Premium Reports
Contact KLAS
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report    Zoom in charts



Related Series

 No Related Series

 End chart zoom
Vendor Selection 2017 Vendor Selection 2017
* A page refresh may be necessary to see the updated image

Vendor Selection 2017
Crucial Factors to Consider When Choosing a Consulting Firm

author - Warren Whitford
Warren Whitford
author - Lois Krotz
Lois Krotz
March 9, 2017 | Read Time: 3  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 12/9/2023 4:43:30 AM and Model.reportId = 1166

Market changes—namely, Cerner’s acquisition of Siemens’ healthcare IT, the sunsetting of McKesson Horizon, the release of MEDITECH 6.0, and the continued record-breaking pace of healthcare mergers and acquisitions—have caused many providers to reevaluate their EMR options. At the same time, increasing numbers of health systems are looking to technology to enhance population health efforts, resulting in more IT decisions regarding population health, business intelligence, and telehealth. Providers have many excellent options to choose from when looking for a consulting firm to help with these high-stakes vendor selections, but considering the following four factors can help them find a firm that will be an advocate for clients’ best interests.

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 12/9/2023 4:43:30 AM and Model.reportId= 1166 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637527407224785110

Factor #1: Which firms have the experience and breadth you need? Chartis Group, ECG, and Impact Advisors Stand Out for Helping Select Systems beyond EMRs

The organizations in this report have used consulting firms mainly to help them choose acute care EMRs, but providers also want help selecting vendors in other IT markets. Chartis Group and ECG (Kurt Salmon) have the most KLAS-validated work in areas outside of the acute care EMR. Providers have used Chartis Group for post–acute care and CVIS selections; ECG for telehealth, document management and imaging, and human capital management; and Encore and Impact Advisors for population health. In contrast, most KLAS-validated work done by Leidos Health*, PwC*, and Deloitte was focused on acute care EMRs.

*Limited Data

breadth of consulting firms expertise as validated by klas

Factor #2: Which firms deliver the best value? PwC Seen as Highest Value; Deloitte Viewed as Lagging

When all firms perform so high, cost heavily impacts client perceptions of value. PwC offers top expertise, unbiased work, and flexible processes. This combined with their willingness to partner with clients on financial compensation and work within providers’ financial limitations results in clients feeling they receive high value. Deloitte is perceived by some as expensive and is cited for nickel-and-diming. Instances of Deloitte trying to upsell clients on implementation services also impact clients’ views of whether Deloitte is worth the investment. Encore is the only firm to have a client report they made a poor decision in their vendor selection; this Encore client did not find value in the engagement.

value of engagement

Factor #3: Which firms show the most objectivity? 100% Name ECG Completely Objective; Impact Advisors Has the Most Room for Improvement

Although providers can benefit from firms having strong relationships with certain IT vendors, they expect firms to have equal knowledge of all options being considered. They also expect firms to deliver all the information they need to make a decision without influencing the outcome. Examination of the various firms’ selection track records can show whether worrisome patterns exist. ECG (Kurt Salmon) customers say their firm makes extra effort to be objective, and customers of ECG have chosen a wider variety of vendors than customers of other vendors. Impact Advisors has the most customers who say their firm wasn’t completely objective; some consulting teams had more expertise with certain vendors. Selection outcomes among Chartis Group and Deloitte customers show the least variation.

perceived objectivity vs actual outcomes

Factor #4: Which firms excel at expertise and methodology? Encore Leads in Expertise; ECG Has Strong Methodology

Firms with deep expertise and strong methodologies are better able to advocate for clients as they progress through the vendor-selection process. Encore has demonstrated a deep expertise in Epic’s Connect model, while ECG (Kurt Salmon) has flexible, effective methodologies that cater to clients’ needs. PwC* is highlighted for deep expertise, particularly with acute care EMR selections, and for having a very thorough process. Clients feel Deloitte* and Leidos Health* fall behind other firms when it comes to methodology. While Deloitte has great knowledge of acute care EMRs, they struggle to define a process for identifying and solving customer concerns. Some customers describe Leidos as having an excellent, flexible methodology. However, one organization reported disruptions due to turnover among the Leidos consultants.

*Limited Data

firms expertise vs methodology

author - Elizabeth Pew
Elizabeth Pew
author - Natalie Jamison
Natalie Jamison
 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2023 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.