Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does a hospital’s IT architecture fit with its strategy? An approach to measure the alignment of health information technology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Systems

Abstract

Hospitals as the main entities of healthcare need to respond to policy initiatives affecting in particular the quality, efficiency and costs of health service delivery as well as cope with continuous technological advancements. Considering the information intensive character of healthcare, a shift in a hospital’s business policy also induces potentials and pitfalls to the management of health information technology. In this sense, this paper strives to find an answer to the problem how to reduce misalignment of the business and IT architecture in hospitals. Following the design science research methodology, this paper emphasises the description of a method named H-BIT, which may support decision-makers in overcoming this alignment problem. Implications for healthcare practice are reported based on the experiences that were gained from the exemplary application of the method at a larger hospital.

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
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aier S, Kurpjuweit S, Saat J and Winter R (2009) Enterprise architecture design as an engineering discipline. AIS Transactions on Enterprise Systems 1 (1), 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aier S and Winter R (2009) Virtual decoupling for IT/business alignment – conceptual foundations, architecture design and implementation example. Business & Information Systems Engineering 51 (2), 150–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balabko P, Le LS, Regev G, Rychkova I and Wegmann A (2005) A method and tool for business-IT alignment in enterprise architecture. In Proceedings of 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Belo O, Eder J, Falcão e. Cunha J and Pastor O, Eds), 13–17 June, CEUR-WS.org, Porto Portugal.

  • Becker J, Niehaves B and Janiesch C (2007) Socio-technical perspectives on design science in IS research. In Advances in Information System Development (Magyar G, Knapp G, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski WG and Zupancic J, Eds) pp 127–138, Springer, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bohmer RMJ (2009) Designing Care – Aligning the Nature and Management of Health Care. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohmer RMJ and Lee TH (2009) The shifting mission of health care delivery organizations. New England Journal of Medicine 361 (6), 551–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom RP and Heinen S (1977) MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective. Part I: the causes. MIS Quarterly 1 (3), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigl B et al (2005) Preparing strategic information management plans for hospitals: a practical guideline: SIM plans for hospitals: a guideline. International Journal of Medical Informatics 74 (1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38 (4), 275–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush M, Lederer AL, Li X, Palmisano J and Rao S (2009) The alignment of information systems with organizational objectives and strategies in health care. International Journal of Medical Informatics 78 (7), 446–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M (2003) Factors affecting the adoption and diffusion of XML and Web services standards for E-business systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58 (3), 259–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiasson MW and Davidson E (2004) Pushing the contextual envelope: developing and diffusing IS theory for health information systems research. Information and Organization 14 (3), 155–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dávalos ME, French MT, Burdick AE and Simmons SC (2009) Economic evaluation of telemedicine: review of the literature and research guidelines for benefit–cost analysis. Telemedicine and e-Health 15 (10), 933–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devaraj S and Kohli R (2000) Information technology payoff in the health-care industry: a longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems 16 (4), 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Policy Centre (2013) Coalition for Health, Ethics and Society (CHES). [WWW document] http://www.epc.eu/prog_forum.php?forum_id=7&prog_id=2 (accessed 16 May 2013).

  • Freeman ER (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glouberman S and Mintzberg H (2001) Managing the care of health and the cure of disease – Part I: differentiation. Health Care Management Review 26 (1), 56–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G (2012) Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems 21 (2), 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S and Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly 37 (2), 337–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S and Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (5), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimson J, Grimson W and Hasselbring W (2000) The SI challenge in health care. Communications of the ACM 43 (6), 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller F (1997) Sociotechnology and the environment. Human Relations 50 (5), 605–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JC and Venkatraman N (1993) Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal 32 (1), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzlinger RE (2006) Why innovation in health care is so hard. Harvard Business Review 84 (5), 58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR and Chatterjee S (2010) Introduction to design science research. In Design Research in Information Systems (Hevner AR and Chatterjee S, Eds), pp 1–8, Springer, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), 75–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath I (2001) A contemporary survey of scientific research into engineering design. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Engineering Design, pp 13–20, Glasgow, UK.

  • Järvinen P (2007) On reviewing of results in design research. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (Österle H, Schelp J and Winter R, Eds), pp 1388–1397, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoumbati K and Themistocleous M (2006) Integrating the IT infrastructures in healthcare organisations: a proposition of influential factors. Electronic Journal of e-Government 4 (1), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurpjuweit S and Winter R (2009) Concern-oriented business architecture engineering, In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp 265–272, ACM Press, New York, Honululu, HI.

  • Lippeveld, T, Sauerborn, R and Bodart, C, Eds (2000) Design and Implementation of Health Information Systems. World Health Organization, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzi NM, Novak LL, Weiss JB, Gadd CS and Unertl KM (2008) Crossing the implementation chasm: a proposal for bold action. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 15 (3), 290–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luftman J (2000) Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the AIS 4 (1), 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luftman JN (2005) Key issues for IT executives 2004. MISQ Executive 4 (2), 269–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantzana V, Themistocleous M, Irani Z and Morabito V (2007) Identifying healthcare actors involved in the adoption of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (1), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March ST and Smith GG (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15 (4), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKiernan P (1997) Strategy past; strategy futures. Long Range Planning 30 (5), 790–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon NM, Lee B and Eldenburg L (2000) Productivity of information systems in the healthcare industry. Information Systems Research 11 (1), 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettler T and Rohner P (2009a) Management digitaler Identitäten von Health Professionals am Universitätsspital Zürich. In Management von Integrationsprojekten (Winter R, Ed), Springer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettler T and Rohner P (2009b) Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational design. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (Vaishnavi VK and Purao S, Eds), 7–8 May, ACM Press, New York, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1979) The Structure of Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand BW and Lampel J (2001) Strategy Safari: The Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic Management. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münz JO, Müller L and Behavka P (2007) Integration and management of large heterogeneous healthcare information systems. In eHealth: Combining Health Telematics, Telemedicine, Biomedical Engineering and Bioinformatics to the Edge (Blobel B, Pharow P, Zvarova J and Lopezs D, Eds) IOS Press, Regensburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemann KD (2006) From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance. Elements of Effective IT Management. Vieweg, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker JF, Chen M and Purdin TDM (1990) Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 7 (3), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Offermann P, Levina O, Schönherr M and BUB U (2009) Outline of a design science research process. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, 7–8 May, ACM Press, New York, Philadelphia, USA.

  • Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger M and Chatterjee S (2008) A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (3), 45–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1996) What is strategy? Harvard Business Review 74 (6), 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME and Olmsted Teisberg E (2006) Redefining: Creating Value-based Competition on Results. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pries-Heje J and Baskerville R (2010) Management design theories. In Human Benefit through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research (Pries-Heje J, Venable J, Bunker D, Russo NL and DeGross J, Eds), pp 263–281, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quam L and Smith R (2005) UK and US health care: a special relationship? – what can the UK and US health systems learn from each other? British Medical Journal 330 (7490), 530–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghupathi W and Tan J (2002) Strategic IT applications in health care. Communications of the ACM 45 (12), 56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M, Ramesh B, Lyytinen K and Tolvanen JP (2004) Managing evolutionary method engineering by method rationale. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5 (9), 356–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgado C, Machado RJ and Suzana R (2013) Modeling the alignment between business and IS/IT: a requirements engineering perspective. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 18–22 March, pp 1309–1311, Coimbra, Portugal, ACM, New York.

  • Schelp J and Winter R (2007a) Integration management for heterogeneous information systems. In Agile Information Systems – Conceptualizations, Construction, and Management (Desouza KC, Ed), pp 134–149, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelp J and Winter R (2007b) Towards a methodology for service construction. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 3–6 January, pp 64a, Waikoloa, HI, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos.

  • Simon HA (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonehouse G and Snowdon B (2007) Competitive advantage revisited – Michael Porter on strategy and competitiveness. Journal of Management Inquiry 16 (3), 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeda H, Veerkamp P, Tomiyama T and Yoshikawa H (1990) Modeling design processes. AI Magazine 11 (4), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Open Group (2009) TOGAF Version 9 – The Open Group Architecture Framework. The Open Group, San Francisco, CA.

  • Vaishnavi V and Kuechler B (2008) Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter SG and Spitta T (2004) Approaches to the ex-ante evaluation of investments into information systems. Wirtschaftsinformatik 46 (3), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieringa R (2009) Design science as nested problem solving. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Winter R (2003) An architecture model for supporting application integration decisions. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2003) (Ciborra C, Mercurio R, De Marco M, Martinez M and Carignani A, Eds), pp 1–13, Naples.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26 (3), 276–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Tobias Mettler, Peter Rohner & Robert Winter

  2. SAP (Schweiz) AG, Regensdorf, Switzerland

    René Fitterer

Authors
  1. Tobias Mettler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. René Fitterer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Rohner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mettler, T., Fitterer, R., Rohner, P. et al. Does a hospital’s IT architecture fit with its strategy? An approach to measure the alignment of health information technology. Health Syst 3, 29–42 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/hs.2013.10

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/hs.2013.10

Keywords

Search

Navigation