Mijares Group

Research, modeling and operating standards

Evidence before advice. Including when the evidence says no.

Take a problem. Go to the primary literature, not the summary of it. Build the model from the best data available, public where that lets you check it yourself. Validate it against something independent, and say where it fails. The sector changes. The standard of proof does not.

The group

Three lines of work, one standard of proof.

Analytics answers where to put it and whether the economics hold. Advisory answers how it runs once it is there. Learning builds instruction from what the research actually supports. Different problems, different sectors, sold separately, and built on the same rule: name the source or do not make the claim.

Division

Mijares Group Analytics

Demand, unit economics, competitive position and where the money is actually going. Whether an expansion pays, what a site has to do to clear its cost, and which costs are structural rather than habit. Current product: Meridian.

  • 104 air medical bases mapped across seven states
  • 565 counties scored for demand, payer mix and access
  • Break-even model validated against an independent actuarial study
Division

Mijares Group Advisory

Organizational transformation on current best practice: culture, workforce and management development, written standards with a KPI against each one, and the change work that gets them adopted. Current product: the Pillars of Excellence playbook.

  • Culture, workforce and management development
  • Operating standards, each with its evidence and a measure
  • Take-up measured rather than declared
Division

Mijares Group Learning

Purpose-built learning tools for a specific population, a specific skill and a specific gap, built from the practice guides and the intervention literature rather than from what sells. Current product: Able Minds Lab.

  • Targets set from national oral reading fluency norms, read from the source report
  • Mastery gated on evidence earned across separate days, not on a single good session
  • Every activity traceable to the practice guide behind it

We tested the published site-ranking models our own industry sells. They do not predict outcomes, p = 0.86. We publish that rather than sell one.

The method

The same four steps, whatever the problem.

01

Read the primary sources

The technical report, not the summary of it. No name, number, date or rate appears without the file it came from. Public data wherever possible, so a client can check the work.

02

Validate against something independent

A separate method on separate data, not the data that built the model. Our break-even estimate lands within 1.6% of an independently published actuarial study.

03

Separate fact from judgment

Every deliverable marks what was verified, what is professional judgment, and what only the client can confirm from their own book.

04

Say where it fails

Out loud, in the deliverable. A finding that kills an idea is worth more than one that flatters it, and a model reported only on its wins is not a model.