Sift through the feedback
With the environmental assessment complete, another firm
began to test market perceptions and develop creative concepts
that told the health system’s collective story.
In addition to the feedback gathered during the first phase, the
consultants gathered 59 individuals to participate in four internal
focus groups. An additional 43 external stakeholders partook in
comprehensive phone interviews.
Internally, the focus groups were composed of board members,
management, employees and volunteers — a wide range on the
corporate spectrum. Their insight, combined with that of the
external stakeholders, provided an adequate sampling of feedback
with which to make change.
“They basically began expressing issues relating to the communication of the name of the health system and our logo and how
dated they felt it was,” she says. “They said about my sacred cow
that, ‘It’s too cumbersome.’”
Karam says it’s important to suspend your own biases throughout the process. Like the system’s cumbersome name, you must be
willing to sacrifice your own sacred cows, especially when feedback overwhelmingly points toward change.
At the same time, you shouldn’t blindly accept these conclusions.
Karam held regular meetings with the consultants, her senior vice
president and assistant vice president to assess the feedback and
discuss emerging themes.
“All along the way, I had regular meetings on how this process
was going,” she says. “You need to have those solid periods of time,
like one or two hours. You need adequate time to really listen to
the input from the consultants to be able to digest and then give
input.”