For Wellbeing Leaders of Large Tech Companies:
Go from one-size-fits-all wellbeing programmes with poor utilization to personalised and preventative lifestyle health experiences. At scale and without blowing the budget.
Go from one-size-fits-all wellbeing programmes with poor utilization to personalised and preventative lifestyle health experiences. At scale and without blowing the budget.
The Case for Next Level Wellbeing
The Status Quo is Limited
- Personalised wellbeing can deliver participation superior participation of >80%
- Preventative action and lifestyle change lead to better outcomes
- A 360-degree approach to health has compound benefits
- Personalisation can now be cost-effective and scalable
A Transformation is Required
Who is this for?
Wellbeing Leaders of Tech companies with 3,000+ employees who are looking to maximise wellness programme participation and impact, at scale and cost-effectively.
If you are concerned about your staff’s mental health since the onset of Coronavirus, then you are in the right place.
If you are frustrated and perplexed by the lack of uptake of your wellbeing programmes, this letter is for you.
If you are spending $100,000s on wellness programmes and need to maximise their impact, you will want to read on.
If you are unsure how to deliver personalised wellbeing at scale, then keep on reading.
If you need to personalise your wellbeing programmes but do not have a bottomless budget, you are in the right place.
If you need to drive and maintain an engaged and productive workforce, then read on to understand how.
If you want to deliver the best possible health outcomes to your employees through wellbeing, then this is for you.
The Core Concept
The truth is that you can achieve exceptional, personalised wellbeing by using health surveys, assembling a best-in-class library of lifestyle health programmes and using automated matching technology.
However, as employers, you would need to insource the appropriate medical expertise and would not benefit from economies of scale created by supplying many businesses.
We are the only company dedicated to solving this problem for Tech companies with over 3,000 people.
Before we elaborate on the core concept, here is a a bit of background on who we are and why we started Kalsi & Kalsi.
Dilraj is a Doctor, Academic and Entrepreneur. He trained at the University of Oxford, the top medical school in the world, where he continues to publish with colleagues about Patient Empowerment. He is a Lecturer in Digital Health at the University of Warwick and uses Lifestyle Medicine to help patients reverse disease in his online clinic Hippocrates Lounge.Shocked that 80% of health outcomes are due to health behaviors, socioeconomic background and physical environment, Dilraj is focused on Health at Work. Time and again, he has found that wellbeing programmes lack the outcome metrics expected in the medical and business worlds. Using lifestyle, behavioral and digital health, he is ushering in a new era of Preventative Health Care.
Sukh has donned hats as a Management Consultant, Digital Product Manager and Peak Performance Coach. Educated at the University of Oxford, he thrives in fiercely competitive environments where performance is vital.
He has repeatedly observed that individuals and organisations seek performance at the expense of health. This adversarial perspective is short-termist, focused on hours worked rather than effectiveness and leads to burnout. Tracking his own mental, physical and emotional state, he developed habits which enable him to operate at his peak without sacrificing wellbeing. His core philosophy is that cultivating positive habits aligns health, happiness and performance.
The Pivotal Story
We started this company to help organisations and their people be happier, healthier and more productive. Without a foundation of health, no human being will be their most effective nor will they find satisfaction in life.
A turning point for us was when our mother, Jaspal, was diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in 2015. You may know that autoimmune conditions are typically managed using heavy immuno-suppressant and anti-inflammatory drugs. No cure is offered and the intention is to manage decline. By overhauling mum’s diet and lifestyle, however, her symptoms eased within weeks, without any drugs. After 12 months, all of her blood tests were normal and she was given the all clear. Her doctors claimed that she “never” had RA so this data was not captured in academic literature to inform future interventions.
RA is one of many chronic health conditions which may be adversely impacting individuals in your workforce right now. These people are not as happy, healthy or productive as they could be and want to be. Half of these people will have to give up work entirely in the next 5 years. And yet, a great deal can be done about it.
The 6 Steps to Creating Personalised and Preventative Lifestyle Health Experiences and Achieving Over 80% Participation
Step 1: Understand Employee Needs and Preferences
To understand employee needs and preferences you probably use eithera yearly pulse survey with a handful of wellness questions thrown in or an employee engagement and feedback platform. Pulse surveys cost $100k in consulting fees and 2 months of employee time [estimated $16k-$17k] . Engagement platforms can cost up to $125k in subscription fees but should only require 2 days of employee time per quarter [$3k-$3.5k]. Neither provide enough information to personalise your wellbeing programmes so you have to adopt a trial-and-error approach.
Old OutcomesAs a result, there will be less participation, greater sunk costs on unused programmes and significant lost time.
The better way to do this is to use a third party who can deploy medically-validated quality of life surveys and preference questionnaires on a quarterly basis via an online portal or app. These are immediately available to you, saving $20k of employee time. Medical-grade surveys as in the figure below quantify health status in different domains of mental and physical health, such that you can address the specific needs of individuals and target the most critical domains across your workforce.
New OutcomesTargeting needs in this manner increases participation and business success through increased productivity and reduced turnover.
Figure 1: An Excerpt of Questions from a Medical-Grade Quality of Life Survey
Medical-grade surveys quantify health status in different domains of mental and physical health so that you can target the specific needs of individuals and the most critical domains of your workforce.
The deeper that you understand the needs, the better you can design/select interventions
The: first rule of Design Thinking is to empathise with users to understand their needs, thoughts, emotions and motivations. This is the foundation of designing impactful products and Health & Wellbeing is no different. In fact, the UK National Health Service details a 5-step Health Needs Assessment process that should be used for Population Health management. Applying these principles to Health at Work will allow you to target and address the most pertinent needs of your staff. This saves wasted time and money on designing and procuring programmes that are ineffective or will not be used.
Figure 2: The UK National Health Service 5-step Health Needs Assessment Process for Population Health Management
Crucially, steps 1 and 2 are about identifying your populations and assessing their needs before any solutions are devised or implemented.
Statistics on personalisation in the consumer space increasingly validates that people are significantly more receptive to personalised communications and uptake is greater as a result. 84% of customers say being treated like a person, not a number, is very important to winning their business andconsumers are >2x more likely to view personalised offers as important versus unimportant (Salesforce). Moreover, personalized homepage promotions influenced 85% of consumers to buy (Instapage). This is strong evidence to suggest that the more sophisticated the personalisation of initiatives to fit employee needs, the greater uptake will be. Inversely, general initiatives will be deemed unimportant and ignored.
Step 2: Create a Comprehensive Menu of Best-in-Class Initiatives
Wellness programmes are mostly put together based on what’s on-trend, employee requests (which tend to be from the healthy ones) and participation. The whole process of researching, purchasing and implementing programmes takes up to 6 months, costing $50k in employee time.
Old OutcomesThis leaves you with an array of programmes which do not speak to any specific needs of individuals and with no sense of their potential impact. A menu of irrelevant programmes will have low rates of participation and become sunk costs.
Instead, having detailed the needs and preferences of your employees, you can target and identify the best-in-class initiatives addressing those specific needs. To achieve this at scale, use a third party provider with a database of leading-edge interventions capable of mapping them to individual needs and integrating your existing initiatives in their service.
New OutcomesTheir database will be immediately available and the integration work will take 2 weeks, creating an employee time saving of 22 weeks [$45k-50k]. With a menu which resonates, participation will increase, in turn drive better engagement and productivity.
In order to maximise impact, your menu needs to address many different needs of the employee population
People’s needs and preferences differ wildly. For example, there are at least 46 chronic conditions identified in the WHO’s ICD-10. People with very similar needs might require very different initiatives based on preferences. For example, in a group of type-2 diabetics, some might adhere to a plant-based diet, some might be anemic and consume meat, some may prefer a low-carb diet, some may prefer a fasting-oriented approach. Consequently, in order to personalise to a deep enough level such that all employees choose to participate, your wellbeing menu must be comprehensive enough to address the full variety of needs and preferences in your workforce. Every employee presented with an inadequate menu will be a wasted effort. Consider the example in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Example of a Comparison of 2 ‘Employee’ Scores from a Medical-Grade Survey, Illustrating their Differing Health Needs.
Notice that the two individuals in this example have a similar average score but very different needs. Penny’s poorest score is in ‘Emotional Wellbeing’ while Raheem’s largest issue is in ‘Energy/fatigue’. It is likely that Penny would benefit more from programmes for emotional wellbeing and Raheem more from education on sleep hygiene. Knowledge of how many “Pennys” or “Raheems” or other archetypes there are in your workforce can be used to identify which initiatives are most relevant.
Now consider a different scenario in which both Penny and Raheem’s largest concern is ‘Emotional Wellbeing” but whilst Penny enjoys Meditation, Raheem hates it. For all your “Pennys” you would procure a best-in-class meditation course while for all your “Raheems” you might look for a more active stress management course. Accommodating needs and preferences maximises uptake.
You need to understand and evaluate the level of evidence, efficacy and credibility of initiatives in order to identify best-in-class as well as prevent inclusion of “bad” initiatives
As with any procurement, you need to do your due diligence for all wellbeing activities. You will need to evaluate the evidence of each initiative and its impact. This is particularly important given that there is no standard metric for wellbeing programme efficacy - there will, however, be specific metrics relating to specific needs identified (in step 1). Inclusion of initiatives with weaker outcomes would be wasted expenditure, yielding wasted time and effort for the employee and lower benefits for the business.
For example, some programmes will have excellent participation but little to no impact on health. These are less likely to yield personal benefit longer term but could have social and cultural value. On the other hand, if a programme has low participation but huge impact, then you can educate employees’ with a matching need to raise uptake. A complicating factor is that many programmes do not proactively share their outcome metrics, or only select the good metrics, meaning that a lot of research may be required.
You can see that the top results for all discuss methodology but do not publish actual statistics.
Conducting this research internally can be very costly. Assuming that 1 individual with a medical background would be sufficient, it would cost at least $100k per annum.
The menu needs to be continuously refreshed with the best information available to ensure greatest impact
Since wellbeing is a very dynamic industry, what constitutes best-in-class is always evolving (see the figure below). Your wellbeing portfolio needs to keep up with that pace of change in order to deliver the greatest value to your colleagues and company. To do this internally takes 6 months of employee time [$50k] but it can be done automatically using an expert third party [saving $50k]. Moreover, without a regular refresh, you will be spending on out-of-date programmes and missing out on incremental value add for the health of your employees and company.
Workplace wellbeing developments continue to accelerate at an increasing pace. To maximise impact you need the best-in-class programmes which requires regular portfolio updates.
Leading edge initiatives will not have the level of publicity which established ones do
You will need subject matter expertise to guide you. Take the example below. This paper shows clearly that intermittent fasting can eliminate the need for diabetics to use insulin; however, this information is still not mainstream knowledge as yet. Under the right programme with safe protocols, this can be used to help all the people with diabetes in your workforce; but you need the right information and guidance to get you to such programmes.
Figure 6: Extract from a British Medical Journal Case Report by Dr Jason Fung’s Team demonstrating Reversal of Type-2 Diabetes using Intermittent Fasting
This report demonstrates 3 cases in which therapeutic fasting was successfully used to control the blood sugar of 3 people with poorly-controlled diabetes, such that they no longer required insulin.
Figure 7: Screenshot of Google Search for “Wellness Program”
With over 1.3 billion search results on Google for ‘wellness program’ you would need years and $100,000s to sift through for the most impactful ones internally. Leveraging third party expertise saves you all of this time, cost and complexity.
Step 3: Match Relevant Best-in-Class Interventions to Employee Needs
Wellbeing portfolios are normally just presented to employees in a way that everyone sees every option, but this is limited to benefits matching the most popular rather and individual needs.
Employees are left to cherry pick what they find relevant but since their needs are not entirely met, often they either do not participate or they drop out. Without efforts to raise awareness and internal communications, suitable programmes may never be adopted. This is why it can take up to 3 months of employee time [$25k] for implementation of these programmes.
The personalised approach involves presenting employees with the wellbeing benefits most relevant to their needs with the most relevant suggested and the rest deprioritised (but still accessible). This means that employees can choose the benefits which suit their needs while still having access to the whole menu.
All of their needs are met more quickly and participation will increase because relevant options are presented first. This approach is more efficient and less effort-intensive. This most likely requires a third party solution but would be immediately available, saving $25k of employee time.
Participation is enhanced by offering relevant wellbeing benefits
As detailed previously, 82% of employees would participate more if employers offered more relevant health and wellbeing programmes. Therefore, by matching specific programmes to specific group and individual needs, participation will increase significantly.
Interventions which do not match needs and preferences will not be adopted, saving cost
Every employee does not need to be on every program. Many lifestyle health programmes are affordable and deliverable at scale, meaning that you can pay on a per user basis rather than a huge lump-sum payment with no guarantee of participation.
By utilising a pay per user approach, you save on the cost of programmes that are not adopted.
Combining automated matching with supported decision-making leads to greater employee buy-in, saving time and yielding greater benefit
Shared decision-making is now the gold standard of medical practice. This means supporting individuals to make decisions about their health and care by evaluating the research evidence, clinical experience and the individual’s values. These are the original principles of true Evidence-Based Medicine and they lead to better health outcomes.
Figure 8: Venn Diagram of the 3 Pillars of Evidence-Based Medicine
The annotations highlight that it is possible to automate presentation of research evidence and clinical judgment to individuals who can then make their own personal decisions.
Shared-decision making also improves patient activation, a key measure in determining overall health outcomes. Research shows each point increase in the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) score correlates to a 2% decrease in hospitalisation and 2% increase in medication adherence. This will generate savings on future health claims.
The same principles can, and should, be applied to Wellbeing. This can be optimised through use of technology to automate presentation of the research evidence and clinical judgment, facilitating the individuals to make their health decisions. The impact of supporting decision-making in this way is that employees spend less time as non-participants and a reduced opportunity cost from employees utilising programmes.
An Ecosystem Approach to Personalisation is More Dynamic and Yields Deeper Personalisation than an All-In-One Approach
All-in-one services aim to provide a comprehensive package of support for employees. They are, however, hamstrung by the necessity of duplicating programmes and initiatives which already exist in the marketplace. An integrated ecosystem approach is at least twice as fast in discovering and delivering initiatives because there is no duplication of effort. Moreover, an ecosystem is easily able to incorporate competing programmes and operate as an ‘internal marketplace’ because it is not biased towards the success of a particular initiative in which it has invested - it is more agile. The alignment of incentives in the ecosystem approach are truly aligned to prioritise participation and outcomes, leading to a better range of programmes and higher level of participation.
Figure 9: Comparison of All-in-one Employee Assistance Platforms vs Integrative Wellbeing Ecosystems
|All-In-One Employee Assistance Platform||Integrative Wellbeing Ecosystem|
Replicate and deliver best-in-class programmes similar to those which already exist in the marketplace
Provide access to best-in-class programmes already delivering impact and drive adoption
|Resource required||High: Programmes must be replicated and delivered||Low: Programme already exists|
|Speed||Slow (half-speed): Programme (similar to those in the market) must be created||Very Fast (double-speed): Programme only needs to be integrated|
|Agility||Very Low: Due to sunk cost of creating own programmes||High: Zero cost to adding or replacing competing initiatives|
|Breadth of programmes||Constrained: by resources available to provider||Wide: Only limited by desire to include a programme and maintain quality|
|Level of personalisation||Low-Medium:Initiatives can be personalised based on employee needs but option-set is limited||High:Breadth of programmes enables deep personalisation to needs and preferences of employee|
Step 4: Support Employees to Select Best Intervention(s) from Personalised List
Employers mostly give employees a portal to access their wellbeing benefits with no direct or personal encouragement to select relevant programmes.
It makes sense then, that participation is hit-or-miss due to a lack of relevance. To correct for this, internal communications and education is required which takes up as much as 6 months of employee time [$50k]. Initial setup of a portal like this would take 3 months, costing ~$75k.
Instead, employees should be supported to set personal health and wellbeing goals and given personalised options and prompting. In this way, they are much more conscious of their needs and the importance of health and therefore more thoroughly evaluate and buy into their wellbeing programme options and recommendations.
Employees are motivated and decisive, leading to maximum participation in the shortest time frame, without the burden of extraneous communications and education [saving $50k].
Facilitating goal-setting increases the likelihood of selection
Goals serve a psychological role which propels motivation, focus and execution. As such, they should be cultivated. In fact, studies show that writing down goals increase success rates by 33%. Using technology to deliver goal-setting exercises facilitates this at scale, saving on the 6 months of employee time [$50k] normally dedicated to increased participation.
Figure 10: Excerpt from Michigan State University article, “Achieving your goals: An evidence-based approach”
Note that the study shows an impressive success rate of 76% for the cohort which wrote down their goals and actions compared with only 43% in the group which did not . Since participation is a weaker standard than, and a prerequisite for, success, we can reasonably expect that Wellbeing Programme participation levels will be greater than 76% when employees have clarified their health goals.
Step 5: Support Employee Execution by Tracking Adherence & Progress/Outcomes
Wellness tracking is currently limited to participation from the employer perspective and FitBit (or similar) data from the employee side.
This analysis takes a month of employee time [$8k-$9k] but leaves employers unaware of the real impact of wellbeing programmes and employees unaware of their own levels of participation and progress towards their health goals. Without this awareness, motivation can peter out, programme impact will be weaker and participation will be negatively impacted.
The contemporary approach is to track participation in greater detail (including actions taken and habits formed) as well as health outcomes with regular prompts. This enables employers to understand the impact of programmes and employees to track their own progress towards their health goals, amplifying their motivation levels. This aligns employers and employees in a virtuous cycle.
In this scenario, awareness drives motivation leading to high engagement and better health outcomes. Third party expertise will offer the most streamlined version of this approach, providing immediate access to tracked data that is regularly updated and saving ~$9k of employee time.
Tracking of relevant metrics creates awareness but tracking irrelevant metrics will do nothing. Awareness drives adherence and habit formation (whilst generating useful data).
What we measure, we improve. This applies in life as in work.
Figure 11: A study presented at the American Heart Association tracking 1,042 adults over a year
People who weighed themselves once a week or less did not lose weight, while people who weighed themselves six or seven times a week averaged a 1.7 percent weight loss. Notice how the groups who weighed themselves more often had a greater and sustained loss of weight. This demonstrates that measurement underpins progress and so we need a similar approach to performance.
Tracking an employee’s actions taken within a programme towards their goals and feeding this back to them will generate awareness of their level of input. Tracking key outcomes with respect to the employee’s goal creates awareness of progress - the individual can discern whether their effort is yielding results and choose whether to increase or maintain (or even decrease) their level of effort. Despite the obvious relationship between data, awareness and iteration, this process is often not deployed, or deployed poorly.
If the outcomes being tracked are unrelated to an individuals’ goals, then they will pay no attention to them. If the inputs being tracked have no impact on the individuals goals, then the individual will become frustrated due to a lack of progress and lose interest in the activities. Relevance is a necessary condition. Leveraging third-party technology here allows for real-time data collection and automated analysis, saving on up to 2 months employee time [$15k-$20k] for analytics and maximising output from the wellness programmes procured.
Monitoring of outcomes enables impact measurement for programmes (on individual health, workforce metrics and business metrics)
Tracking data on actions and outcomes for individuals enables impact analysis at the individual level.
Figure 12: Excerpt from blog by Duncan Gans on Correlations Between His Productivity and Various Activities
This data is for an individual and shows evidence of some correlation and that the author adds some commentary on thepossiblemechanism for how meditation is supportive to their overall productivity. Tracking gives employees the ability to generate their own insights.
Tracking this data at the individual level enables health and wellbeing impact analysis at the cohort level.
Figure 13: Change in Health Metrics for 3 Employee Cohorts Participating in Different Wellbeing Programmes, Illustrative Example
In this example, WellRight is a clear winner across most health metrics. WellSteps is marginally better for ‘general health’ and ‘social functioning’. Comparison of different cohorts and trends in their outcomes yields powerful insights.
Furthermore, this data can be overlaid and correlated with business outcomes (in terms of individual, team and company performance), to understand the impact of health and wellbeing on the business and estimate return on investment. Whilst this would be time-consuming and costly to do internally, using third party technology here saves 2 months of employee time [$15-$20k] doing analytics.
Step 6: Rinse & Repeat
Most wellbeing portfolios undergo annual reviews of their limited set of programmes based on trends, peer activities, employee feedback/suggestions and vendor-provided stats. Programmes with poor feedback are removed, programmes with high demand are added and the rest are retained.
All of this leads to a slow evolution of the portfolio, while many employee needs are unmet. There is a lack of flexibility to add new potentially invaluable programmes and a propensity for bias towards providing for employees who ‘shout the loudest’ and likely already take good care of their health. Inevitably, as there is no detailed data on health outcomes, ineffective programmes will be retained. As only programmes with high participation are retained, programmes with few participants but high impact may be removed. This approach does yield slow improvement but on average participation in wellbeing programmes is still only 24% despite taking up 6 months of employee time per year [$50k].
The modern approach needs to involve continuous improvement as summarised by the US CDC Workplace Health model as below. This involves having a comprehensive portfolio of programmes addressing general and specific employee needs with the additional detailed monitoring of health outcomes. Programmes with poor participation and health outcomes are removed, programmes with great potential to address unmet needs are added and programmes with strong participation and impact are retained.
This method creates a wellbeing portfolio that is dynamic and constantly evolving as per employee needs. Data is gathered from many sources and is well-structured, enabling efficient trimming of ineffective programmes, easy piloting of new ones and continuous systematic evaluation of programme impact that is free from bias. Third parties are most well-versed with this approach and can leverage shared learnings across employers. With all the relevant data immediately available, the yearly portfolio update only requires 2-4 weeks of employee time [$4.5k-$8.5k], generating $40k-$45k in saved employee time. Overall, this approach leads to continuous improvement of participation, health outcomes and business outcomes including engagement and productivity.
Figure 14: The US CDC Workplace Health Model
This model demonstrates the importance of needs assessment, planning & management, implementation and evaluation, all of which can be streamlined by using third party technologies.
Data on programme selection, adherence and outcomes is essential in improving the portfolio
Data analysis yields actionable insight. The mechanism of using medical-surveys and health goals to encourage participation doubles up as an assessment of impact. Combined datasets allow you to see the relative impact of each programme on employee health. Next, by factoring in business metrics, you can evaluate which programmes benefit the company most. Accordingly, you can tweak investment decisions, or educate and encourage employees to favour certain programmes over others.
In this manner, you are continuously optimising your wellbeing portfolio for employee health and business success. The outcome is that ROI is maximised in terms of engagement, productivity, absenteeism and turnover. Each cycle will reduce wastage and improve outcomes.
Using third party technologies will enable you to achieve this without needing the 6 months of employee time [$50k] it would eat up to carry out these tasks. See figure 14 above comparing programme impact as an example.
Benefits & Outcomes
To reiterate, if you are a Wellbeing Leader who wants to protect your employees’ health throughout and beyond COVID, but are struggling with participation, our service is for you.
Here is what will happen when you work with us:
- You will give employees the wellness they need and want.
- You will maximise participation in your wellbeing programmes in 8 weeks or less.
- You will help employees extract the most value out of your wellbeing initiatives.
- You will keep your workforce healthy through the pandemic.
- You will know the true impact of your wellbeing initiatives.
- You will achieve extraordinary outcomes for them inspiring loyalty and up to 21% more productivity.
- You will reduce staff absenteeism up to 37% and staff turnover up to 65%.
- And you will achieve all of these outcomes while saving >$250k worth of employee time per annum!
Questions & Answers
How long will it take to see results?
Implementation takes up to 8 weeks and increases in participation are expected within that timeframe. Optimisation of your wellbeing portfolio and ROI will be optimised over 12-24 months.
How long are your agreements?
We offer our services on 1-year contracts. Given the nature of the variables we are working with, we cannot make shorter-term agreements.
What if my business is not based in the UK or US?
No problem. We work remotely and can support you wherever you are.
Is this just for tech companies?
No. It is suitable for any large company who is serious about the wellbeing of employees.
How much does it cost?
Our pricing is based on the specifics of your business including your headcount, health & wellbeing budget and operational complexity.
When you jump on a call with us, we can walk you through how we would implement this system in your business and provide a bespoke quote accordingly.
How do I justify investing in this approach?
Check out our business case model to see what achieving 10x ROI looks like. You can tweak the model so that it better applies to your company and see the results.
If anything is unclear, book a call and we’ll walk through the model with you and any colleagues as you like. We are very confident that the business case stacks up.
What if I have less than 3000 employees?
Check out the business case model to calculate your potential benefits. This will give you an idea of how much your business stands to gain from implementing our process.
Next, book a call with us and we can discuss the particulars of implementing our process in your business and how we might be able to make it work.
How do I know that you will be able to deliver?
We have a strong guarantee in place, i.e. If we don’t deliver an increase in participation levels within 12 months, we will give half your money back.
We are highly transparent about our process and our expertise in this document. This material should demonstrate the robustness of our methodology and our ability to deliver. We have a business case model which further substantiates the claims we have made.
What does my wellbeing budget need to be for this to be worthwhile?
Why not see for yourself? Check out our business case model and tailor it to your company specifics. The model will tell you the returns that a business like yours could generate.
Is it only for companies with 3,000+ employees?
It suits larger companies better but can in many circumstances work workforces of 1,000+. Check out our business case model to see your expected benefit.
I don’t believe that you will have >80% participation in any of the initiatives you offer through your platform. How is this going to translate to >80% participation?
We are not claiming that over 80% of your employees will participate in any single initiative. Rather our claim is that more than 80% of your people will be participating in initiatives which are on the integrated platform and therefore part of the overarching Wellbeing Programme.
How long does it take to get set up with personalised recommendations?
This depends on the depth of your wellbeing portfolio but should take no longer than a month in general. The survey is ready to be deployed as soon as the mapping of needs to recommendations is done based on your portfolio and our curated database. If you book a call we can talk more specifically about timelines for your company with a view to putting a project plan together.
My wellbeing programme provider already personalised wellbeing services to employees but my participation is not >80%. Why is this? How is your service different? How will you achieve >80% participation?
For an employee to participate in your Wellbeing Programme or constituent initiatives, the employee needs to be aware of the initiative, the initiative needs to fit their needs, and they need to be sufficiently motivated.
Let’s assume that all employees have a good level of awareness of the programme and its initiatives, so that this is not a barrier. The level of personalisation, however, can vary wildly depending on the depth of understanding of an employee’s needs and the variety of initiatives which the programme incorporates. So a programme might be personalised but not to the required level to be interesting or useful for a given employee. If the programme is sufficiently personalised, then the employee may not be sufficiently motivated. They will need to be coached and empowered to set goals for themselves which foster motivation. Once they are sufficiently motivated, they will then participate.
Our platform excels when it comes to (i) making employees aware of relevant information, (ii) deeply personalising suggested initiatives to employee needs, and (iii) sparking motivation through guided goal-setting exercises. These factors drive superior participation.