Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Wears, R. L., & Berg, M. (2005). Computer technology and clinical works: still waiting for Godot. Journal of the American ...
Information Systems and Technology Projects in Healthcare Organizations Jorge Gomes ISEG Lisbon University, Portugal Mário Romão ISEG Lisbon University, Portugal
INTRODUCTION The challenges facing healthcare organizations require more comprehensive and integrated solutions and efficient resource management as a means of eliminating inefficiencies and of achieving promised benefits. In academic literature, information systems and technology (IS/IT) have been recognized as being an organizational capability that can lead to competitive advantage and better performance (Bharadwaj 2000; Kohli & Devaraj 2003). Organizations recognize project management as being a fundamental tool for the development of initiatives which lead to the implementation of the organizational strategies (Crawford, 2005; Hodgson, 2002). One way that the effectiveness of IS/IT project management capability has been assessed is through the use of maturity models, with the underlying assumption that higher levels of project management maturity imply a higher effectiveness of project management capability (Kwak & Ibbs 2002; Sonnekus & Labuschagne, 2004). Our research focuses on the combination of the project management and maturity models approaches as a means of strengthening the final results of IS/IT projects in the healthcare sector. It is the authors' belief that this combination of approaches enhances not only the success of projects, but also the realization of the expected benefits. It is also important to emphasize that, by taking advantage of the specific features of each of these approaches, their structure will certainly increase the effectiveness of IS/IT projects in the health sector, by enhancing both the confidence of sponsors and investors, and also the achievement of the promise benefits. The maturity models approach provides a framework which helps organizations increase their capability to deliver projects on schedule, within budget, and according to the desired technical performance (Levin & Skulmoski, 2000). Projects are temporary achievements that are used to solve various types of tasks of variable size, and are applicable in a very broad range of business sectors (Maylor, 2001). Project management coordinates skills and organizational knowledge and follows the progress of a set of pre-
established activities in order to achieve objectives (Kronbichel, 2009). Many organizations fail to review whether the planned benefits of IS/IT projects have been achieved, or not, as they do not possess sufficient resources to undertake such a benefit review, and, moreover, they are constantly under pressure to deliver other projects (Bennington & Baccarini, 2004). Benefits management identifies goals and benefits by combining organizational changes and investments in IS/IT, and also by showing the way to achieve them (Gomes, Romão & Caldeira, 2013; Ward & Daniel, 2006).
BACKGROUND Literature review Whilst there is general agreement that IS/IT does indeed contribute to adding business value, there is uncertainty as to how these contributions were really obtained (Melville, Kraemer & Gurbaxani, 2004; Devaraj & Kholi, 2003). Although many studies have focused on the consequences of IS/IT investments, fewer studies have examined factors which impact the capability of IS/IT (Devaraj & Kholi, 2003). Project Management Institute (PMI) (2012) define project as a limited effort in time, which is undertaken to create a product, service or a result. The essence of project management is to support the implementation of these temporal initiatives under the framework of an organization’s competitive strategy, in order to successfully deliver a particular outcome (Milosevic, 2003; Senhar & Dvir, 2007). Project management is thus a set of management activities which is required to ensure that projects which are defined, planned and monitored, go on to achieve agreed objectives and benefits (Deveraj & Kohli, 2003). Kerzner (2009) highlights the importance of project management in the planning and control of organizations’ resources, helping to achieve, not only short-term goals, but also broader, temporal objectives. It appears that determining whether a project is a success, or not, is far more complex. Success is perceived differently by the different stakeholders involved in the projects (Freeman & Beale, 1992). The differences in success criteria definition should reflect the different interests and points of view, which leads us to conclude that project success is a multidimensional criterion (Freeman & Beale, 1992; Pinto & Mantel, 1990). Success criteria known as the ‘iron triangle’ have been criticized for their exclusive focus on the project management process, to the detriment of including the vision and goals of the different stakeholders (Baccarini, 1999; Bannerman, 2008). This classic approach remains the most widely used measure of project success and its main value is in offering a simple, direct measure of performance of the project, but it neglects whether the deliverables fulfilled the objectives of the project (Bannerman, 2008). The improvement in the success of projects results from increased maturity and organizational competence (Sergeant et al., 2010). Higher levels of maturity will, in most cases, lead to improved project
outcomes (Nieto-Rodrigues & Evrard, 2004). Projects which have multiple stakeholders, with different perspectives about the purpose of the project, usually have different expectations as to what the project should achieve (Lim & Mohamed, 1999). Since the success of a project depends on the perceptions of a large number of stakeholders, "absolute success" probably never exists in project management, but only "perceived success" (Baker, Murphy & Fisher, 1988). In the academic literature, we found examples of projects that have successfully completed the criteria of the "iron triangle", but resulted in disappointing business experiences (Shenhar et al., 2005). On the other hand, initiatives that did not meet the constraints of cost and time later proved to be successful (Pinto & Slevin, 1988). The understanding of the concept of project success has evolved over recent decades, and a gradual understanding is now emerging that project success requires a broader and more comprehensive definition. Aaltonen et al. (2008), state that the key issue in project management is managing the relationship between the project and its stakeholders. There is little evidence to suggest that process capability improvement result in improved project success, although a few studies are promising in this respect (Mullaly, 2006; Lee & Anderson, 2006). Maturity models have become an important evaluation tool for measuring the internal and external capabilities of organizations. Maturity models describe the development of an entity over time (Klimko, 2001) and they represent a structured collection of elements which highlight the characteristics of effective processes at different stages of development (Pullen, 2007). The maturity models approach provides a theoretical framework for improving the business outcome of an organization, for assessing their strengths and weaknesses, and also for allowing comparisons with industry best practices and also by benchmarking with similar organizations (Ibbs & Kwak, 2000). Several studies focus on the recognition of the benefits of investment in project management skills in organizations and others have discussed the issue of the correlation between level of maturity and the performance of projects (Ibbs & Kwak, 2000; Ibbs & Reginato, 2002; Mullaly, 2006). In an IS/IT discipline, maturity is considered to be a measure for evaluating an organization’s capabilities (Rosemann & Bruin, 2005). Measuring the maturity of organizations is a difficult and somewhat subjective task, as such an audit process focuses mainly on individuals’ tasks (Andersen & Jessen, 2003). Working with different types of projects within an organization requires standard models, in order to deliver successful future projects repeatedly and as a means of improving the quality of future projects and of gaining knowledge and learning from past successes and mistakes. The assessment of maturity typically involves variations along five developmental stages (Jugdev & Thomas, 2002). These assessment procedures help organizations to understand where they have been, where they are, and what processes they need to implement, in order to continue their implementation of management methodologies. The underlying assumption in the maturity models is that there is a relationship between
higher levels of maturity and improved organizational performance (Ibbs & Kwak, 2000; Lee & Anderson, 2006) and that this enhances project success.
The Healthcare sector Today, healthcare organizations are increasing focusing on the need for investment in IS/IT, with the goal of achieving the minimum level of benefits that these projects can attain. The study of the success or failure of these initiatives has become vitally important for the performance of these organizations (Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). Since the 1990´s, the health sector has sought to improve its effectiveness and efficiency by adopting IS/IT to increase quality levels (Raghupathi &Tan, 1999). The use of IS/IT in health sector is recognized as being a major factor which has improved clinical practices and supportive care (McDonald et al., 1998). The use of these systems provides an important support for specialized services and it increases the efficiency, quality and safety of patient care, and also reduces medical errors (Low & Chen, 2012). It is not always investments in IS/IT that result in efficiency and effectiveness gains, and thus it becomes essential to evaluate the factors that limit performance, and to identify opportunities for enhancing their use. IS/IT has the potential to dramatically change the way individuals or society see the healthcare sector, and also to provide tremendous opportunities for supporting professionals, and for improving effectiveness and efficiency in the health sector (Ammenwerth et al., 2006). There is a growing consensus that organizational factors are far more critical for the successful implementation of IS/IT, than technical considerations (Markus et al., 2000). Achieving successful change is much easier if all stakeholders are committed, and the earlier this commitment is achieved, the smoother is the path to a successful outcome (Bradley, 2006). We live in times where healthcare providers generate significant amounts of personal data about patients and the major obstacle to the management of this increasing volume of information is the difficulty, or inability, of sharing information across systems and between organizations (Grimson et al., 2000). Medical information needed for clinical decision making has increased dramatically, however the accessibility of health data is still poor, resulting in inappropriate decisions and sometimes in medical errors (Tierney, 2001). The use of informatics tools has been developed to increase the accessibility and management of medical information (Bleich, Beckley & Horowitz, 1985), with the aim of supporting medical decision, of increasing the coordination between different health care providers, and of promoting the use of guidelines, thereby improving the global quality of care (Pringle, 1988; Shiffmann et al., 1999). However, in addition to providing new capabilities, new technologies also impact the technical, social,
organizational, economic, cultural, and political dimensions of work in new and different ways (Anderson & Aydin, 1994). Observations of new technology implementations have shown that a change in technology alters roles, strategies, and paths to failure (Sarter, Woods & Billings, 1997). In recognizing this, the Institute of Medicine of the USA recommends examining new technologies for avoiding threats to safety and redesigning them to prevent undesirable accidents (Kohn, Corrigan & Donaldson, 2000). There is a widespread feeling that a significant proportion of initiatives in IS/IT healthcare have failed (Heeks & Davies, 1999). Studies have identified high failure rates in IS/IT projects in various sectors, including that of healthcare, particularly in hospitals (Kaplan & Harris-Salamone, 2009; Wears & Berg, 2005). The results of the implementation of IS/IT projects in healthcare have revealed a waste of financial resources in acquiring large sized systems, which are totally ineffective (Heeks, 2006). In various aspects, these implementations are different from other projects, in other industries. The key main differences were related to the environment, the diversity of systems and the devices that need to work, together with the challenge of integration and interoperability which is required to meet the expectations of different stakeholder groups regarding that which constitutes project success (Abouzhara, 2011). Healthcare projects are a complex undertaking, which depend largely on the quality of existing information (Bose, 2003). Proper training is a major determinant for success in the adoption of IS/IT by health professionals, and it has a great influence on the integration of technologies in clinical practice (Allen et al., 2000). The effectiveness of interventions aimed at the integration of IS/IT applications in the practices of health professionals tends to be influenced by several factors, which are related to individuals, professional groups, organizational and contextual characteristics, and the nature of the intervention per se (Grol et al., 2007; Aarts et al., 2004). One of the most critical factors recognized by the academic literature is resistance to change by healthcare professionals, particularly amongst doctors (Lapointe & Rivard, 2006; Phansalker et al., 2008). The complexity of systems, together with organizational diversity and the volume of investment required, as well as failure in adopting IS/IT, is all largely justified by the way that IS/IT is implemented, and by the need to identify best practices and to act on a number of critical factors, in order to reduce the chance of failure (Olson & Zhao, 2007). Cooke-Davis & Arzymanow (2003) identify organizational culture as exerting a positive influence on the development of superior project management practices.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Healthcare organizations require interdisciplinary cooperation and coordination. It needs to be highlighted that insufficient communication and missing information are among the major issues that have contributed to unintentional injury caused by medical mismanagement (Lenz & Reichert, 2007). IS/IT processes have the potential to significantly reduce the rate of these adverse events by providing relevant information in real time to all who need it (McDonald et al., 1984). An important challenge for the future is to seek for a real clinical integration of systems. Clinical integration between providers and hospitals has historically been a goal which is continually sought, but rarely achieved. It will become crucial that the design of future applications be integrated easier into existing systems, through open communication interface (Geissbuhler et al., 2001). The intersection of healthcare and social media represents another promising field of IS/IT research. Anderson and Agarwal (2010) demonstrate that individuals are more willing to share personal healthcare information if they think that it could help others. Social media platforms could provide aggregation through the mechanisms of information filtering and knowledge synthesis (Kane et al, 2009). Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a form of medicine which aims to optimize decision-making by emphasizing the use of evidence from well-designed and well-conducted research. EBM produces quantitative research, especially from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A randomized controlled trial (Chalmers et al., 1981) is a type of scientific experiment whereby those studied are randomly allocated one or other of the different treatments under study. EBM has been gaining increased attention among researchers (Carey, 2006) as a tool for addressing concerns about healthcare costs and quality. Another emerging topic for knowledge discovery arises from the use of digital technology to enable new kinds of mathematical healthcare modelling and simulations (Lumpkin, 2007). Simulation models are distinguished from other types of conceptual models by the fact that they include simulated objects, such as people, which correspond to real objects, one-to-one. Development of such a model requires creating a population of simulated individuals who all have experienced important events which occur in real life with real people, and who respond to interventions in the same way as real people (Schlessinger & Eddy, 2002). Another research trend concerns the use of the combined knowledge about a person for predicting treatment response and this can thereby improve that person’s health (Redekop & Mladsi, 2013). This concept of personalized medicine allows for an earlier and more precise diagnosis, cheaper and more effective treatments, and the minimization of side effects of treatment (Glaser et al. 2008). Personalized medicine uses genomic medicine to take advantage of a molecular understanding of disease, in order to optimize preventive health care strategies and drug therapies whilst people are still well, or at the earliest stages of disease (Ginsburg & Willard, 2009). Another term which has emerged in recent years is
personalized healthcare, which extends the previous concept to address questions related to treatment monitoring and disease surveillance.
CONCLUSION Although project management emerges as being one of the main approaches used by organizations, there is no strong evidence in the literature of the success of the implementation of any of the available approaches in the health sector. This study attempts to show that organizational maturity contributes to the success of a project, through the systematic application of project management best practices. The combination of the project management and the organizational process maturity approaches provides a more efficient and useful framework for supporting decision-making. The approach proposed in this study tries to prove that it is easier to implement best practices in project management in organizations which have higher levels of organizational maturity, and that the correct combination between investments in IS/IT and management practices can also be a positive influence, leading to successful projects. We have a strong conviction that higher levels of organizational maturity have a positive influence on the success of projects implemented by organizations particularly in cases were good project management practices are in evidence.
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K., & Tuomas, O. (2008). Stakeholders salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 509-516. doi: 10.1016/j.iproman.2008.05.004.
Abouzhara, M. (2011). Causes of failure in Healthcare IT projects. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Advance Management Science, 19, Singapore: IACSIT Press.
Allen, M. J., Kaufmann, D. M., Barret, A., Paterson, G., Sargeant, J., & McLeod, R. (2000). Self-reported effects of computer workshops on physicians computer use. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 20 (1), 20-26. doi: 10.1002/chp.1340200105.
Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C. (2006). IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6(3). doi:10.1186/1472-6947-6-3.
Anderson, C. L., & Agarwal, R. (2010). Practicing Safe Computing: A Multimedia Empirical Examination of Home Computer User Security Behavioral Intentions. MIS Quartely, special issue, 34(3), 613-643.
Anderson, E. S., & Jessen, S. A. (2003). Project maturity in organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 457-461. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00088-1.
Anderson, J. G., & Aydin, C. E. (1994). Overview: Theoretical perspectives and methodologies for the evaluation of health care information systems. In J. G. Anderson, C. E. Aydin & S. J. Jay (Eds.), Evaluating health care information systems: Methods and applications, 5-29, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success, Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25-32.
Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., & Fisher, D. (1988). Factors affecting project success. In Cleland, D.I., King, W.R. (Eds.). Project Management Handbook, 2nd ed., New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 902919.
Bannerman, P. (2008). Defining project success: a Multilevel Framework. In Proceedings of Project Management Institute Research Conference, Warsaw, Poland. Bennington, P., & Baccarini, D. (2004). Project benefits management in IT projects – An Australian perspective. Project Management Journal, 35( 2), 20-30.
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A Resource Based Perspective on Information Technology and Firm Performance; An EMprical Investigation, MIS Quarterly, 24(1),169-196. doi:10.2307/3250983.
Bleich, H. L., Beckley, R. F., Horowitz, G. L., Jackson, J. D., Moody, E. S., Franklin, C., Goodman, S. R., McKay, M.W., Pope, R. A., Walden, T., Bloom, S. M., & Slack, W. V. (1985). Clinical computing in a teaching hospital. The New England Journal of Medicine, 312(12), 756–764. PMID: 3838364.
Bose, R. (2003). Knowledge management-enabled health care management: capabilities, infrastructure, and decision-making. Expert Systems with Applications, 24, 59-71.
Bradley, G. (2006). Benefit Realization Management: A Practical Guide for Achieving Benefits through Change. Aldershot, Hants, England: Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Carey, J. (2006). Medical Guesswork. Business Week, May 29, 72-79.
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H. Jr., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981). A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 2(1), 31-49. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8. PMID 7261638.
Cooke-Davies, T., & Arzymanow, A. (2003). The Maturity of Project Management in Different Industries: An Investigation into Variations Between Project Management Models. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 471-478. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00084-4.
Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management competence. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 7-16. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.005.
Devaraj, S., & Kohli, R. (2003). Performance Impacts of Information Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link? Management Science, 49(3), 273-289. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.3.273.12736.
Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992). Measuring Project Success. Project Management Journal, 23(1), 8-17.
Geissbuhler, A. Lovis, C., Lamb, A., & Spahni, S. (2001). Experience with an XML/HTTP-based federative approach to develop a hospital-wide clinical information system.
In Proceedings of the
International Medical Informatics Conference, Medinfo 2001, 735-739. London, UK: Rogers, R., Haux, R., & Patel, V. (Eds.)
Ginsburg, G. S., & Willard, H. F. (2009). Genomic and Personalized Medicine: Foundations and Applications. Translational Research, 154(6), 277-287. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2009.09.005.
Glaser, J., Henley, D. E., Downing, G., & Brinner, K. M. (2008). Advancing personalized healthcare through health information technology: An update from the American health information community´s personalized health workgroup. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(4), 391394. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/jamia.
Gomes, J., Romão, M., & Caldeira, M. (2013). The Benefits Management and Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map: How They Match. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 4(1), 44-54. doi:10.4018/jitbag.2013010104.
Grimson, J., Grimson, W., & Hasselbring, W. (2000). The SI challenge in health care. Communications of the ACM. 43(6), 49-55. doi:10.1145/336460.336474.
Grol, G., Bosch, M. C., Hulscher, M., Eccles, M. P., & Wensing, M. (2007). Planning and Studying Improvement in Patient Care: The use of theoretical perspectives. The Milbank Quarterly, 83(1), 93-138. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x.
Heeks, R. (2006). Health Information Systems: failure, success and improvisation. International Journal of Medical Information, 75(2), 125-137. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.024.
Heeks, R. B., & Davies, A. (1999). Different approaches to information age reform. In R.B. Heeks (ed.) Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in IT-enabled Public Sector Reform , London, UK: Routledge.
Hodgson, D. (2002). Disciplining the professional: the case of project management.
Journal of
Management Studies. 39, 803-821. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=325116.
Ibbs, W. C., & Kwak, Y. H. (2000). Assessing project management maturity. Project Management Journal, 31(1), 32-43.
Ibbs, W. C., & Reginato, J. (2002). Quantifying the value of Project Management. Newton Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Jugdev, K., & Thomas, J. (2002). Project Management Maturity Models: The Silver Bullets of Competitive Advantage? Project Management Journal, 33 (4), 4-14.
Kaplan, B., & Harris-Salamone, K. D. (2009). Health IT success and failure: recommendations from literature and an AMIA workshop. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16(3), 291299. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2997.
Kane, G. C., Fichman, R. G., Gallaugher, J., & Glaser, J. (2009). Community Relations 2.0. Harvard Business Review, 87(11), 45-50. PMID: 19891388.
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Klimko, G. (2001). Knowledge management and maturity models: building common understanding. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Knowledge Management, Bled, Slovenia, 269-278.
Kohli, R., & Devaraj, S. (2003). Measuring Information Technology Payoff: A Meta-Analysis of Structural Variables in Firm-Level Empirical Research. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 127-145. doi:10.1287/isre.14.2.127.16019.
Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J.M., & Donaldson, M.S., (2000). To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kronbichel, S. A., Ostermann, H., & Staudinger, R. (2009). A review of critical success factors for ERPprojects. The Open Information Systems Journal, 3, 14-25. Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, W. (2002). Project management process maturity (PM)2 model. Journal of management in engineering, 18(3), 150-155. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:3(150).
Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2006). Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. Canadian Medical Association, 174(11), 1573-1578. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050281.
Lee, L. S., & Anderson, R. M. (2006). An exploratory investigation of the antecedents of the IT project management capability. E-Service Journal, 5(1), 27-42.
Lenz & Reichert (2007). IT support for healthcare processes: premises, challenges, perspectives. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 61(1), 39-58. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2006.04.007.
Levin, G., & Skulmoski, G. (2000). The project management maturity. ESI Horizons, 2( 3), 1-7.
Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999) Criteria of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248.
Low, C., & Chen, Y. H. (2012). Criteria for the evaluation of a cloud- based hospital information system outsourcing provider. Journal of Medical Systems, 36(6), 3543-3553. doi: 10.1007/s10916-012-9829-z.
Lumpkin, J. R. (2007). Archimedes: A bold step into the future. Health Affairs, 26(2), w137-w139. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w137.
Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie, D., & Tanis, C. (2000). Learning from adopters experiences with ERP: Problems encountered and success achieved.
Journal of Information Technology, 15, 245–265.
doi:10.1080/02683960010008944.
Maylor, H. (2001). Beyond the Gantt chart: Project management moving on. European Management Journal,19(1), 92–100. doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(00)00074-8.
McDonald, C. J., Hui, S. L., Smith, D. M., Tierney, W. M., Cohen, S. J., Weinberger, M., & McCabe, G. P. (1984). Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record. Annals of Internal Medicine,100 (1),130-138. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-100-1-130.
McDonald, C. J., Overhage, J. M., Dexter, P. R., Blevins, L., Meeks-Johnson, J., Suico, J. G., Tucker, M. C., & Schadow, G. (1998). Canopy computing: using the web in clinical practice. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(15), 1325-1329. PMID: 9794311.
Melville, N. Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283-322.
Milosevic, D. (2003). Project management toolbox: tools and techniques for the practicing project manager. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons
Mullaly, M. (2006). Longitudinal Analysis of Project Management Maturity.
Project Management
Journal, 36(3), 62-73.
Nieto-Rodriguez, A., & Evrard, D. (2004). Boosting Business Performance through Programme and Project Management: A first global survey on the current state of Project Management Maturity in Organizations across the World. London: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Olson, D. L., & Zhao, F. (2007). CIOs’perspectives of critical success factors in ERP upgrade projects. Enterprise Information Systems, 1(1), 129-138. doi: 10.1080/17517570601088364. Phansalker, S., Weir, C. R., Morris, A. H., & Warner, H. R. (2008). Clinicians’ perceptions about use of computerized protocols: A multicenter study. International Journal of Medical Association, 77(3), 184193. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.02.002.
Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37(4), 269-276. doi:10.1109/17.62322.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67-72.
Pullen, W. (2007). A public sector HPT maturity model. Performance Improvement, 46, 9-15. doi: 10.1002/pfi.119.
Pringle, M. (1988). Using computers to take patient histories. BMJ, 297(6650), 697–698.
Project Management Institute (2012). PMI Lexicon of Project Management Terms, version 2.0. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute Inc.
Raghupathi, W., & Tan, J. (1999). Strategic use of information technology in healthcare: a state-of-theart. Topics in Health Information Management, 1(1), 1 - 15. PMID: 10539419.
Rahimi, B., & Vimarlund, V. (2007). Methods to evaluate health information systems in health care settings: a literatura review. Journal of Medical Systems, 31(5), 397-432. doi:10.1007/s10916-007-9082-z.
Redekop, W. K., & Mladsi, D. (2013). The Faces of Personalised Medicine: A Framework for Understandings
its
Meanings
and
Scope.
Value
in
Health,
16,
S4-S9.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.005.
Rosemann, M., & de Bruin, T. (2005). Towards a business process management maturity model. In Proceedings of the ECIS2005, 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, Germany.
Sarter, N, B., Woods, D. D., & Billings, C. E. (1997). Automation surprises. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 2nd ed., 1926-1943, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Schlessinger, L., & Eddy, D. M. (2002). Archimedes: a new model for simulating health care systems— the mathematical formulation. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 35(1), 37–50.
Sergeant, R. Hatcher, C. Trigunarsyah, B. Coffey, V. Kraatz. (2010). Creating value in Project Management using PINCE 2. Research Project of Queenland University of Technology, Australia and Office of Government Commerce, UK.
Shenhar, A. J, & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation, Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Guth, W., Lechler, T., Panatakul, P., & Poli, M. (2005). Project strategy: The missing link. In Proceedings of Academy of Management Annual Meeting: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Shiffman, R., Liaw, Y., Brandt, C., & Corb, G. (1999). Computer-based guideline implementation systems: a systematic review of functionality and effectiveness. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, 6(2), 104–114. PMID: 10094063.
Sonnekus, R., & Labuschagne, L. (2004). Establishing the relationship between IT project management maturity and IT project success in a South African context. In Proceedings of the 2004 PMSA
International Conference Global Knowledge for Project Management Professionals, 183-192, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Tierney, W. (2001). Improving clinical decisions and outcomes with information: a review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 62(1), 1-9. PMID:11340002.
Ward, J., & Daniel, E. (2006). Benefits Management: Delivering Value from IS and IT Investments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Wears, R. L., & Berg, M. (2005). Computer technology and clinical works: still waiting for Godot. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(10), 1261-1263. doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1261.
ADDITIONAL READING Aarts, J., Doorewaard, H., & Berg, M. (2004). Understanding implementation: The case of a computerized physician order entry system in a large Dutch University Medical Center. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(3), 207-216. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1372.
Flower, J. (2013). Healthcare Beyond Reform: Doing It Right for Half the Cost. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hodge, J. G. (2003). Health Information Privacy and Public Health. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31(4), 663-671. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2003.tb00133.x.
Hyrkäs, K. & Lehti, K. (2003). Continuous quality improvement through team supervision, supported by continuous self-monitoring of work and systematic patient feedback. Journal of Nursing Management, 11(2), 208-226. PMID: 12694365.
Low, C., & Chen, Y. H. (2012). Criteria for the evaluation of a cloud- based hospital information system outsourcing provider. Journal of Medical Systems, 36(6), 3543-3553. doi: 10.1007/s10916-012-9829-z.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Benefits Management: Benefits Management is an integral part of managing change and aims to increase the success of the measurable and significant benefits of investments in IS/IT for an organization
Critical Success Factors: Critical success factors are elements which are vital for a project to be successful.
Maturity models: A theoretical framework that helps organizations to increase their ability to deliver projects by assessing strengths and weaknesses, good sector practices and benchmarking with similar organizations.
Project Management: Project management is the application of processes, methods, knowledge, skills and experience to achieve the project objectives.
Project Management Success: project management success is measured mostly against cost, time and quality.
Project Success: project success is measured against the overall objectives of the project
Project Success Criteria: Project success criteria are the standards by which the project will be judged at completion.
