Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Service robots in hospitals: new perspectives on niche evolution and technology affordances

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Changing demands in society and the limited capabilities of health systems have paved the way for robots to move out of industrial contexts and enter more human-centered environments such as health care. We explore the shared beliefs and concerns of health workers on the introduction of autonomously operating service robots in hospitals or professional care facilities. By means of Q-methodology, a mixed research approach specifically designed for studying subjective thought patterns, we identify five potential end-user niches, each of which perceives different affordances and outcomes from using service robots in their working environment. Our findings allow for better understanding resistance and susceptibility of different users in a hospital and encourage managerial awareness of varying demands, needs, and surrounding conditions that a service robot must contend with. We also discuss general insights into presenting the Q-methodology results and how an affordance-based view could inform the adoption, appropriation, and adaptation of emerging technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahn HS, Kuo I-H, Datta C, Stafford R, Kerse N, Peri K, Broadbent E and Macdonald BA (2014) Design of a kiosk type healthcare robot system for older people in private and public places. In Simulation, modeling, and programming for autonomous robots (Brugali D, Broenink JF, Kroeger T and Macdonald BA, Eds), pp 578–589, Springer, Cham.

  • Al-Natour S and Benbasat I (2009) The adoption and use of IT artifacts: a new interaction-centric model for the study of user-artifact relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(9), 661–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alves-Oliveira P, Petisca S, Correia F, Maia N and Paiva A (2015) Social robots for older adults: framework of activities for aging in place with robots. In Social robotics (Tapus A, André E, Martin J-C, Ferland F and Ammi M, Eds), pp 11–20, Springer, Cham.

  • Baker R, Wildman J, Mason H and Donaldson C (2014) Q-ing for health—a new approach to eliciting the public’s views on health care resource allocation. Health Economics 23(3), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barentsen K and Trettvik J (2002) An activitiy theory approach to affordance. Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Aarhus, Denmark, pp 51–60.

  • Barrett M, Oborn E, Orlikowski WJ and Yates J (2012) Reconfiguring boundary relations: robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organization Science 23(5), 1448–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana J, Leca B and Boxenbaum E (2009) How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals 3(1), 65–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bepko JR RJ, Moore JR and Coleman JR (2009) Implementation of a pharmacy automation system (robotics) to ensure medication safety at Norwalk hospital. Quality Management in Healthcare 18(2), 103–114.

  • Berlinger NT (2006) Robotic surgery—squeezing into tight places. New England Journal of Medicine 354(20), 2099–2101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsen OW (2006) Tertiary artifacts at the interface. In Aesthetic computing (Fishwick PA, Ed), pp 357–368, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

  • Best ML, Smyth TN, Etherton J and Wornyo E (2010) Uses of mobile phones in post-conflict Liberia. Information Technologies and International Development 6(2), 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacherjee A and Hikmet N (2007) Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: a theoretical model and empirical test. European Journal of Information Systems Journal 16(6), 725–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Wetscher G and Schmid T (2004) First experiences with the da Vinci operating robot in thoracic surgery. European Journal of Cardio-theracic Surgery 25(5), 844–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard T (1976) Field research methods: interviewing, questionnaires, participant observation, systematic observation, unobtrusive measures. In Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology (Dunnette M, Ed), pp 363–413, Rand NcNally, Chicago.

  • Bouwman H, Bejar A and Nikou S (2012) Mobile services put in context: a Q-sort analysis. Telematics and Informatics 29(1), 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent E, Stafford R and Macdonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics 1(4), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SR (1993) A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4), 91–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bygstad B, Munkvold BE and Volkoff O (2016) Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: a framework for critical realist data analysis. Journal of Information Technology 31(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cepolina FE and Muscolo GG (2014) Design of a robot for hygienization of walls in hospital environments. Proceedings of the 41st International Symposium on Robotics, Munich, Germany, pp 1–7.

  • Chamero A (2011) Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper RB and Zmud RW (1990) Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science 36(2), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costall A (1997) The meaning of things. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice 41(1), 76–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creed Wed, DeJordy R and Lok J (2010) Being the change: resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal 53(6), 1336–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davern M, Shaft T and Te’eni D (2012) Cognition matters: enduring questions in cognitive is research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(4), 273–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deery J (1997) Courier robot keeps hospital staff ‘on the job. Journal For Healthcare Quality: Official Publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality 19(1), 22–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demir R (2015) Strategic activity as bundled affordances. British Journal of Management 26(S1), S125–S141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis KE (1988) Q-methodology: new perspectives on estimating reliability and validity. In Measurement of nursing outcomes (Strickland OL and Waltz CF, Eds), pp 409–419, Springer, New York.

  • Diprose JP, Plimmer B, Macdonald BA and Hosking JG (2012) How people naturally describe robot behaviour. Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 1–9.

  • Donner J (2004) Microentrepreneurs and mobiles: an exploration of the uses of mobile phones by small business owners in Rwanda. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Information Technologies and International Development 2(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doolin B (2004) Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Information Systems Journal 14(4), 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraj S. and Azad B (2012) The materiality of technology: an affordance perspective. In Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World (Leonardi PM, Nardi BA and Kallinikos J, Eds), pp 237–258, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • Forbes (2014) Top 20 technologies that will change our lives: next up – Digital medicine. http://www.forbes.com/sites/reenitadas/2014/07/14/top-20-technologies-that-will-change-our-lives-next-up-digital-medicine/#8ef5bcef2c9f.

  • Garmann-Johnsen NF, Mettler T and Sprenger M (2014) Service robotics in healthcare: A perspective for information systems researchers? In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland, New Zealand, pp 1–12.

  • Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh JM, Gao G and Agarwal R (2011) Evolving work routines: adaptive routinization of information technology in healthcare. Information Systems Research 22(3), 565–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest G, Bunce A and Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1), 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafermalz E, Hovorka DS and Riemer K (2015) Shared secret places: social media and affordances. Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia, pp 1–11.

  • Hagele M (2016) Robots conquer the world [turning point]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 23(1), 120–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidegger T, Barreto M, Gonçalves P, Habibe M, Ragavanf SKV, Li H, Vaccarella A, Perrone R and Prestes E (2013) Applied ontologies and standards for service robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61(11), 1215–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg A and Morosi M (2015) Keeping health high on the eu agenda: Role for economic governance?, European Policy Centre, Brussels, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Idc (2015) Annual IT spending by western european healthcare providers to reach $14.6 billion by 2018. IDC, London.

  • Iivari J, Isomäki H and Pekkola S (2010) The user – the great unknown of systems development: reasons, forms, challenges, experiences and intellectual contributions of user involvement. Information Systems Journal 20(2), 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Robotics (2016) Definition of service robots. http://www.ifr.org/service-robots/.

  • International Standardization Organization (2016) Robots and robotic devices – vocabulary. http://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:8373:ed-2:v1:en:term:2.10.

  • Jayawardena C, Kuo IH, Broadbent E and Macdonald BA (2014) Socially assistive robot healthbot: design, implementation, and field trials. IEEE Systems Journal 10(3), 1056–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Institute for Innovation Policy of the European Commission (2012) Investigating in research and innovation for grand challenges. https://ec.europa.eu/research/erab/pdf/erab-study-grand-challanages-2012_en.pdf.

  • Kane GC, Fichman RG, Gallaugher J and Glaser J (2009) Community relations 2.0. Harvard Business Review, 87 (11), 45–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim H-W and Kankanhalli A (2009) Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: a status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly 33(3), 567–582.

  • Kirschling TE, Rough SS and Ludwig BC (2009) Determining the feasibility of robotic courier medication delivery in a hospital setting. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 66(19), 1754–1762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaus T, Wingreen SC and Blanton JE (2010) Resistant groups in enterprise system implementations: A Q-methodology examination. Journal of Information Technology 25(1), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo IH, Rabindran JM, Broadbent Y, Lee YI, Kerse N, Stafford RMQ and Macdonald BA (2009) Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama, Japan, pp 214–219.

  • Lanamäki A, Thapa D and Stendal K (2016) When is an affordance? Outlining four stances. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations, Dublin, Ireland, pp 125–139.

  • Leonardi PM (2011) When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 147–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi PM (2013) Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Information and Organization 23(2), 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li R, Wang S, Deng H, Wang R and Chang KC (2012) Towards social user profiling: unified and discriminative influence model for inferring home locations. Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Bejing, China, pp 1023–1031.

  • Ljungblad S, Kotrbova J, Jacobsson M, Cramer H and Niechwiadowicz K (2012) Hospital robot at work: something alien or an intelligent colleague? Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, pp 177–186.

  • Magnani L (2008) Chances, affordances, niche construction. In Knowledge-based intelligent information and engineering systems (Lovrek I, Howlett RJ and Jain LC, Eds), pp 719–726, Springer, Berlin.

  • Majchrzak A and Markus ML (2012) Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems. In Encyclopedia of Management Theory (Kessler E, Ed.), pp 832–836, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown B and Thomas D (1988) Q methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mesgari M and Okoli C (2015) Ecological approach to user sensemaking of technology. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth, TX, pp 1–12.

  • Mettler T and Raptis DA (2012) What constitutes the field of health information systems? Fostering a systematic framework and research agenda. Health Informatics Journal 18(2), 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirani R and Lederer AL (1998) An instrument for assessing the organizational benefits of is projects. Decision Sciences 29(4), 803–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nejat G, Yiyuan S and Nies M (2009) Assistive robots in health care settings. Home Health Care Management and Practice 21(3), 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevo D and Wade MR (2007) How to avoid disappointment by design. Communications of the ACM 50(4), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA (1990) The design of everyday things. Doubleday, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’leary K, Wobbrock JO and Riskin EA (2013) Q-methodology as a research and design tool for hci. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, pp 1941–1950.

  • Oborn E, Barrett M and Darzi A (2011) Robots and service innovation in health care. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 16(1), 46–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee JJ (1988) The role of behavior in evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn N and Pinch T (2003) How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (inside technology). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozkil AG, Fan Z, Dawids S, Aanes H, Kristensen JK and Christensen KH (2009) Service robots for hospitals: a case study of transportation tasks in a hospital. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics, Shenyang, China, pp 289–294.

  • Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulston A, Stevenson M and Bontcheva K (2016) User profiling with geo-located posts and demographic data. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science, Austin, TX, pp 43–48.

  • Pozzi G, Pigni F and Vitari C (2014) Affordance theory in the is discipline: a review and synthesis of the literature. Proceedings of the Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah, GA, pp 1–12.

  • Prestes E, Carbonera JL, Fiorini SR, Jorge VAM, Abel M, Madhavanb R, Locoro A, Goncalves P, Barreto ME, Habibg M, Chibani A, Gérard S, Amirat Y and Schlenoff C (2013) Towards a core ontology for robotics and automation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61, 1193–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahim NZA, Lallmahomed MZI, Ibrahim R and Rahman AA (2011) A preliminary classification of usage measures in information system acceptance: a Q-sort approach. International Journal of Technology Diffusion 2(4), 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riener R, Lunenburger L, Jezernik S, Anderschitz M, Colombo G and Dietz V (2005) Patient-cooperative strategies for robot-aided treadmill training: first experimental results. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 13(3), 380–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal R, Jeyaraj A and Chowa C (2006) Information system success: individual and organizational determinants. Management Science 52(12), 1849–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel S, Recker J and Vom Brocke J (2013) Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: Functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. MIS Quarterly 37(4), 1275–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sergeeva A, Huysman M and Faraj S (2015) Transforming work practices of operating room teams: the case of the Da Vinci robot. Proceedings of the 36th Interational Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth, USA, pp 1–10.

  • Shotter J (1983) “Duality of structure” and “intentionality” in an ecological psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 13(1), 19–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stainton Rogers R (1995) Q methodology. In Rethinking methods in psychology (smith JA, Harré R and Van Langenhove L, Eds), Sage Publications, London.

  • Stephenson W (1986) Protoconcursus: the concourse theory of communication: I. Operant Subjectivity 9(2), 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL and Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Newbury Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Federal Statistical Office (2016) Hospital statistics. Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takayama L, Ju W and Nass C (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: what everyday people think robots should do. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 25–32.

  • Teddlie C and Yu F (2007) Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1), 77–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Te’eni, D (2016) Contextualization and problematization, gamification and affordance: a traveler’s reflections on EJIS. European Journal of Information Systems 25(6), 473–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2014) New roles for technology: rise of the robots. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599762-prepare-robot-invasion-it-will-change-way-people-think-about-technology-rise.

  • The Wall Street Journal (2012) The robots are coming to hospitals. http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304459804577281350525870934.

  • Thompson G (1966) The evaluation of public opinion. In Reader in public opinion and communication (Berelson B and Janowitz M, Eds), pp 7–12, Free Press, New York.

  • Thrun S (2004) Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human-Computer Interaction 19(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treem JW and Leonardi PM (2013) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. In Communication yearbook (SALMON CT, Ed), pp 143–189, Routledge, New York.

  • Tsui KM, Desai M, Yanco HA and Uhlik C (2011) Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp 11–18, Lausanne, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valenta AL and Wigger U (1997) Q-methodology: definition and application in health care informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 4(6), 501–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Exel J and De Graaf G (2005) Q methodology: a sneak preview. http://qmethod.org/articles/vanExel.pdf.

  • Volkoff O and Strong DM (2013) Critical realism and affordances: theorizing it-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly 37(3), 819–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang C, Savkin AV, Clout R and Nguyen HT (2015) An intelligent robotic hospital bed for safe transportation of critical neurosurgery patients along crowded hospital corridors. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 23(5), 744–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts S and Stenner P (2012) Doing Q methodological research – theory method and interpretation. Sage Publications, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wingreen SC, Lerouge C and Blanton JE (2009) Structuring training for it professionals and the firm: an application of the q-methodology. International Journal of Global Management Studies 1(1), 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo Y, Lyytinen KJ, Boland RJ and Berente N (2010) The next wave of digital innovation: opportunities and challenges. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1622170.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the editors and reviewers of this paper for their insightful comments that have greatly improved its content and presentation. They also want to extend their gratitude to the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences and the Swiss Informatics Society for their financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration, University of Lausanne, Rue de la Mouline 28, 1022, Chavannes-près-Renens, Switzerland

    Tobias Mettler

  2. Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen, Müller-Friedberg-Strasse 8, 9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Michaela Sprenger & Robert Winter

Authors
  1. Tobias Mettler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michaela Sprenger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Mettler.

Additional information

Editor: Prof. Kieran Conboy.

Associate Editor: Prof. David Schwartz.

Appendix: Interview guide for concourse

Appendix: Interview guide for concourse

  1. 1.

    What is your role in the hospital?

  2. 2.

    Who is dealing with the organizational development in your hospital?

    1. a.

      Is a specific organizational unit focusing on organizational development? Do you have an innovation strategy for your hospital?

    2. b.

      How much money does your hospital spend on organizational development and innovation in the last 5 years?

    3. c.

      Who would finance inter-organizational projects?

    4. d.

      Are there external employees involved in decisions regarding the organizational development in your hospital?

  3. 3.

    Do you already have experiences with service robots? Which? If not, did you ever consider introducing robots in your hospital? For which areas or services?

  4. 4.

    What is the status quo regarding the following services (process, process time, volume, frequency, responsibilities, etc.)

    1. a.

      Meal service (delivery of food and beverages)

    2. b.

      Medication (dispensing of drugs)

    3. c.

      Care support (e.g. lifting assistance, therapeutic assistance)

    4. d.

      Bed linen (delivery of clean, removing of dirty laundry)

    5. e.

      Cleaning (sterile and non-sterile areas)

    6. f.

      Beds (allocation and provision of beds)

    7. g.

      Waste (transportation of regular and contaminated waste)

    8. h.

      Other transports

  5. 5.

    For which services a service robot would be an option respectively implementable in your hospital? For which services a service robot would not be an option? Why?

  6. 6.

    Which hospital areas would benefit from service robots (e.g. operating room, intensive care, pharmacy, wards, internal logistics, kitchen)? In which way?

  7. 7.

    What would be the advantages for each service robot-supported service?

  8. 8.

    Who would be the main beneficiary of the introduction of the service robot?

  9. 9.

    What would be the disadvantages for each service robot-supported service respectively who would be disadvantaged of the introduction of service robots?

  10. 10.

    Which barriers would inhibit the introduction of service robots for each service?

  11. 11.

    Which measures would be necessary that you would opt for service robots in your hospital?

  12. 12.

    How complex would you rate the introduction of service robots in your hospital (for the different services)?

  13. 13.

    Would you like to test service robots?

  14. 14.

    Who in your organization ultimately decides if service robots are introduced or not?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mettler, T., Sprenger, M. & Winter, R. Service robots in hospitals: new perspectives on niche evolution and technology affordances. Eur J Inf Syst 26, 451–468 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0046-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0046-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation