ServicesStrategy

Growth Plan for a Center of Health Professionals

Problem

A center of health professionals nearly doubled its demand in seven months, but its decisions still followed the informal rhythm of a team of three.

Solution

A governance model with decision rules, owners and deadlines, and a six-front plan to grow by using existing capacity first.

Dual Intervention

We identified six structural tension points and designed the governance model, decision thresholds and a phased roadmap.

84%

income growth that the structure had to absorb

1 month

of governance and structure design

Over seven months, the center's income grew 84% and its active patients nearly doubled. The team linked to the center went from three partners to about ten people. The rules for making decisions remained those of a team of three. Growth was easy. Governing it was not.

The challenge

The center brought health professionals together in a shared space. The three partners decided by consensus in a one-hour weekly meeting and kept written minutes, which is uncommon in organizations of their size. But agreements had no owner and no date. Several approved decisions, some of them budgeted, were postponed because no one took them on individually. A single room concentrated almost half of the care hours. Administrative coordination remained part-time.

What we did

We started from a 55-dimension diagnostic, in which organizational scalability scored 2.3 out of 5 and the organization chart, 1.3. Using data on occupancy, income and workload, we identified six tension points: use of space, continuity during absences, capacity ceiling, administrative coordination, shared calendar and physical expansion. For each we designed a response and a measurable threshold. In parallel, we designed a basic governance model: roles, a responsibility matrix, and rules for consensus, majority and escalation.

What we identified

Decisions without an owner: the problem was not deciding badly. Agreements did not become tasks with a name and a date. Governance scored 1.7 out of 5.
Poorly distributed capacity: one room averaged 70% occupancy; the others, about 30%. The free hours exceeded those a new space would add.
Growth without a threshold: the capacity margins declared mid-year were used up within a few months, and hires followed circumstance, not agreed criteria.
Lagging administration: the team nearly tripled while the administrative role stayed at half time.

Results

This case corresponds to the diagnostic and design phase. Implementation is the client's decision.

Six fronts with a response: each tension point has a measure, a threshold and an indicator.
Written decision rules: consensus as the base, majority as backup. Every joint decision closes with an owner and a date.
A threshold for growth: occupancy above 80% for two months opens the conversation about new hires.
No additional time: the model fits within the same one-hour weekly meeting.