Hospital management teams receive voluminous data from a wide variety of sources, but are unable to distill the essential data they require to make good decisions. We have used a methodology which helps teams define and use important management data coupled with an information system that makes this data accessible. Results of our evaluation indicate that the process of developing a balanced scorecard (BSC) indicator system helps management teams to define meaningful strategic objectives and measurable performance indicators. The framework combined with the information acts as an integrating force, providing a shared understanding of the unit's goals. We conclude that a customized decision support system which integrates multiple measures in a BSC framework is a powerful tool for enabling complex decision making by a management team.

O r i g i n a l 209 M a r c h 2 0 0 6 , V o l 4 , N o 4 w w w . g e r o n te c h jo u r n a l . n e t A n inte l l ige nt e m e rge ncy re s pons e s ys te m : Pre l im inary de ve l opm e nt and te s ting of a functional h e al th m onitoring s ys te m K e yw ords : e m e rge ncy, h e al th m onitoring, aging-in-pl ace , com pute r vis ion

No abstract

There is abundant evidence that the biggest obstacles to effective risk management are psychological paradigms rooted in the organization's culture. These paradigms were present in the Challenger, Columbia and Chernobyl catastrophes. Consider the following examples: When asked to name their top risks, program decision‐makers confidently do so. When asked if the risks are in the database, a typical response is “no, that's not the type of thing we put in our risk management database.” Some individuals view risks as challenges; others fear their acknowledgement. Many engineers deny or don't communicate risks. Program managers wanting to present their program in a positive manner to management or the customer often downplay serious risks. In the Time Magazine article “Why We Worry About the Wrong Things – The Psychology of Risk” psychology professor Paul Slovic explains, “there are two systems for analyzing risk: an automatic intuitive system and a more thoughtful analysis. Our perception of risk lives largely in our feelings, and most of the time we're operating on this system.” In evaluating a risk, the brain's most primitive part, the amygdala, acts first. It is not till later that the higher regions of the brain get the signal. This, explains Time author Jeff Kluger, is why “… we wring our hands over the mad cow pathogen that might be (but almost certainly isn't) in our hamburger, and worry far less about the cholesterol contributing to heart disease that kills 700,000 of us annually.” Intelligent Enterprises effectively employ risk management processes and tools to reinforce utilization of the higher regions of the brain over the primitive part. Our panelists are among the world's most highly respected SE and Risk Management practitioners. They will characterize psychological, cultural and motivational inhibitors and describe key practices used by Intelligent Enterprises to accomplish Intelligent Risk Management. Further information about this panel topic, and risk management in general panel, may be found at http://www.incose.org/practice/techactivities/wg/risk/.