New Technological Investment

STheme of The Case:

New Technological investment s a good decision for company and do customers accept in positive way.

Key Person Involved in case

 Allan Moulter (CEO of Quality Care.

 Jack Zadow ( Consultant)

 Ginger Rooneys ( Vice President)

 Pat Penstone ( CIO)

SUMMARY:

This case describes a choice that Quality Care, a health maintenance organization, is facing. The case starts in describing a part of the presentation a consultant, Jack, is giving to the CEO, Allan, and the CIO, Pat, about a model of a "new and improved" Quality Care computerized reception system. He states that the two potential competitors (Healthcare One and Medicenters) are already using it or going to use it in the near future. He actually clearly stated the advantages for Quality Care and is trying to convince his audience. He states that it would be a giant step forward in the quality of the service.

Allan, the CEO, then starts asking a lot of questions and is somewhat pessimistic. He says he doesn't see the real advantage and states that he is not sure whether it's worth it, since the customer retention and satisfaction is already good. Jack uses the strong argument that the competition is already using it, he is too eager to oppose some opinions of the said CEO and they could not afford to look as though they are behind in times. On top of that the CIO, Pat, is quite enthusiastic and uses arguments for buying the system. She just mainly uses two arguments: "What if a patient assumes that because we're not high tech without sign-in procedure, we're also not up to speed on our medical procedures?" and also "we'll have to install a system like this as some point anyway, as soon as the government or the insurance companies decide that it's the way to go".

After the meeting, Allen was still wondering whether to do it or not. He thinks about the very fact that they are doing quite well and thinks about his passion when he began his career "talking with customers". In other words he is already been satisfied of the outcomes regarding their services to the costumers. The case describes that they often do surveys and use techniques to measure customer satisfaction. These show that customers are satisfied, but it is really hard to keep all constituents happy. Allan did figure that "it was the open communication and feedback that kept the company effective and competitive". That is also why he was concerned about the presentation and thus called the vice president of marketing, Ginger, who came to his office immediately. He honestly states that he is not sure about the system, but he doesn't want to fall behind the curve. Ginger does not like the system and says that when they surveyed customers about a similar system 18 months ago, they said they would hate it for human contact counts much especially for seniors and one-on-one attention is what makes a satisfied customer. She stated that they've already looked into a similar system then and dismissed the idea. The administrative staff just thought that the computerized reception area would make their jobs easier and they thought the system would give them time for the human touch. But then the CEO opposed the opinions of Ginger. For him the only reason to reconsider the system is to make keep their employees happy and to keep good people.

Ginger spotted Pat in line at the cafeteria and had a chance to have a conversation with her regarding the computerized system for their company. They found themselves holding opposing views or at least misunderstanding each other motives. It ends up in thinking the bottom line about the plans for their company if they will have the computerized reception system or not.

Is investing in new technology always the right choice for a company and its customers? Allan Moulter, the CEO of Quality Care, isn't sure he wants to invest in the computerized reception system that consultant Jack Zadow has outlined for him. But in this HBR case study, the argument Zadow makes is impossible to ignore. Quality Care's rivals have invested in similar systems or are planning to do so. The new system promises to take care of routine busywork, freeing staff up for other interactions with patients. It seems as if the competition hasn't even cut staff and is counting on increased customer retention to pay for the investment. And yet, Quality Care's surveys of its own customers show that they prefer the human touch when checking in. How would customers feel if the first ¿person¿ they met when they came in the door turned out to be a machine? Moulter prides himself on his responsiveness to customers. And with 86% of Quality Care's customers either satisfied or completely satisfied, aren't things fine as they are? Has Moulter considered all the facets of his predicament? How will Quality Care's staff be affected by a decision one way or another? What about the costs of upgrading the system? Can Quality Care maintain its standing without going high-tech? Would customers rebel when confronted with the proposed reception area or would they appreciate the increased efficiency? Six experts weigh the