Should Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation prioritize expanding its Global Burden of Disease Study to cover more countries or focus on increasing the depth of data for existing countries?

Introduction

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) faces a critical trade-off: expanding the Global Burden of Disease Study to cover more countries or increasing the depth of data for existing countries. This decision will significantly impact global health research and policy-making. I'll analyze this trade-off by examining the product context, stakeholders, metrics, and potential outcomes to provide a strategic recommendation.

Step 1

Clarifying Questions (3 minutes)

• Context: I'm thinking the Global Burden of Disease Study is a flagship product for IHME. Could you provide more context on its current coverage and depth?

Why it matters: Helps understand the baseline and potential for improvement Expected answer: Covers 195 countries with varying depth Impact on approach: Would inform the potential scale of expansion vs. deepening

• Business Context: Based on IHME's mission, I assume the primary goal is to improve global health outcomes. How does this align with any funding or partnership considerations?

Why it matters: Helps prioritize solution against strategic objectives Expected answer: Balanced approach needed to satisfy both research goals and funding requirements Impact on approach: Would influence the balance between expansion and depth

• User Impact: I'm thinking there are multiple user groups for this data. Can you clarify the primary users and their specific needs?

Why it matters: Ensures the solution addresses key stakeholder requirements Expected answer: Researchers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals with varying data needs Impact on approach: Would guide the decision between breadth and depth based on user priorities

• Technical Feasibility: Considering data collection methods, are there significant differences in the challenges of expanding vs. deepening?

Why it matters: Assesses the practical implications of each option Expected answer: Expansion faces more logistical challenges, while deepening requires more intensive methods Impact on approach: Would influence resource allocation and timeline considerations

• Resource Constraints: What are the current limitations in terms of budget, personnel, and data collection capabilities?

Why it matters: Determines the feasibility of different approaches Expected answer: Limited resources with potential for targeted expansion Impact on approach: Would help prioritize between expansion and depth based on available resources