Comparative insight
What other industries reveal about scaling transformation
Healthcare often describes itself as uniquely complex. It is true that clinical work carries a weight of responsibility and uncertainty that few other sectors face. Yet the belief that healthcare’s organisational problems are exceptional has become a barrier to progress. Other industries have confronted similar constraints such as unpredictability, interdependence, safety requirements and scarce resources, and have found ways to scale, learn and adapt far faster than healthcare has ever done.
When one observes those industries closely, the striking thing is not how different they are from healthcare, but how familiar their early challenges seem. Before telecom became global, it wrestled with incompatible architectures and local engineering cultures. Before cloud computing became ubiquitous, each new deployment was a bespoke creation. Before automotive platforms emerged, every model required near total reinvention. Before logistics became a discipline, flow was an art of improvisation. Before China accelerated its innovation clusters, it confronted the same fragmentation, variation and unevenness that characterise many health systems today.
None of these industries advanced through incremental improvement alone. They advanced when they recognised that they were not dealing with a collection of isolated functions, but with systems whose performance depended on the coherence of their underlying architecture.
A lesson from industries that solved complexity
Telecom and high tech: shared architectures as the foundation for scale
Telecom operators understood they could not expand cell tower by cell tower, each built according to local habits. They needed a shared backbone made of standards, interfaces and network logic that allowed rapid deployment, predictable performance and cross-border reliability. High tech followed the same trajectory: modular software stacks, reusable components and interoperable systems. A standardised core with adaptive edges became the formula for speed and resilience.
These industries did not simplify complexity; they organised it. They placed the hardest problems in stable structures, allowing everything else to evolve at high velocity.
Automotive and logistics: modularity as a way of structuring complexity
Automotive manufacturers avoided collapsing under rising technological demands by shifting to platform architectures, the same structural core supporting dozens of variations. Logistics networks did the same with standardised processes, interchangeable units and predictable flows.
The parallel for healthcare is clear. Hospitals can retain clinical nuance while adopting common operational patterns that improve speed, stability and reliability without pre-empting the detailed architectural argument developed in the next article.
China’s innovation clusters: learning at scale
China’s rapid advances in autonomous vehicles and pharmaceuticals highlight another dimension: dense learning loops. Improvements circulate quickly across cities, labs and test environments. In these ecosystems, no deployment is isolated. Each iteration strengthens the entire network.
This is the capability healthcare lacks today: an infrastructure that converts local progress into system wide improvement.
What these sectors learned long before healthcare is that systems scale when they stop treating every problem as new. They scale when they concentrate complexity where it must be stable and allow variation where it is legitimate. They scale when improvement becomes a property of the system rather than a local event.
Why healthcare struggles where others advanced
Healthcare has never made this shift. It remains a sector where each hospital behaves as if it were alone, where each improvement is rebuilt from scratch and where digital systems rarely reflect the logic of care but rather the sediment of past decisions. Even when hospitals improve, the learning rarely spreads. Progress dissolves as quickly as it appears because nothing in the architecture holds it.
Variation, in this environment, becomes inevitable. Length of stay fluctuates wildly with no clinical justification. Theatre utilisation varies between neighbouring organisations despite identical resources. Discharge logic differs not only between regions but between wards. Digital workflows reflect institutional histories rather than systemic coherence. Each hospital believes its context is unique, yet across Europe the patterns repeat almost identically.
What other industries discovered is that variation is not random. It is the natural consequence of systems without a clear backbone.
Toward a different operating logic
A modular architecture does not simplify healthcare; it makes it legible. It provides the shared structures that allow learning to accumulate, improvements to spread, and innovation to find its place. Other industries did not lose flexibility when they adopted modularity. They gained speed, reliability, and the ability to experiment without destabilising the whole.
Healthcare requires the same shift. It must learn to distinguish between what needs to be common, such as the sequencing of decisions, the flow of information, the governance rhythms and the consistency of handoffs, and what must remain locally adaptable. Without this distinction, improvement remains fragile. With it, systems begin to behave like networks rather than collections of institutions.
When healthcare begins to mirror these systems
Working across many hospitals, one begins to see what a healthcare analogue to these industries might look like. Some organisations have begun to adopt repeatable operating models, shared programme structures, and consistent modules of practice. When that happens, improvement in one location strengthens the next, digital tools integrate more naturally, and operational stability stops depending on individual heroics.
The architecture becomes visible in the way teams anticipate readiness, coordinate flow, design discharge, review performance, and use digital infrastructure not as a documentation tool but as a vehicle for coherence. It appears not as a theoretical concept, but as a pattern that emerges when variation is tamed by structure and learning begins to circulate across sites.
The beginning of a new chapter
The point is not that healthcare should imitate telecom or automotive systems. The point is that healthcare faces the same architectural challenge. It must learn to organise itself in a way that allows scale. Other sectors have shown what happens when systems stop treating themselves as a patchwork of local practices and start building from a common backbone. Once they made that shift, everything else such as innovation, digital transformation, productivity gains and reliability began to compound.
Healthcare is at the threshold of the same transition. It can continue to rely on pilots, local redesigns and heroic effort, or it can build the architectural foundation that allows improvement to persist. The next article in this series, “The operating architecture health systems have been missing,” explores what that foundation looks like and how such an architecture can give health systems the stability, adaptability and learning capacity they have lacked for decades.
Related insights:
Connect with one of our experts
We are a team of experienced and highly trained experts who help providers reach their healthcare delivery goals. If you think we can help you, reach out to one of our advisors today for more information on what the Integrated Health Solutions team can do for your hospital.