Southeast Asia has no shortage of healthcare innovation. Across the region, hospitals and health systems are testing artificial intelligence, remote patient monitoring, automation, virtual care and other digital health technologies.
The harder challenge is what happens next.
A technology may demonstrate impressive results in a controlled pilot but still struggle to become part of routine care. Integration with existing systems, clinician adoption, sustainable funding, governance, workforce readiness and the realities of day-to-day healthcare delivery can determine whether an innovation scales or remains another isolated project.
Dr Kamonlawan Chomchopbun, Manager, Healthcare & Life Sciences at KPMG in Singapore; Dr May-Anne Cheong, Director of the Alice Lee Innovation Centre of Excellence (A.L.I.C.E.) at SingHealth; and Lars Wismer, Managing Director of Messe Düsseldorf Asia, offer complementary perspectives on what it takes to move healthcare technology from promising pilots into everyday practice.
Why do so many healthcare technology pilots across Southeast Asia struggle to move into routine care even after showing promising results?
Dr Kamonlawan Chomchopbun, KPMG in Singapore:
Many pilots are designed to demonstrate that a technology works, but not whether it can be integrated and scaled within real-world healthcare delivery.
In recent years, Southeast Asia has seen a surge in digital health and MedTech pilots, from AI-powered diagnostic tools and virtual care platforms to remote patient monitoring solutions and digital front-door applications. Many of these initiatives have been supported by governments, healthcare providers and technology partners.
While this has accelerated innovation, it can also create what I describe as “pilot debt”: an expanding portfolio of disconnected technologies without a clear pathway to integration or scale.
For example, patient scheduling, care management and financial administration may operate on separate platforms, resulting in fragmented user experiences and operational complexity.
A successful pilot may demonstrate that a technology can address a specific problem in isolation. However, it provides less certainty on whether the solution can be integrated into existing workflows, systems and funding models.
The next priority for healthcare is therefore not to simply introduce more innovation, but to establish the conditions required to integrate and scale it effectively.
What are the biggest barriers following a successful pilot: procurement, funding, infrastructure, workflow redesign, technical support or workforce readiness?
Dr Kamonlawan Chomchopbun:
The barriers exist at multiple levels and are often interconnected.
At the technology level, key challenges include quality, availability and interoperability of the underlying data.
In some cases, there may be insufficient local data to train or validate solutions, particularly for clinical decision-support tools. In others, data exists but remains fragmented across electronic medical records, laboratory systems, imaging systems and other legacy platforms, making interoperability difficult.
At the organisational level, one of the biggest challenges is adoption.
A technology may perform as intended, but clinicians and patients ultimately determine whether it becomes part of routine care. Trust, workflow disruption, perceived usefulness, affordability and ease of use often have as much influence on adoption as technical performance.
At the system level, leaders face difficult resource-allocation decisions. Every investment in technology competes against workforce constraints, infrastructure requirements and pressing service delivery needs.
The challenge is rarely attributable to a single barrier. Successful implementation depends on the readiness of the technology, its users and the broader health system to progress together.
Dr May-Anne Cheong, SingHealth A.L.I.C.E.:
From a healthcare organisation point of view, we find that the most persistent barrier is one that is also often the most fundamental — integrating a new technology seamlessly into day-to-day care delivery.
Healthcare workflows, especially in large organisations, are complex. If a new technology requires healthcare professionals to take additional steps, integrate information across multiple systems, or change a well-established process, that can become a barrier to adoption even if the technology works very well on its own.
A good pilot also addresses what happens after implementation. Who supports the technology? How will the organisation train new users? How do healthcare professionals monitor whether the solution is performing as expected?
These questions, about clinical value, workflow, infrastructure, people and sustainability, are not separate considerations. They need to be worked through together, and ideally before the pilot begins.
How can healthcare organisations avoid “pilot debt” and decide earlier which technologies are worth scaling?
Dr Kamonlawan Chomchopbun:
Healthcare organisations should consider the requirements for scale from the outset, rather than treating scaling as a decision to be made only after a pilot has concluded.
Before launching a pilot, leaders should define what success looks like, identify the users whose adoption will be critical and determine how the solution could be funded and sustained beyond the pilot phase.
A remote patient monitoring solution, for example, may perform successfully when tested with a small group of physicians. However, scaling the solution may raise broader questions about workflow design, clinical accountability, governance and responsibility for monitoring and responding to patient alerts.
These considerations should be addressed during the design of the pilot, rather than after it has demonstrated initial success.
The technologies most suitable for scaling are not necessarily those with the most advanced technical capabilities. They are those that can be integrated into existing workflows, earn users’ trust and remain sustainable beyond the pilot period.
A pilot should therefore be designed as the first stage of a broader scaling programme, rather than as a standalone innovation exercise.
Dr May-Anne Cheong:
One of the key starting points I feel organisations should think about is the problem that the technology is trying to solve, rather than focusing solely on the capabilities.
Putting the problem at the centre enables organisations to develop possible solutions that are not only technically promising, but more importantly, can make a meaningful difference in practice and in turn, benefit patients.
Before starting a pilot, organisations should also be clear about what success should look like. What are the desired outcomes and what areas are we trying to improve? What would make the pilot continue to the next stage of development? And equally importantly, what would cause it to be terminated?
A clear and thorough understanding of the problem they are trying to solve will help innovators define clear metrics on what their solution is intended to achieve, whether it is patient safety, clinical outcomes, access, efficiency or the experience of patients and healthcare professionals.
A good pilot should therefore help organisations make decisions based on clear, defined metrics, whether to scale, refine or stop.
Not every pilot needs to become a scaled solution. Ending a pilot can also be a useful outcome. It means the organisation has learnt something early and can focus its time and resources on solutions that have greater potential to make a difference.
What should hospitals measure during a pilot to determine whether a technology can deliver meaningful clinical and operational value at scale?
Dr Kamonlawan Chomchopbun:
A pilot should assess not only whether a technology works, but whether it can be implemented sustainably at scale.
Clinical outcomes remain important, but healthcare organisations should also measure adoption rates, workflow impact, patient experience and operational sustainability.
In a remote patient monitoring pilot, for example, reduced hospital readmissions may be one indicator of success.
Organisations should also assess whether clinicians can manage patient alerts within existing workflows, whether patients remain engaged over time and whether accountability for follow-up care is clearly defined.
The strongest pilots demonstrate not only the effectiveness of the technology, but also the viability of the operating model required to support it.
Dr May-Anne Cheong:
From our experience, there are a few dimensions that matter.
The first is clinical impact. Does the technology actually improve the outcomes it was designed to address, whether that is patient safety, diagnostic accuracy, care efficiency or patient experience? These should be defined before the pilot begins.
The second is operational compatibility. A technology may perform well in a controlled setting but create friction at scale, thereby requiring additional manpower, increasing workload for existing staff, or failing to integrate with existing systems.
Pilots should be designed to surface these issues early, ideally in an environment with a sufficiently large and representative patient population.
The third is sustainability. Who maintains the technology after the ‘go-live’ stage? How are new users trained? How will the organisation know if performance degrades over time?
A pilot that cannot answer these questions has not yet demonstrated that it is ready to be scaled.
The best solutions are the ones that have been shaped by real clinical insights, tested in real care environments, and refined through meaningful conversations between the people who understand the technology and the people who deliver care on the ground.
Often, the successful solutions are the result of a strong partnership. Healthcare professionals contribute clinical expertise, real-world insights and an understanding of patient and care needs, while industry partners and tech teams bring the technology, technical capabilities and the ability to develop and refine solutions.
This forms a close, sustained partnership with the goal of bringing benefits to the patient at the centre.
Our team at A.L.I.C.E. works to provide a conducive environment for innovators looking to assess the potential value of their solution.
As part of the SingHealth cluster spanning acute care, primary care, community care and research across more than 40 clinical specialties, we offer partners access to a rich ecosystem of clinical expertise, research capabilities and diverse care settings, backed by a large patient base that reflects the full breadth of Singapore's population.
Many groundbreaking solutions have been developed, tested and validated in our real-world care environments, aided by the frontline insight of our healthcare professionals.
One example is SCREENii, a screening device that detects prefrailty, probable sarcopenia, fall risk and rehabilitation progress in seniors, developed by a team of clinician-innovators at Singapore General Hospital.
A.L.I.C.E. supported the team through its innovation journey from pilot to commercialisation, connecting them with industry partners to work together towards commercial licensing.
SCREENii is an example of how a promising solution was brought into real-world healthcare use through the alignment of clinical expertise, innovation capabilities and the right industry partner.
How do implementation challenges differ across Southeast Asia, and where is Singapore particularly well positioned to lead?
Dr Kamonlawan Chomchopbun:
Southeast Asia should not be viewed as a single, uniform healthcare market.
Every country has distinct regulatory requirements, reimbursement models, healthcare priorities and levels of digital maturity.
While ASEAN has population scale, healthcare solutions may not necessarily be deployed across the region using a single operating or commercial model.
Organisations may require country-specific business cases, partnerships and implementation approaches before achieving meaningful adoption.
Singapore is well positioned to contribute to this development through its strong digital infrastructure, supportive innovation ecosystem and close collaboration among healthcare providers, government agencies, industry and academia.
However, healthcare innovation should not be viewed as a one-way transfer of knowledge.
Singapore can also draw important lessons from neighbouring markets that have developed effective approaches to delivering care across geographically dispersed and resource-constrained populations.
Lars Wismer, Messe Düsseldorf Asia:
Southeast Asia is a very diverse region. Healthcare systems differ in infrastructure, investment, workforce capacity, regulation and how care is delivered.
A technology that works well in one market may therefore need to be adapted considerably to work in another.
Singapore is well positioned to help bridge the gap between innovation and implementation.
It has strong healthcare institutions, digital infrastructure and an environment where new technologies can be developed, tested and put into practice.
The opportunity is to demonstrate what successful implementation can look like here, generate evidence and experience from real-world use, and then adapt those learnings to the needs of different markets across Southeast Asia.
As AI, automation and digital health adoption grows, what do healthcare systems need to build now to move from the planning and development phase towards everyday use?
Dr Kamonlawan Chomchopbun:
The priority is to build the institutional capabilities required to scale technology.
Most healthcare leaders recognise the potential of AI and the importance of accessible, high-quality data.
The next challenge is to establish the governance frameworks, workforce capabilities, accountability structures and implementation disciplines required to integrate these technologies into everyday care.
This includes ensuring that responsibilities are clearly defined, healthcare professionals are equipped to use the technology effectively and implementation decisions remain aligned with clinical and operational priorities.
Technology creates the potential for transformation. Healthcare systems must build the conditions to translate that potential into sustainable value.
Dr May-Anne Cheong:
Technology is advancing very quickly, and the ability of healthcare systems to adapt and adopt the use of these technologies in the healthcare space must also advance in unison.
Beyond the technology, healthcare systems need to build capabilities across several areas, for example, developing an AI-ready workforce, strengthening data and digital infrastructure, embedding innovations into clinical workflows, establishing robust governance and evaluation frameworks, and creating clear pathways to scale successful solutions.
Importantly, I feel the deeper shift that is needed is cultural and organisational.
The rapid advancement of technology is a critical opportunity for us all to rethink systems and processes so that they are more resilient to future needs.
This requires not just adopting new tools, but fundamentally thinking of new ways to enhance healthcare delivery and reimagine what that can look like.
Lars Wismer:
Healthcare systems need to consider implementation from the beginning.
That means understanding the real need a technology is solving, how it will fit into existing workflows, whether the workforce is ready to use it, and what is required to support it over the long term.
We also need stronger connections across the healthcare system.
Healthcare providers, policymakers, researchers, technology developers and industry each bring a different perspective, and they need opportunities to exchange knowledge, understand each other’s challenges and build partnerships.
Bringing these groups together earlier can help ensure technologies are designed around real needs and have a clearer path into practice.
That is how we can move more promising technologies beyond pilots and into everyday care.
