Benchmarking - a different idea

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

George Cooper — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:05:43 GMT

[quote user="Ian Mostyn"]

So are you saying this was all a wind-up?

[/quote] Certainly not. I've probably never been more serious - and especially after ploughing through all the previous responses to my original post. Isn't there a saying - something about nowt as blind as them that WON'T see..... However, I'm not the slightest surprised. And when I'm properly awake tomorrow with a head emptied of Pink Floyd I will attempt to do as JGW requests, and pad it all out a bit (not that it should need padding) for those not grasping the intent. G

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

Ian Mostyn — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:13:25 GMT

So are you saying this was all a wind-up?

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

J G Wray — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 23:58:09 GMT

Ahem! (clearing throat)

Can I just point out that George ain't no fool, that he's been around the block a few times, that he's thought of all this stuff put up as objection, put all his money where his mouth is in the recent past, been thoroughly tossed around by life in general (not in a good way) and come up with a simple proposition. We should listen here.

George, please expand your thesis.

JGW

PS Before anyone thinks I actually like or respect George, you should know he's a folkie and I could never like or respect a folkie.

PPS One of George's folkie folk band members does a regular clinic for us. I don't like him either.

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

Ian Mostyn — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:27:31 GMT

The Pfizer index calculates the annual client spend and the average number of pets per client. Simple maths gives you the value you are looking for. The index also breaks that down into Platinum, Gold, Silver & Bronze clients and their spend per pet.

Ian

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

Gerry Henry — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:57:45 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="amanda nicholls"]told they won't get priority booking if we are fully booked on a day they want to come in[/quote]

The best way to build an "inactive" list I've ever heard of.

[/quote]

LOL; my thoughs entirely.

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

Anthony Todd — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:22:42 GMT

[quote user="amanda nicholls"]told they won't get priority booking if we are fully booked on a day they want to come in[/quote]

The best way to build an "inactive" list I've ever heard of.

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

Rob Loxley — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:18:18 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"]

Dead easy to calculate and will give a "standard" result no matter how the practice is run.

Am I missing something, and if so, please put me out of my misery!

[/quote]

Surely it tells you little about how productive the practice is per vet employed, and that's what you really care about? It may tell you that you run a budget vets or have lots of affluent clients, but the budget vets doing 5 minute consults all day may be more profitable per vet than the practice spending long times with a smaller number of high spending clients, and the PPP doesn't tell you this?

How would you use PPP to improve/change things?

Is it difficult to add up part-timers' hours to come to a FTE number?

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

Tim Mainland — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:01:48 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"]

This post is prompted by Arlo's email regarding Pfizer and their analysis of practice. When I read it it just looked like the same stuff yet again - and none of it actually seems to help owners make those critical decisions to improve things. My own view is that this arises from the sheer variety of basic information, especially now that the profession is manned by such a high percentage of part time staff. It creates an almost impossible task when looking at the famous FTE (Full Time Equivalent) veterinary surgeon.

We all run our businesses in different ways, some taking the view that they would prefer more VS so that everyone has a chance to enjoy a better work/life outcome. Others wish to cut staff to the bone and work like the devil himself to create the greatest profit margin imaginable.

So - here's Cooper's idea. Regardless of how we as individuals choose to run our practice, the one common denominator is that we treat pets. Therefore I propose a new benchmark - that of Profit Per Pet, or PPP for short. Dead easy to calculate and will give a "standard" result no matter how the practice is run.

Am I missing something, and if so, please put me out of my misery!

George

[/quote] Yes it's a benchmark, or parameter, George. But like all single parameters, it only gives one view. The follow up question being "how many active pets are in the practice's database"? Why is it better than profit per client? That has consistency too. Sorry but I'm stll a fan of total net profit, and net profit per FTE.

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

Amanda Nicholls — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:27:58 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

Seen in the last 12 months for example.

[/quote]

Newish practice (approaching 2 years), any pet not seen in the last 12 months gets a reminder for an annual health check and if the owner declines the pet is moved to our inactive list and they are told they won't get priority booking if we are fully booked on a day they want to come in. It makes it easier to keep an eye on business growth and keeps the bank manager happy when looking at our figures!

Re: Benchmarking - a different idea

Mark Holmes — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:22:03 GMT

It seems a daft question but what would constitue a pet? For example, a practioce might have an awful lot of dormant pets registered but not seen for a number of years. A newish practice with a low number of inactive patients would have an artificially high PPP and an old practice with lots would have a PPP artificially low. You wuld need to define an active pet . Seen in the last 12 months for example.