Table 4 |
|
|
Parameters of success |
|
|
Outcome parameters |
Process parameters |
|
|
|
|
Effect on organizational priorities and budget |
Efficiency of priority setting process |
|
• Priorities change; resource shift |
• Increased ease in allocating resources |
|
• Strategic plan supported/enhanced |
• Improved capacity for making priority setting decisions |
|
• Conditions for growth created/enhanced |
• Perceived return on time invested |
|
• Budget balanced |
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on staff |
Fairness |
|
• Staff satisfaction neutral or positive |
• Stakeholders understand the process |
|
• Staff retention/recruitment neutral or positive |
• Stakeholders feel engaged |
|
• Organizational understanding improved |
• Priorities are justified and seen to be reasonable |
|
• Process is perceived to be consistent and fair |
|
|
• Winners/losers issue well-managed |
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on community |
Conformity with conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'? |
|
• Public media recognition neutral or positive |
|
|
• Public acceptance or community support improved |
|
|
• Public perception of institutional accountability improved |
|
|
• Health care integration through partnerships increased |
|
|
• Education/research peer recognition enhanced |
|
|
• Emulated by other organizations |
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson et al. BMC Health Services Research 2004 4:25 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-4-25 |
|