Thinking is vastly underrated, especially by those who don’t—think, that is. I am a huge fan of the phrase, “What if?” Where are all the what-iffers?
On the overrated side are those fixated upon the 2.0’s and 3.0’s. The dot-oh terms connote a handful of things, none of which are particularly helpful. Supposedly the dot-oh represents a destination of sorts. What that destination looks like is anyone’s guess.
It is as though those in the Patient Experience 2.0 club see themselves as having arrived; as being somewhere better than those still mired in the one-dot-oh’s that comprise their cloistered universe. Maybe it is just a level of enlightenment or attainment which comes from having been to the mountain top. They Tweet with their David Attenboroughish British accents, revealing tidbits information heretofore unknown to the 1.0 crowd.
May I suggest the problem with the dot-ohs is the notion that there is some sort of deliverable, some point at which one is no longer striving to get to the oh-ness because one has arrived? Then what? I think that is why the uptake of the dot-oh concepts by the C-suiters is so low. Patient Experience 2.0. Health 2.0. Social Media 2.0. Executives are still paying for all the one-dot-oh initiatives, initiatives which for the most part failed to deliver.
Note to reader: There are no end points, no dates in late October where anyone can say with credibility, “We’ve arrived at the dot-oh end point.
It is a fallacy to believe that any of these uber-initiatives are ever complete or exist in isolation. I propose we define new nomenclature for initiatives like Patient Experience 2.0, some naming convention that does not have an endpoint. A transcendental number perhaps, a number with no end. Irrational. Pi—π. Health π. Patient Experience π. Social media π.