Do you ever wonder what happens to the candid feedback you share once you finish your KLAS evaluation? What in the world do the vendors actually do with your anonymous critique?
The obvious answer is that those vendors who score well love to tell the world about it, which makes sense. Who wouldn’t want to shout out the fact that their customers rank them #1. But what about the majority of solutions that don’t rank “Best in KLAS”? What happens when you vote them #5, or worse yet, the unofficial worst in KLAS? Many of the vendors take your aggregated input seriously and try to figure out how to do better the next time. Like you, they are trying to be good at what they do. However, when someone is being evaluated the input isn’t always easy to take. As one vendor executive put it, “Sometimes KLAS research is like a punch in the face. But…that wakeup call is just what we need to keep improving.”
The other alternative, if a vendor doesn’t score well, is to fight the process. The reality is that what we do is not that complex. We talk with you as a healthcare provider to get your input on your vendors, aggregate the scores, and then publish the results. The same rules apply to all vendors. Unlike Consumer Reports, we don’t actually take the product out for a test drive or give our own opinions. We learn from those of you that have had experience driving these products for years. In that sense we are more like J.D. Powers and Associates, in collecting, aggregating and publishing the satisfaction data provided by you, the customer. See more about The KLAS Difference.
What do you typically hear from those that don’t like the results? Probably that we talk to the wrong people (I’ve even heard the thought that we talk with the parking attendants) or that vendors pay for a KLAS subscription to see a higher score. Though it may be fun to talk with parking attendants, who typically have some good stories, they’re not a good source for input on healthcare technology solutions. The reality is that we talk with the executives, directors and managers using these solutions, including you. As for the “pay to play” theory, even small firms can outperform larger enterprise vendors. For example, Unibased Systems Architecture (a small yet high performing vendor in Chesterfield, MO) was “Best in KLAS” in 2009 for Enterprise Scheduling.
Thank you for your continued participation with KLAS, and just know that your input is likely being read by your vendor. This is, after all, your voice they are listening to.