Why They Merged and Why the Merger Was Unsuccessful

In 1997 University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) blended its two open clinics with Stanford’s two private emergency clinics. The two separate elements combined to make a not-revenue driven association titled UCSF Stanford Health Care. The merger between the wellbeing frameworks at UCSF and Stanford appeared to be a smart thought because of the comparable missions, vicinity of establishments, expanded monetary weight with reductions in Medicare repayments followed by an emotional increment in oversaw care organizations.The first year UCSF Stanford Health Care created a benefit of $22 million, anyway three years after the fact the wellbeing framework had lost a sum of $176 million (â€Å"UCSF-Stanford Merger,† n. d. ). The initial segment of this paper will address reasons why the two establishments chose to seek after the merger by glancing through the hypothetical focal point of limited objectivity, prospect hypothesis and asset reliance hypothesis (RDT). The seco nd 50% of the paper will reason reasons why the merger was fruitless by considering key ideas in hierarchical conduct, for example, force and culture.The undermining and questionable financial occasions drove the pioneers to choose the choice that they accepted boosted their odds for endurance. The hypothesis of limited levelheadedness, proposed by Herbert A. Simon, recommends that individuals are to a great extent restricted by time, data and psychological limitations(Simon, 1997). The merger between the two clinical schools appeared to bode well, the two foundations shared a typical strategic treating the uninsured, preparing the up and coming age of imaginative specialists, and stay at the bleeding edge of breaking examination and technology.Since both would have been going after progressively rare assets, uniting seemed well and good. Together they would have the option to decrease spending on regulatory expenses, and more ready to arrange contacts with huge protection companies (â€Å"UCSF-Stanford Merger,† n. d. ). Simon proposes that individuals, limited by time, intellectual capacity and data, are bound to settle on palatable choices instead of ideal ones(Simon, 1997).Instead of centering time and vitality sketching out potential approaches to stay separate among the moving installment structure UCSF and Stanford, both constrained by time and frightful of the potential misfortunes, consented to blend. The merger was UCSF and Stanford’s approach to moderate hazard and oversee vulnerability. Prospect hypothesis is a conduct financial hypothesis created by Daniel Kahneman that holds that individuals are bound to face higher challenges when choices are confined in negative terms(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Despite the fact that mergers are unpredictable and hazardous the approaching trepidation of diminished repayments made the pioneers center around the advantages of merging.Kahneman contends that individuals don't put together their choices with respect to ultimate results, rather they base their choices on the potential estimation of misfortunes and gains(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Rather than investigating the danger of the merger, administration concentrated on the all the more squeezing trouble, the reality. To remain alive in the time of oversaw care, college emergency clinics the nation over were looking for mergers with private medical clinics. Estimations demonstrated that emergency clinics lost $4 million every year for every 1 percent drop in reimbursement tolerant population(Etten, 1999).Since the 1990’s, repayment protection was on a radical decrease in San Francisco opening the market for oversaw care organizations(Etten, 1999). RDT takes a gander at how the conduct of associations is influenced by their outside assets. The hypothesis, achieved during the 1970s, addresses associations interest for assets, assets and force are straightforwardly linked(Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). RDT holds that as sociations rely upon assets in this manner converging, because of expanding asset shortage, engaged both institutions(Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003).On paper, the merger between these two establishments seemed well and good †the two organizations were near each other and vieing for lessening assets. Together they could lessen regulatory expenses and unite to haggle with huge insurance agencies. The need to make another culture and disintegrate generally existent force battles were two huge errands that should have been tended to so as to guarantee a fruitful merger. In any case, the manner by which the merger was sorted out didn't prompt an effective merger.UCSF Health Care didn't invest sufficient energy making a common culture in which the two associations would see one joint association with shared force (assets). On paper the two associations consented to share power, anyway the two gatherings conduct indicated something else. Dr. Rizk Norman, co-seat of the joined doctor gath ering of UCSF and Stanford staff, bears witness to that neither one of the institutions was ever agreeable enough to share monetary information(â€Å"UCSF, Stanford medical clinics just too different,† n. d. ). UCSF didn't completely unveil their monetary concerns with respect to one of their sinking clinics, while Stanford was likewise liable of ithholding data (â€Å"UCSF, Stanford emergency clinics just too different,† n. d. ). Converging into one ought to wipe out the feeling of two separate elements, anyway insufficient was done to shape the merger so that office and staff felt like equivalent accomplices. Loyalties existed inside the association, starting at the top with the Board of Directors. Fundamentally the board was part between seven Stanford board individuals and seven USCF board individuals and three non factional individuals, anyway loyalties to ones specific foundation never dissolved(â€Å"UCSF-Stanford Merger,† n. d. ).As laid out, RDT, holds that associations rely upon assets, which begin from their condition. Assets are an associations power used to contend in their condition. The two wellbeing frameworks shared a domain, in this way contended with each other for power (assets) (â€Å"UCSF-Stanford Merger,† n. d. ). Since Stanford was a revenue driven association, they held increasingly financial control over UCSF. Pfeffer and Salancik contend that the best approach to tackle issues of vulnerability and association is to expand coordination, all the more explicitly, to increment shared control of each other’s activities(Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003).Had the two organizations worked from the earliest starting point to build coordination and correspondence between the two establishments the merger may have more changes in succeeding. Expanded coordination between the two organizations could have lead to the making of a solid culture. Culture is the mutual conviction, desires and qualities shared by individual s from an association. (â€Å"Leading by Leveraging Culture †Harvard Business Review,† n. d. ). Utilizing another culture begins from the top, the board must model as per the new culture.This was not done at UCSF Stanford Health Care because of existing loyalties. Adding to the way of life battle, the organizations were far enough away from each other to justify concern. For an association to stream easily, clear correspondence channels should be built up. Without open correspondence and coordinated effort a common culture can't develop. Powerless societies hurt the working environment by expanding wasteful aspects that lead to expanded expenses. UCSF Health Care model starting from the top to make a mutual culture.Had authority invested sufficient energy tending to approaches to break up existing force battles, and making a common culture that would set the establishment to accomplish another mutual vision, the merger could have been fruitful. Drawing in pioneers in mak ing a key intend to consolidate two separate existing societies would have urged them to show backing and break down force battles. Mutual assets, open correspondence and a culture of unity may have set the establishment for an effective merger between the two associations. References Etten, P. V. (1999). Camelot or presence of mind? The rationale behind the UCSF/Stanford merger.Health Affairs, 18(2), 143â€148. doi:10. 1377/hlthaff. 18. 2. 143 Kahneman, D. , and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. doi:10. 2307/1914185 Leading by Leveraging Culture †Harvard Business Review. (n. d. ). Recovered October 16, 2012, from http://hbr. organization/item/driving by-utilizing society/a/CMR260-PDF-ENG Pfeffer, J. , and Salancik, G. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press. Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of Bounded Rationality, Vol. 3: Emperically Grounded Econom ic Reason.The MIT Press. UCSF-Stanford Merger: A Promising Venture. (n. d. ). SFGate. Recovered October 16, 2012, from http://www. sfgate. com/conclusion/article/UCSF-Stanford-Merger-A-Promising-Venture-2975174. php#src=fb UCSF, Stanford clinics just excessively unique. (n. d. ). Recovered October 16, 2012, from http://www. paloaltoonline. com/week by week/funeral home/news/1999_Nov_3. HOSP03. html â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€ Fall 16 PM 827 A1 Strategic Management Of Healthcare Organizations UCSF Stanford Healthcare †Why They Merged and Why The Merger Was Unsuccessful Sofia Gabriela Walton Mini Exam #1 08

The effect o temperature on a Reaction time free essay sample

Unique: This venture takes a gander at how the temperature of an investigation can influence its response time. The motivation behind this investigation is to decide whether dissolving responses are influenced by waters temperature. I accept that in the event that the H2O temperature expands, at that point the Alka-Seltzer tablet will break down quicker in light of the fact that the boiling water atoms will move quicker crashing into the tablet particles. Water will be the autonomous variable because of the truth of the matter is will consistently remain in its equivalent structure all through the test. The Manipulated variable will likewise be the water, since I will be changing its temperature. The Responding the variable will be the planning of how quick or moderate the Alka-Seltzer tablet breaks down. What's more, the control is the glass of water that is set at cold faucet water. The task will include the testing of three diverse water temperatures. One at hot faucet water, one at cold faucet water, and ice water. We will compose a custom article test on The impact o temperature on a Reaction time or on the other hand any comparative subject explicitly for you Don't WasteYour Time Recruit WRITER Just 13.90/page 1 cup of water at every temperature will be filled a similar glass, and have its temperature recorded. In the wake of doing so each water temperature will experience five preliminaries with one Alka-Seltzer tablet being dropped into the glass each time, recording to what extent it takes for the tablet to disintegrate. Subsequent to testing my theory, my outcomes were legitimized. When looking at how the Alka-Seltzer tablet broke down in the hot temperature water and how it disintegrated vulnerable temperature water. It indicated that the more sweltering the temperature of the H2O was the quicker the Alka-Seltzer tablet broke up. Materials and Equipment: Alka-Seltzer tablets (in any event 12; on the off chance that you intend to do extra varieties to the undertaking, you will need to get a bigger box) Thermometer with a scope of at any rate 0Â °C to 60Â °C Clear drinking glass or container (12 ounce [355 mL] or bigger) Graduated chamber, 100 mL. A 100 mL graduated chamber Veiling tape Something to mix with, for example, a spoon or a chopstick Hot and cold faucet water Ice Stopwatch or a clock or watch with a second hand An aide Lab scratch pad Pencil Strategies: 1. Set up a drinking glass that is set apart at the 250 ml point. This glass will utilized for numerous preliminaries, so it is helpful to stamp the ideal water level. a. Include 250 mL or 1 cup of water to the drinking glass b. Utilize a bit of veiling tape outwardly of the glass to check the water level, putting it with its top edge, even with the water level in the glass. c. Cautioning: Do not fill the glass totally full in light of the fact that the bicarbonate response will create bubbles that could sprinkle out. 2. Fill the drinking glass with a similar volume of water at three unique temperatures: Hot faucet water, cold faucet water, and ice water. a. For the hot and cold faucet water, have the water until fever balances out. Fill glass with water to the degree of the concealing tape. b. For ice water, fill the glass with about half full with ice solid shapes, at that point add cold faucet water to somewhat over the degree of the veiling tape. Mix for a moment or two with the goal that the temperature is balanced out. When balanced out, expel ice shapes from water’s surface utilizing a spoon preceding including the Alka-Seltzer tablets. Likewise pour any additional water so the water is up to level with concealing tape. 3. Set up the drinking glass with one of the three temperatures as depicted in sync 2. At that point measure the response time for that temperature. a. Subsequent to topping the glass off to concealing tape, measure the temperature and record information. At that point expel thermometer. b. When gotten done with that, get readied with the stop watch and the Alka-Seltzer tablet. When beginning the stop watch, the Alka-Seltzer tablet ought to be dropped in the water. c. Air pockets of CO2 will start to stream out from the tablet. d. Mix the water tenderly and consistently. Utilize a similar blending strategy and speed utilized for every single test preliminary. The tablet will start to break down. e. When the Alka-Seltzer tablet is totally broken down in the water, stop the stop watch and record information. 4. Rehash stage 3, five additional time with a similar temperature 5. Rehash stage 3 and 4 for every one of different temperatures. 6. Compute the normal response time, in seconds versus water temperature in degrees Celsius 7. Clarify Results Information: Condition Temperature Response Time (s) Normal Reaction Time (s) Preliminary #1 Preliminary #2 Preliminary #3 Preliminary #4 Preliminary #5 Hot Tap Water 38.0 Â °c 22.85 s 22.3 s 21.11s 22.48 s 23.25 s 22.4 s Cold Tap Water 19.2 Â °c 45.46 s 42.31 s 43.32 s 53.57 s 51.05 s 47.1 s Ice Water 9.8 Â °c 81.98 s 82.93 s 85. 68 s 101.89 s 92.84 s 89.1 s Investigation and Discussion: Through the procedure of this examination, it has indicated that the more blazing the temperature of the water is the quicker the Alka-Seltzer tablet starts to disintegrate in the water. Demonstrating that temperature has an impact on the response time of a trial. As appeared in the information over, The Alka-Seltzer tablet’s rate at dissolving expanded as the water temperature got colder and diminished as the water temperature got more smoking. This hypothesis is dependent on the Kinetic Theory of Matter, which expresses that iotas and atoms are in steady movement and that the higher the temperature around them, the more prominent their speed will be. Or on the other hand as such, expanded warmth vitality will make particles and atoms move quicker. End: My speculation was that the more warmed the water was, the quicker the Alka-Seltzer tablet will break up, and in the wake of testing this. My outcomes do bolster my theory. I discovered that high temp water causes particles to break up quicker because of motor vitality cause by the boiling water atoms crashing into the tablet particles. Demonstrating that the more warmed the water is, the quicker the Alka-Seltzer tablet will break down.