The HIT Report from KLAS: Professional Services 2004; Provider-Based Professional Clinical and Financial Implementation Services 2004
Professional services are broken down into eight market segments: implementation (principal, implementation); supportive; planning and assessment; vendor selection; technical consulting; full or CIO IT outsourcing; department outsourcing; staff augmentation. This study focuses on the "I"Implementation – Principal" and those Professional Services Firms (PSFs) that played a principal role in either clinical or financial system implementations within the last 24 months.
To qualify, a project must either be a one-time project completed in the last 24 months or an ongoing project that has completed a measurable portion (major module live) of an implementation project. This segment includes projects in which the PSF played a pivotal role in or led the implementation efforts for one or more major applications. This segment also includes net new implementations and major upgrades (e.g., upgrade from version 7.x to 8.x). A pivotal role is defined as supplying key resources that provide intellectual capital critical to the success of the project. A lead role is defined as responsibility for the overall success of the project (which may include project management and other key resources). To be included in this segment, the PSF will have completed a major measurable portion of the implementation project.
Six clinical PSFs (Capgemini, Cerner, CTG, Eclipsys, First
Consulting, Healthlink) and eight financial PSFs (Capgemini, First
Consulting Group, Healthlink, ISH, Lawson, PeopleSoft, Rapidigm,
Superior) qualified for this study. Performance measurements of the
KLAS 13 professional service indicators, special questions, client
win/loss and pricing provide the basis of the provider experience.
Vendor/firm overviews with information regarding professional
services delivery history, move forward strategy, market
perception/competition/trend, partnering strategy and executive
commentary round out the vendor/firm view. Metrics involve
comparing one to another clinically or financially and to the
overall average of all professional services implementation
Putting Client Comments Into PerspectiveIn support of this effort, a new KLAS Professional Services Evaluation was designed with the assistance of and representation from professional services firms, software vendors offering professional services and KLAS's own advisory board. The evaluation uses 13 criteria to rate the overall performance of the professional services delivered. The first 12 criteria were rated using a scale of 1–9 (1=poor; 9=excellent) and the thirteenth criterion was a yes/no question with its score reported as the percent yes responses.
Performance Indicator Evaluation Criteria
- worth the effort (criteria 1–12 given ratings of
- lived up to expectations
- achieved objectives
- Would you buy the services again?
- SLA process, terms and conditions
- services delivered per contract
- overall satisfaction rating
- met contracted time frame
- professional, well-trained staff
- proactive staff
- impact on your personal job performance
- would you recommend the services to a friend/peer?
- ranked client's best/one of best consultant experiences (answer is a "yes" or "no"; score reported is the percent "yes" responses)
Overall, KLAS interviewed 159 survey participants. A minimum of six unique clinical information system (CIS) implementation projects or six unique financial implementation projects were required per PSF (see Figures 1 and 2). Note: KLAS originally targeted a minimum of 10, but the survey data did not support that level of qualifying activity.
Study SummaryHealthlink leads a rather strong field of clinical implementation vendors with a score of 90.8, followed by CTG, First Consulting Group, Cerner and Capgemini with scores in the 80s. Rapidigm leads the financial implementation group with a score of 89.5, followed by two other firms, Healthlink and Superior, scoring in the 80s (see Figure 3).
Performance MeasurementsToday, the PSFs for clinical implementations outscore the PSFs for financial implementations, with a collective higher average score of 83.7 as compared to 72.5, an 11-point difference. Similar differences (higher clinical, lower financial) are also observed in the three firms that qualified for both categories: Capgemini, First Consulting Group, Healthlink. The difference in scoring, however, varies widely. Healthlink's variance (clinical to financial) is 9.3; Capgemini's is 14.4; First Consulting Group's is 20.3.
When looking across all implementations measured, clinical and financial:
- highest overall score: 90.8, Healthlink (clinical); range of scoring 65.9–90.8
|PSF||Overall PSF Score||Avg of 12 Performance Indicators||% Yes Best/
One of Best Experiences
of Positive Comments
|First Consulting Group||86.2||7.7||94%||61%
|First Consulting Group||65.9||6.1||43%||60%
|Overall Professional Services Average||79.7||7.2||76%||62%|
Why Professional Services Vendors/Firms are Typically Selected or Not Selected
Analysis of client win/loss commentary provides insight into the selection process and the reasons why a PSF is or is not selected. The percentages reported are taken from the overall commentary and the supporting commentary under each vendor/firm section. The percentages may not add up to 100% because of multiple comments from the same respondent (see Figures 4 and 5).
- Collectively, skills (whether clinical expertise or financial
knowledge/experience) are the top reason why PSFs are or are not
selected for implementations.
- Individually, on the clinical side, the top three reasons for
selection/non-selection are: (1) clinical expertise; (2) prior
relationship; (3) same software company.
- Individually, on the financial side, the top three reasons for
selection/non-selection are: (1) experience/knowledge; (2) cost;
(3) prior relationship.
- Differences: same software company plays much more of a role in
clinical versus financial PSF selection; cost plays much more of a
role in financial versus clinical PSF selection.
- Individual PSF selection/non-selection reasons vary; delineations are highlighted in red in Figures 4 and 5.
|Figure 4: Clinical implementation – why PSFs are typically selected|
|Recommended by Software Vendor||25%||0%||0%||0%||0%||0%|
|Same Software Company||0%||75%||0%||80%||0%||0%|
|Figure 5: Financial implementation – why PSFs are typically selected|
Offer to Canadian Healthcare FacilitiesMany Canadian Healthcare facilities and organizations use vendors who supply solutions unique to Canada. KLAS – the organization rating IT vendors in this and subsequent issues of ElectronicHealthcare – is willing to gather confidential and candid data from Canadian healthcare executives and provide access to the results to all the data contributors. The vehicle that will be used is the Web-based KLAS vendor evaluation form found at www.healthcomputing.com under "rate your vendor" button. If you have comments, suggestions or questions about this vendor-rating feature, please e-mail email@example.com.
About the Author(s)
KLAS, founded in 1996, is the only research and consulting firm specializing in monitoring and reporting the performance of healthcare information technology (HIT) vendors and products. Our senior management staff and advisory board average 25 years of healthcare information technology experience.
KLAS, in concert with thousands of Healthcare Executives, CIO's, Directors, Managers and Clinicians has created a dynamic database of information about the performance of HIT vendors. The KLAS database represents the opinions of healthcare executives, managers and clinicians from over 4,500 healthcare facilities and more than 500 different products. The information is continually refreshed with new performance evaluations and interviews daily. The KLAS database is dynamically and effectively used by:
Be the first to comment on this!
Personal Subscriber? Sign In
Note: Please enter a display name. Your email address will not be publically displayed