CMIOs of the Future: Getting to the “Second Curve” on Clinical IT Governance | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

CMIOs of the Future: Getting to the “Second Curve” on Clinical IT Governance

October 2, 2014
by Mark Hagland
| Reprints
Pam Arlotto and David Levin, M.D. look at the gaps between needed and actual clinical informaticist leadership

The Roswell, Ga.-based Maestro Strategies consulting firm, which specializes in healthcare IT implementation and strategy, on Sep. 28 released a white paper entitled “From the Playing Field to the Press Box: The Emerging Role of the Chief Health Information Officer.” The full white paper can be read here.

Authored by Pam Arlotto, president and CEO of Maestro Strategies, and with research and assistance by David Levin, M.D., formerly the CMIO at Cleveland Clinic and now a consultant, and several other researcher colleagues, “From the Playing Field to the Press Box” covers a number of important issues. With regard to the white paper’s title, Dr. Levin says in the white paper’s introduction, “The CMIO has to move from the playing field, to the press box… rather than focusing on the technology, we need strategic physician leadership to harvest the value from these systems.” As the authors add, “Today, many CMIOs are so engaged in the game, they fall prey to the ‘fix it now’ problem’ solving approach that served them so well in their clinical practice. Rather, a big-picture, vision-oriented, collaborative approach is required to develop strategy, enable clinical integration and motivate multidisciplinary teams to create and realize new value,” they add.

Among the sections in the white paper are “Leading from the Press Box,” “Time for a Leadership Pivot,” “The Strategic View o the Chief Health Information Officer,” “Key Stages in the State of Play,” “Developing a Game Plan—Moving from 1.0 to 2.0,” “The View from the Press Box—The Urgency of Change,” and a special sidebar titled “The CIO and the CHIO Relationship: Changing the Game.”

Arlotto and Levin speak in the white paper of “first curve” and “second curve” developments, meaning that what is needed fundamentally is for patient care organizations to move forward towards a more strategic approach to clinical informatics and clinical informaticists, a more mature phase beyond the implementation and post-implementation phase for electronic health records (EHRs) and other clinical information systems, but that the development to date of clinical informatics leadership has not kept up with the need for more mature-level professional development.

With regard to all these issues, Pam Arlotto shared with HCI Editor-in-Chief Mark Hagland her perspectives on the current situation and future horizons, upon the release of the white paper. Below are excerpts from that interview.

Can you share with us the origins of this white paper?

Let me give you a little background. We were contracted to do some work with two health systems. They were puzzled, if you will, regarding their current organizational structures and how they were or were not working as they made the transition from volume to value. They were asking about performance of IT, of analytics, of performance improvement efforts, and how that all worked with IT. So we said, let’s go out and look at leadership patterns and really understand what type of leader is needed, as an organization goes from a traditional hospital with some physician practices, to an integrated system taking on risk and developing population health management. Per Ian Morrison’s writing on first curve, second curve, and third curve, we grouped things into 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, in terms of organizational development levels, with 1.0 being organizations that are still very technology-focused around implementing systems. That’s where most organizations have been recently. 2.0 really moves from a focus on technology to a focus on information. And 3.0 shifts to a focus on value. And you really need to shift the type of leadership you need.

Pam Arlotto

And a 1.0 organization is still very fee-for-service-oriented and fragmented; a 2.0-level organization is beginning to integrate and do care and population health management. And a 3.0-level organization is about risk management, population health management, and risk management. The biggest difference between a 2.0-level organization and a 3.0-organization is that the 3.0-level organization is really about integrating informatics and quality improvement; they’re really converging those roles and functions together, and having those leaders collaborating, as opposed to them all being in their silos and functional areas.

And we interviewed CIOs, CMIOs, chief innovation officers, and CMOs, in 40 organizations nationwide. And we found that the higher you go in the changes towards new phases of organizations, the more you need different types of leaders and leadership. And the title of the white paper is, “From the Playing Field to the Press Box: The Emerging Role of the Chief Health Information Officer.” And we kind of used an analogy here. The clinician leaders have traditionally been the quarterbacks out on the field calling the plays. At a 2.0 level, they’re more like coaches who have to step out of the field of the play. And we found a really interesting Harvard Business Review article that said that when an organization or industry is going through revolutionary change, that leaders have to step away from the field of the play and develop a more strategic perspective—to further the sports analogy, they need to do know what the offense is doing, what the defense is doing.


Get the latest information on Health IT and attend other valuable sessions at this two-day Summit providing healthcare leaders with educational content, insightful debate and dialogue on the future of healthcare and technology.

Learn More