Architecture vs Partner Architecture Wins

Architecture vs Partner Architecture Wins

Our Thinking / Healthcare /

Architecture vs Partner Architecture Wins
Calendar11 December 2015

This post is part of our “Visualizing the Future: Health Benefits in 2016 and Beyond” series, in which Mercer consultants share key take-aways for employers from “Health Market 2.0,” a recent conference hosted by Mercer’s sister firm, management consultant Oliver Wyman.  

What most caught my attention is the notion that what will make or break an innovation is not the partner you choose as much as the architecture surrounding the partner. The essential drive to innovate will clearly result in some good ideas and some not so good ideas.  A sound architecture should enable employers to plug in and take out partners without losing momentum. As one speaker commented, “Failing forward is good….failing backward isn’t.”

There are a lot of solutions and products on the market for employers.  The challenge is how to create a context for them that reduces the risk inherent in working with different partners and keeps the focus on providing value to employees/consumers. A really cool architecture would help employers to address each component of the “triple aim” – and do a lot to improve the consumer experience.

  Register for Mercer US Health News to receive weekly e-mail updates.
*Required Fields