BACKGROUND: The success or failure of a computer information system (CIS) depends on whether physicians accept or resist its implementation. Using case studies, we analyzed the implementation of such systems in 3 hospitals to understand better the dynamics of physicians' resistance to CIS implementation. METHODS: We selected cases to maximize variation while allowing comparison of CIS implementations. Data were collected from observations, documentation and interviews, the last being the main source of data. Interviewees comprised 15 physicians, 14 nurses and 14 system implementers. Transcripts were produced; 45 segments of the transcripts were coded by several judges, with an appropriate level of intercoder reliability. We conducted within-case and cross-case analyses of the data. RESULTS: Initially, most staff were neutral or enthusiastic about the CIS implementations. During implementation, the level of resistance varied and in 2 instances became great enough to lead to major disruptions and system withdrawal. Implementers' responses to physicians' resistance behaviours played a critical role. In one case, the responses were supportive and addressed the issues related to the real object of resistance; the severity of resistance decreased, and the CIS implementation was ultimately successful. In the other 2 cases, the implementers' responses reinforced the resistance behaviours. Three types of responses had such an effect in these cases: implementers' lack of response to resistance behaviours, antagonistic responses, and supportive responses aimed at the wrong object of resistance. INTERPRETATION: The 3 cases we analyzed showed the importance of the roles played by implementers and users in determining the outcomes of a CIS implementation.
BACKGROUND: The success or failure of a computer information system (CIS) depends on whether physicians accept or resist its implementation. Using case studies, we analyzed the implementation of such systems in 3 hospitals to understand better the dynamics of physicians' resistance to CIS implementation. METHODS: We selected cases to maximize variation while allowing comparison of CIS implementations. Data were collected from observations, documentation and interviews, the last being the main source of data. Interviewees comprised 15 physicians, 14 nurses and 14 system implementers. Transcripts were produced; 45 segments of the transcripts were coded by several judges, with an appropriate level of intercoder reliability. We conducted within-case and cross-case analyses of the data. RESULTS: Initially, most staff were neutral or enthusiastic about the CIS implementations. During implementation, the level of resistance varied and in 2 instances became great enough to lead to major disruptions and system withdrawal. Implementers' responses to physicians' resistance behaviours played a critical role. In one case, the responses were supportive and addressed the issues related to the real object of resistance; the severity of resistance decreased, and the CIS implementation was ultimately successful. In the other 2 cases, the implementers' responses reinforced the resistance behaviours. Three types of responses had such an effect in these cases: implementers' lack of response to resistance behaviours, antagonistic responses, and supportive responses aimed at the wrong object of resistance. INTERPRETATION: The 3 cases we analyzed showed the importance of the roles played by implementers and users in determining the outcomes of a CIS implementation.
Authors: G J Kuperman; J M Teich; M J Tanasijevic; N Ma'Luf; E Rittenberg; A Jha; J Fiskio; J Winkelman; D W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: C P Friedman; A S Elstein; F M Wolf; G C Murphy; T M Franz; P S Heckerling; P L Fine; T M Miller; V Abraham Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-11-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: James W Kinn; Joseph C Marek; Michael F O'Toole; Stephen M Rowley; Vincent J Bufalino Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Marie Desmartis; Michel Labrecque; Josip Car; Claudia Pagliari; Pierre Pluye; Pierre Frémont; Johanne Gagnon; Nadine Tremblay; France Légaré Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Jennifer P Wisdom; James H Ford Ii; Randy A Hayes; Eldon Edmundson; Kim Hoffman; Dennis McCarty Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Jennifer Wisdom; Roy Gabriel; Eldon Edmundson; Sarann Bielavitz; Joe Hromco Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2007-11-03 Impact factor: 1.505