Given the risk involved with any new concept, especially ones in complex ecosystems during times of disruption such as healthcare and employee benefits, it is more cost-efficient to partner with other firms who can add value in some way to the effort, thus benefitting both enterprises.
Thoughts about our group
Is partnering the best way to round out an offering such as HealthETeams Challenge?
You need to be logged in to post messages
Is partnering the best way to round out an offering such as HealthETeams Challenge?1/21/2016 10:54 AM EST (edited)
I have been thinking about this a lot over the course of the last few months, especially since we have crafted some informal partnerships with the folks at Tower Benefit Consultants, still working to put together a media-centric tactic with Inside Business and various other vendor partners who like the HealthETeams Challenge, HealthETeams Healthcare Consumer Workshops and Telemedicine Plus.
Here's what I think: partnering is still the best way to go-by a long shot. Unless you have a lot of money, or you have secured a lot of other people's money or you are willing to go into big time debt, the financial risks of tackling big, bold disruptive concepts like using teamwork and collaboration to enhance employer benefits programs, improve employee engagement and productivity and support community-wide healthy-living collective impact projects are simply too great.
Financial capital is very important for new ventures, as is technical capital, political capital, human capital and political capital. That said, I now think that when it comes partnering as a way to be profoundly good at driving large scale change,the most important capital of all for driving disruptive innovations is SOCIAL CAPITAL and that thing we call "influence".