Proton Therapy’s biggest problem is lack of transparency.

The central issue is one of communication. How do you communicate your expertise to someone who possesses a different type of expertise? How to avoid spending large amount of resources on trying to learn to speak a (technical or clinical) language that is not your own, on writing a contract that should catch all, on “staying on top of things” when you really don’t have much of a clue?

To effectively communicate expertise you should avoid the use of details. The other party simply won’t understand them. Vendors should also avoid the use of marketing. Catchy slogans will be matched by those of competitors, and the relevance to the prospective customer generally remains unclear.

What does an initiative try to achieve, what expertise do they have which is essential to take into account, in what circumstances are they trying to provide proton therapy capacity?

What are the vendor’s services and solutions which are important to the initiative, based on what performances can this be made clear, how will they achieve what the initiative need, how can the initiative tell things are going according to plan?

Transparency is also needed so it becomes clear who is accountable for what. To identify the risks which need to be managed. To avoid frequent meetings, micro-management, and long lists of requirements flowing into legal contracts.

Transparency is essential in minimising risk. It allows for the utilisation of available expertise. It makes everything cheaper, quicker, and generally more fun. For Trees with Character transparency is key. It is how we will help you.

 

***

If you found this to be of interest perhaps you may want to read the following original contributions: Solutions in proton therapy — for initiatives (a report), Procuring proton therapy equipment (a case) and A Business Case for a proton therapy initiative (a case).

Back to all explanations Message me about this explanation
This is how we make proton therapy a success

Proton therapy technology is the least of your worries.

There is too much risk in the field of proton therapy, but the problem is not the technology. Focussing on technology often results in underestimating the real challenges. Challenges a vendor may help you with.

Read more

Independent consultancy made the difference for us.

Proton therapy vendors have a lot of expertise and a need to sell equipment. They may not protest when unrealistic assumptions are made. Some consultants combine great expertise with ties to a vendor. Independent consultancy can make a difference.

Read more

You can start to minimise risk in proton therapy today.

A decision is a conclusion reached after careful consideration. If you have to think it means something is not transparent. Each decision increases risk. Risk is minimised by unambiguous aims and access to expertise. You find it here.

Read more

Patient selection and patient referral are pivotal.

Many proton therapy centers struggle because of unrealistic projections of patients being treated. But even when making a realistic projection, the challenges of patient selection and referral remain.

Read more
All explanations >
Patient selection and patient referral are pivotal.

Many proton therapy centers struggle because of an unrealistic projection of the number of patients that will be treated. In the past, and even in the present, the number of patients projected to be treated was simply the number that was required to make the business case look good. Today we know that the most successful centers treat, on average, no more than 300 patients per treatment room. But to achieve even this number takes great effort. There is the challenge of identifying the patients who will benefit from proton therapy, and there is the challenge of getting these people referred to the center.

Read more
Don’t buy equipment, identify the right vendor.

Initiatives who want to provide proton therapy treatments — often hospital organisations — are confronted with very complex and very capital intensive equipment they have never procured before. A proton therapy project is perceived as a major risk, and rightly so. Too many centers have failed or are failing. The risk lies not with the equipment, however. All vendors build reliable machinery delivering identical protons. Not all vendors, however, provide the same expertise and solutions. Initiatives should not focus on technology, but on identifying the vendor who is best able to meet their particular challenges.

Read more
You can start to minimise risk in proton therapy today.

A decision is a conclusion reached after careful consideration. If you have to think about something it means this something is not transparent. If you take a decision when something is not transparent risk increases. This risk is minimised by unambiguous aims and access to expertise. What is it that you need to achieve? Who is the expert that will help you achieve it? Trees with Character helps with both.

Read more
Proton therapy technology is the least of your worries.

Cyclotrons and synchrotrons alike are built to last for decades — as is shown by the early proton therapy centers who became operational in the previous millennium. To this day, however, the complexity of the equipment often is an initiative’s biggest concern and many resources are spent on trying to understand it. Meanwhile none of the proton therapy centers who failed failed because of the technology. There are other, much more relevant issues and challenges to be considered.

Read more
Independent consultancy made the difference for us.

Proton therapy vendors have a lot of expertise. They also need to sell their equipment and associated services and may not point out which of an initiative’s assumptions are unrealistic. Some consultants possess great expertise — as well as an agreement with a vendor. Independent consultancy can make a difference. Independent consultancy means that the only interest to consider is your interest. Trees with Character will help you to make the right choices.

Read more
Proton Therapy’s biggest problem is lack of transparency.

Initiatives don’t share their overall aims, vendors focus on technology. Everybody is blind to the other side’s needs and capabilities. Without transparency everything is a risk. Everybody is looking for safety and control. Many resources are spent on inspections, on meetings, on the contract. But there is another way.

Read more