Advertisement

Organizational Learning to Leverage Benefits Realization Management; Evidence from a Municipal eHealth Effort

  • Kirsti AskedalEmail author
  • Leif Skiftenes Flak
  • Hans Solli-Sæther
  • Detmar W. Straub
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10428)

Abstract

While work with benefits realization requires organizational learning to be effective, emphasis on organizational learning is hard to find in benefits realization studies. To remedy this research gap, we study how organizational learning theory can contribute to improve benefits realization processes. A qualitative approach was used to gain in depth understanding of benefits realization in an ICT healthcare services project. We found that individual learning is present, but organizational learning has not been given explicit attention neither in the project nor in the literature of benefits realization management. We argue that the individual learning in the project forms an excellent basis for organizational learning, i.e., in the form of organizational structures, routines, and methods for benefits realization.

Keywords

Benefits management Organizational learning theory Complex organizations Public sector eHealth 

References

  1. 1.
    Barnett, K., et al.: Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 380(9836), 37–43 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization: 10 facts of ageing and the life course. http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/ageing/en/ (2014)
  3. 3.
    European Commission: Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/health-demographic-change-and-wellbeing (2014)
  4. 4.
    Martin, S., Kelly, G., Kernohan, W.G., McCreight, B., Nugent, C.: Smart home technologies for health and social care support. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (4), CD006412 (2008). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006412.pub2
  5. 5.
    Henderson, C., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of telecare for people with social care needs: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age Ageing 43(6), 794–800 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wootton, R.: Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management—an evidence synthesis. J. Telemed. Telecare 18(4), 211–220 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization: Connecting for health: Global Vision, Local Insight. http://www.who.int/ehealth/resources/wsis_report/en/ (2005)
  8. 8.
    Essén, A., Conrick, M.: New e-service development in the homecare sector: beyond implementing a radical technology. Int. J.Med. Inform. 77(10), 679–688 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henderson, C., et al.: Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 346, f1035 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steventon, A., et al.: Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMJ 344, e3874 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofmann, B.: Ethical challenges with welfare technology: a review of the literature. Sci. Eng. Ethics 19(2), 389–406 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flak, L.: Gevinstrealisering og offentlige IKT-investeringer. Universitetsforlaget AS, Oslo (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hellang, Ø., Flak, L.S., Päivärinta, T.: Diverging approaches to benefits realization from public ICT investments: a study of benefits realization methods in Norway. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 7(1), 93–108 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ashurst, C., Doherty, N.F., Peppard, J.: Improving the impact of IT development projects: the benefits realization capability model. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(4), 352–370 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chiva, R., Alegre, J.: Organizational learning and organizational knowledge: towards the integration of two approaches. Manag. Learn. 36(1), 49–68 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ward, J., Daniel, E.: Benefits Management: Delivering Value from IS & IT Investments. Wiley Series in Information Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Argyris, C.S., Schön, D.: Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, PA (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ward, J., Taylor, P., Bond, P.: Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT benefits: an empirical study of current practice. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 4(4), 214–225 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pang, M.-S., Lee, G., DeLone, W.H.: IT resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in public-sector organizations: a public-value management perspective. J. Inform. Technol. 29(3), 187–205 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Senge, P.: The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Crownb Pub., Fort Collins (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, NY (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N.: SECI, BA and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Plan. 33(1), 5–34 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johannessen, A., Tufte, P.A., Kristoffersen, L.: Introduksjon til samfunnsvitenskapelig metode. Abstrakt forlag as, Oslo (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andersen, S.S.: Casestudier: forskningsstrategi, generalisering og forklaring. Fagbokforlaget, Oslo (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Sein, M.: Being proactive: where action research meets design research. In: ICIS Proceedings, 27 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, London (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gerring, J.: What is a case study and what is it good for? Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98(02), 341–354 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 532–550 (1989)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn. Sage, London (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The Norvegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities: Gevinstkokebok for IKT-prosjekter i norske kommuner. http://www.ks.no/contentassets/af1d839033564d188081b64e8eec02a8/13224-ks-kommit-gevinstkokebok.pdf (2013)
  31. 31.
    Chiva, R., Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R.: Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. Int. J. Manpower 28(3/4), 224–242 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marsick, V.J.: The dimensions of a learning organization questionnaire: introduction to the special issue examining DLOQ use over a decade. Adv. Dev. Hum. 15(2), 127–132 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsti Askedal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leif Skiftenes Flak
    • 1
  • Hans Solli-Sæther
    • 2
  • Detmar W. Straub
    • 3
  1. 1.University of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyÅlesundNorway
  3. 3.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations