Contextual influences on technology use mediation: a comparative analysis of electronic medical record systems

Hybridity as a process of technology's ‘translation’: Customizing a national Electronic Patient Record

“…Customization, one of these interventions, implies making extensive changes in the code of the system and redesigning some of its features so that it becomes contextualised to the implementer health organization (Bjørn et al, 2009;Davidson & Chiasson, 2005;Davidson & Chismar, 2007;Oborn et al, 2011;Williams & Pollock, 2008). Although necessary, customization is often limited as the software's embodied logic cannot be easily fine-tuned (Kallinikos, 2010) and because of the power IT suppliers exercise, through invocation of their technical expertise, to minimise changes in the provided software (Hislop, 2002).…”

“…Inevitably, conflicting goals and power plays emerge between software developers and user organizations as they negotiate how to customize an EPR and which of its embodied 'best practices' are actually 'best' for the user organization (Davidson & Chiasson, 2005;Oborn et al, 2011;Wagner & Newell, 2004;Yeow & Sia, 2008). Bjørn et al (2009) have shown that negotiations between stakeholders are necessary before deciding on the elements of a health technology that can be standardized and used across contexts and those that need to remain local.…”

“…Electronic Patient Record (EPR) systems can be developed within and by healthcare organizations or, more commonly, they can be bought as generic software products (Davidson & Chiasson, 2005;Greenhalgh et al, 2009;Sawyer, 2000;Williams & Pollock, 2008). The latter give clients the chance to get software that embodies 'best practices' and also standards such as technical, procedural, output oriented and terminological that enable coordination, prescribe work and provide a shared language that allows consistency of the messages being exchanged (Boulus & Bjorn, 2010;Brunsson et al, 2012;Hanseth et al, 2006;Hanseth & Lundberg, 2001;Timmermans & Berg, 2003;Timmermans & Epstein, 2010;Wagner & Newell, 2004;Yeow & Sia, 2008).…”

“…There is a substantial body of literature from Information Systems and Science and Technology Studies (STS) that discusses the outcomes, and to some extent the process, of EPR implementations at a local or national level (Brunsson et al, 2012;Davidson & Chiasson, 2005;Greenhalgh et al, 2008;Håland, 2012;Hanseth et al, 2006;Hanseth & Lundberg, 2001;Kallinikos, 2010;Jones, 2003;Lapointe & Rivard, 2005;Oborn et al, 2011;Pollock et al, 2003;Vikkelsø, 2005;Williams & Pollock, 2008). In most studies customization of EPR is presented as being confined to a single organization, the user, with other stakeholders, such as developers and suppliers, being external to it (Boulus & Bjorn, 2010;Oborn et al, 2011).…”

The role of formal controls in facilitating information system diffusion

“…This stream of research explains that managers adopt different intervention methods to influence employees using IS [see 11,30,42]. This stream overlaps with our application of control, but also differs significantly because actions put in place by senior managers in the TUM context highlight an inclusive and encouraging, but not a direct, approach [30].…”