Tag Archives: address

HOW CAN COMPANIES ADDRESS THE CHALLENGE OF RESISTANCE TO CHANGE FROM EMPLOYEES DURING DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Leave a reply

It is common for employees to resist changes brought about by digital transformation as it often requires adapting to new technologies, processes and ways of working. To overcome this resistance and gain employee buy-in, companies need to effectively communicate the need for change while also addressing employee concerns through participation and support.

Communication is key. Companies must clearly articulate why the changes are necessary by describing the business drivers and objectives of the digital transformation program. They need to paint a compelling vision of how the changes will benefit both the organization and employees in the long run. For example, how new technologies will enable employees to be more productive and innovative or how it will help the company remain competitive and secure jobs. Effective communication also involves listening to understand employee perspectives and concerns to help shape change management strategies.

Companies should focus communication efforts on explaining how exactly day to day work will change and what employees specifically need to learn or do differently. Vague communication breeds uncertainty and resistance. Demonstrating new systems or tools and allowing hands-on practice sessions can help employees feel more comfortable with upcoming changes. Companies also need to communicate frequently throughout the process as digital transformation is ongoing. Status updates keep employees informed and trusting in the direction of change.

Participation and involvement are important to gain employee support. Companies should find avenues for employees at all levels to provide input into change proposals before they are implemented. Employees will be more accepting of changes they feel have considered their needs and suggestions. Companies can create change agent teams consisting of representatives from different departments to understand varied perspectives and co-create solutions. Pilot programs allow feedback that can be incorporated before full roll-outs.

Training and reskilling support must be provided to help employees adapt. Digital skills gaps create anxiety over job security. Companies need to assess skills required by new technologies and design comprehensive training programs, accessible both online and offline, to upskill employees. Training quality and availability should be communicated. Reskilling shows commitment to employees and highlights opportunities for career progression. Companies must also empower employees by giving them time, resources and autonomy to experiment with new tools to develop confidence.

Acknowledging natural resistance and allaying fears is important. Reassure employees that not all existing roles will disappear overnight and the company wants to help people succeed in transformation. Find new roles for employees whose jobs are significantly impacted to retain talent and experience. Address top fears upfront through career coaching and internal job posting programs. Discuss transition support like redeployment rather than assuring no job losses which breeds distrust if roles do change significantly.

Leadership buy-in and visibility is crucial too. Digital ambition must resonate from the top-down with managers participating in training, championing changes and setting an example. Leaders need to acknowledge discomfort and regularly thank employees for efforts. Small wins and successes achieved along the way helps motivate employees through challenging periods of change. Recognition and rewards for embracing new technologies and productivity improvements gained drives further participation.

Involving employees through transparent participation and tailored support addresses the root causes of most resistance – lack of understanding, skills gaps and job security fears. An empathy-driven, partnership approach helps employees see themselves as collaborators in transformation rather than subjects of it. With change managed proactively through two-way communication and consistent leadership commitment, companies can overcome resistance and gain employees as advocates for digital progress. Building trust and skills readies the workforce to embrace ongoing innovation as a competitive necessity.

HOW DID THE PROJECT ADDRESS THE LIMITATIONS OF SAMPLING FROM A SINGLE HOSPITAL AND SMALL SAMPLE SIZE

Leave a reply

The researchers acknowledged that sampling data from only one hospital and with a relatively small sample size of 250 patients were limitations of the study that could impact the generalizability and reliability of the results. To help address these limitations, the researchers took several steps in the design, data collection, and analysis phases of the project.

In the study design phase, the researchers chose the hospital purposely as it was a large, urban, academic medical center that served a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse patient population from both the local community as well as patient referrals from other areas. This helped make the sample more representative of the broader population beyond just the local community served by that single hospital. The researchers only included patients across all departments of the hospital rather than focusing on specific diagnosis or treatment areas to get a broad cross-section of overall hospital patients.

Regarding sample size, while 250 patients was not a massive sample, it was a sufficient size to conduct statistical analyses and identify meaningful trends according to power calculations conducted during the study design. Also, to supplement the quantitative survey data from patients, the researchers conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 patients to gain deeper insights into experiences that larger-scale surveys alone may miss. Interviewing a subset of the sample allowed for a mixed-methods approach that provided richer contextual understanding to support the quantitative findings.

During data collection, the researchers took efforts to maximize the response rate and reduce non-response bias that are risks with smaller samples. For the patient surveys, research assistants were present on various hospital units at varying times of day to approach all eligible patients during their stays, rather than relying on mail-back surveys. Monetary incentives were also provided to encourage participation. The quantitative survey included demographic questions so the researchers could analyze response patterns and identify any subgroups that may have been underrepresented to help address missing data issues.

For analysis and reporting of results, the researchers were transparent about the limitations of sampling from a single site and small sample size. They did not overgeneralize or overstate the applicability of findings but rather framed results asexploratory and in need of replication. Statistical significance was set at a more stringent level of p<0.01 rather than the typical p<0.05 to increase confidence given the moderate sample. Qualitative interview data was used to provide context and nuanced explanation for quantitative results rather than being reported separately. The researchers also performed several supplementary analytical tests to evaluate potential sampling bias. They compared their participant demographics to hospital patient demographics overall as an indicator of representativeness. Response patterns by demographic group were examined for non-response bias. They randomly split the sample in half and ran parallel analyses on each half to verify consistency of identified associations and trends, rather than assuming results would replicate with an independent sample. In their write-up and discussion of limitations, the researchers clearly acknowledged the constraints of the single-site setting and sample size. They argued their intentional sampling approach, mixed-methods design, response maximization efforts, more rigorous analysis, and supplementary tests provided meaningful initial insights with results that lay the necessary groundwork for future replication studies with larger, multi-site samples before making conclusive generalizations. The transparency around limitations and implications for applicability of findings model best practices for rigorously addressing challenges inherent to pilot and feasibility studies. Through careful attention in their methodology and analysis, the researchers took important steps to offset the acknowledged issues that could arise from their relatively small, single-site sample. Their comprehensive approach set the stage to begin exploring meaningful trends while also recognizing the need for future replication. The study provides an example of how initial feasibility research can be conducted and reported responsibly despite inherent sampling constraints.

HOW ARE SELF DRIVING CARS BEING REGULATED AND WHAT POLICIES ARE IN PLACE TO ADDRESS LIABILITY AND SAFETY CONCERNS?

Leave a reply

The regulation of self-driving cars is an evolving area as the technology rapidly advances. Currently there are no fully standardized federal regulations for self-driving cars in the United States, but several federal agencies are involved in developing guidelines and policies. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has released voluntary guidance for manufacturers and is working to develop performance standards. They have also outlined a 5-level classification system for autonomous vehicle technology ranging from no automation to full automation.

At the state level, regulation differs across jurisdictions. Some states like California, Arizona, Michigan, and Florida have passed laws specifically related to the testing and operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads. Others are still determining how to address this new industry through legislation and policies. Most states are taking a phased regulatory approach based on NHTSA guidelines and are focused on monitoring how autonomous technology progresses before implementing comprehensive rules. Permit programs are also being established for companies to test self-driving vehicles in certain states.

One of the major challenges that regulators face is how to address liability when autonomous functions cause or are involved in a crash. Currently, it is unclear legally who or what would be responsible – the vehicle manufacturer, software maker, vehicle operator, or some combination. Some proposals seek to place initial liability on manufacturers/developers while the technology is new, while others argue liability should depend on each unique situation and blameworthiness. Regulators have not yet provided definitive answers, which creates uncertainty that could hamper development and adoption.

To address liability and safety concerns, manufacturers are strongly encouraged to implement design and testing processes that prioritize safety. They must show how autonomous systems are fail-safe and will transition control back to a human driver in an emergency. Black box data recorders and other oversight measures are also expected so crashes can be thoroughly investigated. Design standards may eventually specify mandatory driver monitoring, redundant technology backups, cybersecurity protections, and communication capabilities with other vehicles and infrastructure.

Beyond technical standards, policies aim to protect users, pedestrians and other drivers. Issues like who is considered the operator, and what their responsibilities are, need to be determined. Insurance guidelines are still being formed as risks are assessed – premiums may need to vary depending on vehicle automation levels and who is deemed at fault in different situations. Privacy protections for data collected during use must also be implemented.

Gradual approaches are preferred by most experts rather than imposing sweeping regulations too quickly before problems can be identified and addressed. Testing of early technologies under controlled conditions is encouraged before deploying to the wider public. Transparency and open communication between government, researchers and industry will help identify issues and produce the strongest policies. While full consensus on regulation has not emerged, continued discussions are helping outline best practices for this revolutionary transportation innovation to progress responsibly and maximize benefits to safety. State and federal policies aim to ensure appropriate oversight and mitigation of risks as self-driving car technology advances toward commercial availability.

Self-driving vehicle regulation and policies related to liability and safety are still an emerging framework without full standardization between jurisdictions. Through voluntary guidance, permits for testing, legislation in some states, and proposals addressing insurance, data and oversight, authorities are taking initial steps while further adoption unfolds. Future standards may establish clearer responsibilities, fail-safes and oversight, but regulators are still monitoring research and facing evolving technical challenges to produce comprehensive yet flexible solutions. Gradual, safe progress backed by transparency and collaboration form the central principles guiding this complex regulatory process for autonomous vehicles.

HOW CAN COMMUNITIES ADDRESS THE CHALLENGE OF DECLINING SOCIAL CAPITAL

Leave a reply

Social capital refers to the cooperative relationships between people and organizations that facilitate coordinated action. It enhances collective well-being by virtue of the trust, norms, and networks that people can access and mobilize to address shared problems. Social capital has declined significantly in many communities in recent decades due to changing social and economic conditions. This poses challenges but communities have tools at their disposal to help reverse these trends.

One way communities can build social capital is by creating public spaces and events that encourage casual social interaction between residents. As people spend more time isolated in their homes on digital devices, opportunities for chance encounters with neighbors have diminished. Investing in well-maintained parks, walking trails, recreational facilities, libraries, community centers provides avenues for community members to safely congregate, exercise, and organically form relationships. Events like concerts, fairs, block parties that are free or low-cost can motivate attendance across diverse demographics. Just giving people excuses to interact face-to-face on a regular basis helps foster familiarity, trust, and an ethos of mutual support over time.

Communities must also nurture place-based organizations and initiatives that energize local volunteer participation. When people volunteer together for a common cause, whether it be a sports team, place of worship, neighborhood association, or charitable drive, bonds of shared experience and commitment to the community deepen. Local governments and nonprofit groups can support these groups through small operational grants, assistance with permitting and fundraising, or promotion of their work and upcoming events. Capacity building boosts the ability of grassroots organizations to more effectively mobilize community participation and ownership over local issues.

Schools are another area ripe for building social ties. Beyond the academic function, K-12 institutions can organize civic projects, mentorship programs, recreational leagues and cultural events that merge generations and bring families into closer contact. Intergenerational solidarity is invaluable for addressing community challenges and transferring indigenous knowledge. Schools need support establishing these types of supplementary community programming, especially in lower-income areas.

With digital technology lowering participation barriers, communities should also harness online networks to bolster offline gatherings and collaborative problem-solving. Virtual groups and social media sites organized around neighborhood issues like safety, beautification or youth support can help facilitate coordination between existing civic partners while expanding civic participation. But the goal should be using digital tools to coordinate “meatspace” meetups where deeper interpersonal bonds can form through shared experiences and conversations in person.

Nurturing a diversity of civic leaders is likewise important. Communities must make intentional efforts to elevate new voices from all walks of life into positions where they can advocate for their constituencies and shepherd collective initiatives. Encouraging women, minorities and marginalized groups into roles on municipal boards and commissions, nonprofit boards, neighborhood groups helps ensure a range of lived experiences are authentically represented in local governance and coalition-building. Diversity enhances both legitimacy and innovative thinking.

There are no quick fixes but through patient institution of these kinds of inclusive, relationship-centric practices over the long term, communities can start to reverse societal atomization and rebuild cohesion from the grassroots up. Focusing on public gathering spaces, community groups, intergenerational programming, participatory online networks and nurturing civic leadership from all segments of the population provides a blueprint for restoring eroded social capital reserves at the local level. With dedication and cooperation between government, nonprofits and engaged citizens, even communities that have experienced steep declines maintain hope of re-weaving their social fabric.

HOW CAN POLICYMAKERS AND PROVIDERS ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES OF EQUITABLE ACCESS TO TELEHEALTH

Leave a reply

There are several significant challenges to ensuring equitable access to telehealth, especially for underserved groups. Policymakers and healthcare providers must take a multifaceted approach to overcoming these barriers.

One of the most immediate barriers is the digital divide in access to broadband internet and technologies like smartphones, laptops, and tablets needed to utilize telehealth services. According to the FCC, an estimated 21.3 million Americans still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. Those without home internet access are disproportionately low-income individuals, residents of tribal lands, people of color, older adults, and those living in rural areas.

Policymakers should increase funding and incentives for expanding high-speed broadband infrastructure, especially in underserved rural and tribal communities. The recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocates $65 billion toward expanding broadband access across the country. Providers can work with community groups and patients to distribute free or low-cost tablets and mobile hotspots in areas without home internet access.

Lack of digital literacy remains a substantial barrier, as many individuals may not have the technical skills to operate telehealth platforms. Both policymakers and providers need to invest in digital skills training programs, offered either in-person or virtually, to help underserved groups learn how to use technologies like videoconferencing applications and patient portals. Community organizations like libraries can partner with healthcare entities to provide digital literacy classes and one-on-one technology assistance.

The affordability of Telehealth services and connectivity is another hurdle. While the infrastructure bill and some state policies have expanded access to affordable broadband internet plans for low-income households, data plans and connectivity costs can still prohibit regular telehealth use. Policymakers should consider expanding federal subsidy programs for health-related connectivity and mandate that telehealth services have no to low patient cost-sharing. Healthcare providers also need to offer flexible payment plans or work with community clinics to provide free telehealth access points for the uninsured.

Language and cultural barriers also marginalize many groups from equitable telehealth care. Both medical interpreters and culturally-competent health education materials must be made universally available. Policymakers should require and provider reimbursement programs should cover 24/7 access to qualified medical interpreters across all major languages, including ASL interpreters for deaf individuals. Healthcare entities must translate all telehealth informational materials and platforms into prevalent non-English languages and ensure culturally-tailored health messaging.

Privacy and security concerns could disproportionately deter underserved patients from engaging in telehealth. Policies like HIPAA and the Federal Trade Commission’s Telehealth rule help protect patient data privacy and security during virtual visits. More needs to be done to foster trust, especially among vulnerable groups. Providers must communicate clearly how they safeguard personal health information, obtain explicit patient consent, and provide multi-lingual privacy training. When developing new technologies, inclusive user-experience design and community oversight can help address privacy, automation bias and surveillance risk for marginalized populations.

Lack of access to sufficient broadband-enabled devices remains a hurdle for many. Beyond expanding low-cost options, providers should consider lending medical-grade tablets and laptops pre-loaded with telehealth applications for patient use, especially for those managing chronic illnesses requiring frequent care. Mobile health clinics equipped with telehealth capabilities could also travel to underserved communities to increase access points.

A comprehensive approach is needed involving coordinated efforts between policymakers, healthcare systems, community partners and patients themselves. By addressing barriers related to infrastructure, affordability, language, literacy, privacy and access to enabling devices – especially in marginalized groups – telehealth’s promise of expanded access to equitable care can be more fully realized. Ongoing community involvement and cultural competence will also be key to overcoming historical mistrust and building resilient virtual care models for underserved populations.