earlier? Could preparation become simpler? Could a service change remove work the proposed product was intended to automate?

Make concepts understandable enough to compare

A concept should communicate its operating principle, important interactions and dependencies. A simple drawing can expose differences that remain hidden in a verbal description.

Explain what the patient or professional would do, what the system would provide and what supporting resources would be required. Include the activities before and after the visible product interaction.

Build enough detail to support the decision at hand. Early concept selection does not require complete engineering specifications, but an appealing image alone gives little basis for comparison.

Record what is known and what is assumed. If one idea appears stronger because its description omits difficult tasks, the matrix will reward an incomplete account of the solution. Consistent descriptions support a fairer evaluation.

Use a simple comparison matrix

The Pugh matrix provides a structured way to compare concepts. List the criteria as rows and the candidate concepts as columns. Choose a reference concept, known as the datum, against which alternatives will be assessed.

For each criterion, judge whether a concept is better than, similar to or worse than the datum. The simple notation is positive, same or negative.

Discuss the basis for each rating. Record supporting evidence and unresolved questions. The matrix makes differences visible and gives the team a shared place to examine them.

Totals can help identify promising candidates, but they should not make the decision automatically. The significance of a weakness depends on the criterion involved. Several small advantages may leave a concept unable to address its most important requirement.

“The matrix is useful when it exposes the reasoning behind a choice and the evidence still needed to defend it.”

Match the method to the available evidence

Early conversations often rely on incomplete information. Simple comparisons can be more useful than elaborate scores that suggest a level of precision the team does not possess.

Weighted methods may help when criteria genuinely differ in importance. Paired comparisons can support more structured judgments about relative priority. When measured engineering performance is available, use those data directly in the evaluation.

Choose the method for the decision and evidence, rather than adding complexity by default. Explain how weights or ratings were established and which assumptions could change the result.

Check whether the leading concept remains attractive under reasonable changes to uncertain judgments. A decision that reverses after a minor rating adjustment deserves closer examination before the organization makes a substantial commitment.

Look for stronger combinations

Hybridization is a central part of concept engineering. A concept with several strengths may also have a weakness another option handles well.

Examine whether the useful elements can be combined into a stronger approach. For an illustrative monitoring solution, one concept may support straightforward preparation while another provides clearer feedback when a connection fails.

A hybrid might preserve both benefits, but it needs its own evaluation. Combining features can introduce new interfaces, added complexity or conflicting operating requirements.

Redraw the combined concept and reassess it against the criteria. Investigate whether it actually removes the weakness or merely moves the burden elsewhere. The aim is a coherent design whose interactions work together, rather than an accumulation of everyone’s favorite features.

Manage disagreement as a source of learning

Concept selection brings technical judgment, professional experience and organizational interests into the same conversation. The quality of that conversation affects the outcome.

Agree on meeting ground rules and use a team with relevant expertise across functions. Ensure that a strong personality or senior title does not become a substitute for evidence.

When disagreement cannot be resolved, capture the question and define an action. Assign an owner, the evidence required and a completion date. An independent facilitator can help when team dynamics obstruct useful comparison.

The method can make judgments more transparent, but it does not eliminate subjectivity. Leaders should expect the team to explain its reasoning and show how important uncertainties will be resolved.

Test the assumptions that could defeat the concept

The leading idea may depend on uncertain technical performance, user behavior, supplier capability or implementation conditions that significantly affect time to market. Identify those dependencies before detailed development absorbs significant resources.

Plan focused experiments, research or prototypes to address them. Match each activity to a question that could change the selection decision.

If a concept depends on clinicians adopting a new preparation routine, a technical bench test will not establish that assumption. If it depends on a material performing under particular conditions, user enthusiasm will not resolve the engineering question.

Prioritize uncertainties with serious consequences for the concept’s viability. Early learning should help the team avoid expensive redesign while preserving options until the relevant evidence is available.

Select a direction with a clear explanation

At this point in the design process, using patient and healthcare professional journey mapping satisfies the Empathy stage of Design Thinking. Understanding the jobs to be done and desired outcomes satisfies the Define stage of Design Thinking. Concept engineering at its core is a practice that ensures the best solution direction is chosen before significant expense is incurred and satisfies the Ideate stage of Design Thinking.

With a selection of “winning concepts” in your pocket, complete the Design Thinking stages by rapidly prototyping and testing solutions with customers to gather data on which concepts your customers desire most. The Design Thinking stages provide an explanation of why a solution is preferred and a record of why alternatives were not chosen.

Retain the criteria, important comparisons, hybridization decisions and unresolved risks. This record helps future teams understand the consequences of a proposed change.

Selection establishes a direction for further learning and development. It does not prove that the solution meets user needs or performs safely in practice. Concept validation and subsequent engineering evidence must support those conclusions.

Keep the relationship with the original needs visible. A chosen architecture can gradually lose important benefits as specifications and implementation choices evolve. Traceability helps the team notice when a tradeoff undermines the reason the concept was selected.

Connect concept decisions with enterprise priorities

The Voice of Business and Voice of Technology should inform selection alongside customer evidence. A concept needs a realistic development route and an operating environment capable of supporting it.

A Value Management Office can connect these choices with resources and portfolio priorities. Systems thinking helps the team examine whether the proposed improvement addresses a constraint governing patient access or successful use.

Evaluate the complete contribution. A technically impressive device can introduce training, service or clinical work that limits its benefit in the wider pathway.

“Concept engineering should leave the organization with a reasoned choice, a manageable learning plan and a clear connection to patient benefit.”


What comes next

Review one current concept decision. Can the team show credible alternatives, agreed criteria, the basis for selection and the assumptions requiring further evidence?

Bring the relevant disciplines together, compare options and examine stronger combinations. Then test the uncertainties that could change the decision. That is how Patient Centered Design builds a defensible route from important needs to better products.

READ MORE

More than just work

Discover better ways to do better work.

Fresh insights, every Friday

We alternate our own actionable articles with three relevant links from other authorities.

We’ll only use your email address for this newsletter. No sales calls

    Subscribe to 'Perspectives'

    [recaptcha id:cf7note]

    More Than Just Work
    Weekly productivity insights

    Subscribe
    • EnsembleConsultingGroup
    • Share Page
    • +61 2 9387 3955
    • info@EnsembleConsultingGroup.com

    Site proudly designed by Brand Fibre

    What is to get in touch with you?



    More than just work

    Discover better ways to do better work.

    Fresh insights, every Friday

    We alternate our own actionable articles with three relevant links from other authorities.


    We’ll only use your email address for this newsletter. No sales calls

    white_arrow white_bidirection_arrow arrow-right-green arrow-right-orange arrow-right arrow-left blue_arrow blue_round_arrow tick

    Want us to get in touch with you?

     
    Thank you for your interest. We will call you back.