Case Study 6 for Organisational Performance Essay Example

Please hand in THE TUTORIAL

Your name: Your Student number:

Your Tutorial group and your Tutor’s name:

Based on this case please answer the following questions.

1. The productivity report shows which two doctors performed best? (0.5 marks)

   1. Physicians #12 and #8

   2. Physicians #8 and #2

   3. Physicians #7 and #1

   4. Physicians #1 and #6

Why did you choose this answer? (1 mark)

The only thing the Gildata report is measuring, and the only target indicator that Osborne is concerned with at this point is the productivity per hour, measured by consultations per hour. Physicians #1 and #7 have the highest figures in this respect. Both physicians also logged some time in non-primary care, which is an indicator, although only a vague one, that they are doing other productive things for the clinic apart from primary care consultations.

1. The productivity report shows which two doctors performed the most poorly? (0.5 marks)

   1. Physicians #1 and #6

   2. Physicians #3 and #4

   3. Physicians #3 and #11

   4. Physicians #1 and #12

Why did you choose this answer? (1 mark)

Using the same reasoning as the answer above, Physicians #3 and #11 performed the most poorly, having the two lowest average consultations per hour among the 12 physicians. This is particularly troubling for Physician #11, who was not only the least productive on an hourly basis, but also logged more than two working days’ hours over the standard.

1. The number of working days per year of 240 days is (1 mark)

   1. Accurate and therefore the assumptions in the calculation of the number of consultations per year for the clinic are correct.

   2. This is incorrect. The number of working days for each doctor is 260 days from Monday to Friday minus 20 days annual leave, minus 7 public holidays, 3 days sick leave, 3 days personal leave. This leaves 227 days.

Why did you choose this answer? (2 marks)

Neither answer seems to be correct, but B is closer if we make one assumption. The case study indicates that the clinic is open on weekdays and half-days on Saturdays, and is closed for public holidays. Therefore:

52 weeks/per year x 5.5 days/week = 286 days

286 days – 20 days’ annual leave – 7 public holidays – 3 days’ sick leave – 3 days’ personal leave = 253 days.

BUT, if we assume that the doctors’ enterprise agreement specifies a five-day work week (five days of the five-and-a-half the clinic is open), although the case study doesn’t clarify that one way or the other, then answer B is correct.

1. The case mentions a benchmark of 8000 hours for the number of consultations per year per doctor. Why is this number important and how has it been calculated? (2 marks)

The number, as the case study indicates, is the benchmark goal for private practises; from this it can be inferred that the figure represents a level of productivity which the medical profession considers to be adequately providing care to a service area, adequately providing the physician an attractive income, and maintaining profitable operations for the medical clinic.

The figure seems to have been calculated in this way: the existing average for GP’s in metropolitan clinics is 7,470 consultations per year, or slightly over 4.4 consultations per hour based on a 240-day working year of seven hours per day. Multiplying 4.4 consultations per hour by 260 working days per year (or 52 weeks of 5 days) works out to 8,008 consultations per year. Even though doctors are entitled to public holidays, sick days, and personal time off, patients’ illnesses and medical conditions do not necessarily respect holidays or regular business hours; thus the extra 530 or so consultations per year expected could be considered to account for patient visits outside of the ‘normal’ schedule.

The Extra Questions

1. What has gone wrong, and why?

For starters, it seems Osborne has not adequately explained (or perhaps not explained at all) the rationale behind the 8,000 consultation benchmark and the 4.7 consultation-per-hour standard. The case study explains that he would like to institute some kind of performance-based compensation, but this has not been discussed with the professional staff yet, so there is likely a great deal of apprehension amongst the physicians as to what Osborne’s intentions are.

The bigger problem is that the calculations of the number of consultations are wrong. If the 4.7 consultations-per-hour standard is looked at as a benchmark to ensure the clinic’s profitability, then the number of consultations that must be achieved in a year is actually 10.4 x 4.7 x 7 x 253 = 86,566 and not 83,200. From that point of view, assuming the standards of 5 working days and 4.7 consultations-per-hour are fixed with respect to each physician, the clinic is actually under-staffed or significantly under-productive; the equivalent of about 3 more hours per day at the rate of 4.7 consultations-per-hour are needed to make up the shortfall.

2. If you were Osborne, what would you do in the next half-hour?

If I were Osborne, obviously the first thing I would do is speak to the professional staff and find out exactly what their grievances are that have provoked them into a work stoppage. Assuming that the work stoppage is an expression of dissent against the performance measurement program (which may not actually be the case, although that is implied by the case study), I would then encourage the physicians to suggest what they think would be a fair performance measurement and incentive program, while explaining the necessity of having one to keep the clinic financially successful and to provide them with a respectable income. Having just discovered (see above) that the program put in place may be inaccurate, there is obviously good reason to re-examine the topic again, and hopefully get the buy-in of the staff before anything new is implemented.