- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir i cant find them in the notes and i kindly request you to solve a past exam question on this topic or give me a brief view on it
It’s simply changing a score into a position to give a ranking.
So, if you had four hospitals given 25 marks on each of four criteria eg (medical success, waiting times for routine appointments, emergency response, patient satisfaction) you add up their scores and rank the hospitals ie give them positions 1 – 4.
The idea is that this lets users see which hospital might be better. However, there can be problems:
1 Scores of 76, 70, 45 and 30 would be ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, yet there is a huge difference between the top two and the last two. Similarly scores of 76, 75.5, 75 and 74.4 would be shown 1, 2, 3 and4, yet there is no appreciable difference, and the ‘bottom’ hospital’s management might feel aggrieved.
2 The scores and positions might make no allowance for outside factors. Eg a hospital in a major city will have different challenges to on in a small town.
3 Managers might boost their ranking by using the attacking the easy wins. For example a hospital could have scores of 20, 20, 3, 24 = 67 and get a good position in the league table even though their emergency response was only worth 3.
thank you so much for the prompt response. i got it now. And i also have a suggestion for the p5 lectures section, you can also put videos from the f5 section into the p5, so for non performance indicators sir john has a video on it which would be a good start and then we could move on and watch yours as his are a bit more detailed and lengthy, same goes for financial performance, budgeting, learning curves and you can also put videos from p3 section onto the p5 one, like pestel, porter, ansoff matrix and other p3 topics, that would add more quality to the p5 section as suggested by fitzgerald and moon 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.