Vendor providing HIT advisory services

HIT Advisory Services

As exciting as it is to have your hypothesis proven, sometimes it is more exciting to have it disproven. That is exactly what happened to my hypothesis in KLAS’ HIT Advisory Services 2019 report. And my incorrect theory means good news for both providers and firms. 


(Right click and select "Open in a new tab" to view larger)


Developing Firms Doing Well

People say that gray hair matters; experience holds a lot of weight. That is why the potential contrast between developing firms and seasoned firms was so interesting. The entire theme of the report is comparing seasoned firms to developing firms. Providers want to know the story. And although we can’t predict how long certain firms will stick around, we can talk about the current customers’ experiences.

I was expecting seasoned firms to perform better based simply on their greater experience. The seasoned firms do have a lot of expertise and complexities across the HIT advisory space, and the new firms don’t have as many validations; their experience isn’t as deep. But their clients are satisfied and feel that they are getting their money's worth. The developing firms do relatively well when they are used within their respective scopes.

Seasoned Firms Continue Succeeding

The success of the developing firms hasn’t taken away from that of their more seasoned competitors. With a few exceptions, seasoned firms continue to highly satisfy their clients and deliver value.

Much of that success is due to consistency, which drives a lot of repeat business and referrals. Just two projects not going well can affect how the market perceives a firm. If struggling firms want to change their client satisfaction, they need to take care of their inconsistencies.

Finding the Right Fit

Providers are on a journey, and I really hope that they can narrow down a firm that best meets their needs for their project, whether that be a seasoned firm or a developing firm. Providers can first look at the experience chart (seen above) showing breadth and depth and then drill deeper by quadrant to look at those firms’ performances.

Because most firms are performing well, looking only at overall scores is a partial view of a firm; providers also need a view of each firm’s experience to find the best fit for their project scope. The differentiation between firms is based on capabilities, specializations, and experience as well as performance.

A provider might have a certain project that needs a comprehensive firm, a generalist firm, or a select firm. The report really highlights the flow of decision-making for providers and can walk them through which firms they may need. The back end of the report is dense, but it is quite innovative and has such valuable information. I hope that people take the time to look at it and digest what is relevant to them.




     Photo cred: Shutterstock, everything possible