Purpose of the Alliance
Rapid changes in the health care industry and shift demands for care have created the need for health care providers to shift their focus towards engaging in strategic alliances that would allow them improving on their capacity to offer best possible care (Tolf, Nyström, Tishelman, Brommels, & Hansson, 2015). The strategic alliance considered as part of this report was between the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Mercy Health System, and St. Mary Medical Center. According to Rege (2018), the primary purpose of the alliance was to help in the creation and development of clinical care programs, as well as, health initiatives targeting the population in the Greater Philadelphia region as a way of improving care. Through this strategic alliance, the health programs developed will offer a much better platform through which to ensure that the quality of health care services is improved.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Such an Alliance
The crucial first strength associated with such an alliance is that it creates a strategic avenue through which to ensure that the different parties would be able to reach their strategic goals much faster. Engaging in strategic alliances provides for a better capacity for the companies involved to improve on their performance outcomes while ensuring to complement each other as part of moving towards setting out strategic goals (Burns & Pauly, 2018). In this case, the strategic alliance between the University of Pennsylvania Health System and Mercy Health System and St. Mary Medical Center creates an avenue through which to ensure that each of these three health providers is well-positioned to improve on the quality of care. That means that it will be much easier for the entity created by the alliance to perform when compared to when the bodies would perform separately in trying to provide quality care.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second strength associated with such an alliance is the fact that it seeks to promote knowledge sharing; thus, serving as a guarantee for improvement of the individual entities engaged in the coalition. When creating a strategic partnership, one of the critical aspects of significant consideration for each of the parties involved in the sharing of knowledge that would be of value towards ensuring that the parties are able to reach their strategic goals (Valentijn, Vrijhoef, Ruwaard, de Bont, Arends, & Bruijnzeels, 2015), in this case, each of the health providers involved will be at a much more comfortable position allowing them to share the knowledge that would help improve the quality of care offered. The ultimate impact that this is likely to have is that it will help improve performance outcomes for the individual strategic partners from a particular perspective.
On the other hand, strategic alliances often present several vital weaknesses that are likely to affect the outcomes of the partnership created between the different parties. One notable weakness that is likely to arise as a result of such an alliance is that it may cause delays in the implementation of projects that ought to be undertaken as an alliance. By creating strategic partnerships, what is expected is that each of the parties would focus on its role and responsibilities towards ensuring that the intended projects are implemented. However, in cases where one of the parties may not meet the set-out deadline, the most likely outcome is that the implementation of the projects would delay significantly. That would have negative implications concerning the achievement of the set strategic goals and objectives.
Direct Benefits for the Alliance Participants
The alliance participants, which are the different parties involved in the strategic alliance, are likely to benefit directly from the partnership in a significant way. The first direct benefit is that the association will help in ensuring that participants can level industry ups and downs as a way of improving their performance capacities. The participants will find themselves in a much better position through which to understand the strategic projections brought out through the alliance; thus, defining their performance capacities. The second direct benefit that can be associated with a strategic partnership for the participants is that it helps in building a valuable intellectual capital attributed to knowledge sharing. By sharing knowledge, what is expects is that the individual participants are much more likely to benefit from the information that they gain to improve on their overall growth capacities.
The third direct benefit is that the strategic alliance will help in ensuring that the alliance participants can gain new resources, as well as, improve on existing resources to match their expectations within the different health care markets. Strategic alliances often bring to the floor the idea of sharing resources between the various participants involved, which plays a crucial role in ensuring that the participants work towards improvement individually. Lastly, the strategic alliance will be of great value for the participants, as it helps in creating a different perception from an individual perspective. The different viewpoints will be created through the engagements that the participants will have on matters associated with health care service delivery; thus, serving as one of the ways through which to guarantee best possible outcomes when engaging in individual projects.
The crucial first challenge that may develop within the alliance revolves around conflicts between the different health providers involved in the coalition, which is likely to create a situation where it becomes harder for the partners to commit to the alliance. Conflicts are a common occurrence when dealing with strategic partnerships, as they arise in instances where there exists a lack of effective communication. One of the key ways through which to mitigate this challenge is by seeking to develop and adopt effective communication strategies. The main intention of having to promote communication is to ensure that each of the participants understands the direction that the alliance is moving. That would mean having to engage the different participants as a way of creating a communication plan that would enhance communication between the various parties in the alliance; thus, helping to avoid the possibility of conflicts.
The second key challenge that is likely to develop in the alliance is an evident lack of compatibility, especially in the area of organizational cultures developed by the different participants. It is a common occurrence for companies and organizations to create unique corporate lifestyles that would allow them to remain relevant within the specific industries that they operate. In this case, each of the strategic alliance partners, the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Mercy Health System, and St. Mary Medical Center, tends to have a different organizational culture. The compatibility of the customs may occur as a vital issue that is likely to impact the expected outcomes. Dealing with this challenge would require extensive consultation between the different participants with the aim being towards ensuring that they are committed to ensuring that the alliance achieves its intended outcomes.
References
Burns, L. R., & Pauly, M. V. (2018). Transformation of the health care industry: curb your enthusiasm? The Milbank Quarterly , 96 (1), 57-109.
Rege, A. (2018). Penn Medicine aligns with 2 Trinity Health hospitals . Retrieved from https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/penn-medicine-aligns-with-2-trinity-health-hospitals.html
Tolf, S., Nyström, M. E., Tishelman, C., Brommels, M., & Hansson, J. (2015). Agile, a guiding principle for health care improvement?. International journal of health care quality assurance , 28 (5), 468-493.
Valentijn, P. P., Vrijhoef, H. J., Ruwaard, D., de Bont, A., Arends, R. Y., & Bruijnzeels, M. A. (2015). Exploring the success of an integrated primary care partnership: a longitudinal study of collaboration processes. BMC health services research , 15 (1), 32.
