If I can add just one more point, we use a term called “continuous improvement” all the time. To me continuous improvement is that if each client did not meet that outcome, there are then grounds for continuous improvement. It should not be based upon a performance measure so much. I don't want to confuse this too much, but performance measures are sometimes called “process measures”. I see a lot in government. I see the time it took for a client to go from A to B. Those are all good, but at the end of the day, you want to know if a client met exactly what they were expecting to meet. The time period becomes part of that performance measure, but that comes in at the back end. It's not your outcome. You're not aiming to deliver a service on time or deliver a service. For sure as an organization you want to do that, but as a client going through you go in there based on the expectation you have of that program. I suspect that the two gentlemen sitting beside me, if they were signing up for a program or signing up for a form, would be thinking, what is this form supposed to do for me? That's their expectation. If the form is to get them pharmacology, if the form is to get them CBT, cognitive behavioural therapy, if the form is to get them psychiatric help, at the end of the day, did they get all of that, and were their needs met? Whether you want to call it an outcome or whether you want to call it a measure against their objective or a goal—everybody has terms—if you forget all and throw the terms aside, it's, at the end of the day, whether the client's expectations were met.
On June 13th, 2016. See this statement in context.