What Managers Find Important for Implementation of Innovations in the Healthcare Sector – Practice Through Six Management Perspectives

Document Type : Original Article


Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden


There is a growing expectation that many health organisations will implement innovations. One obstacle for innovative ideas to have an impact on the healthcare system in practice seems to be difficulties in the implementation phase. There is a lack of concretization of theoretical perspectives related to implementation of innovations. The research question answered by this article is: Which enabling factors can facilitate the specific step of moving from idea generation to implementation in a healthcare context?

The research was carried out with a qualitative action research methodology where the researchers took part in the innovation implementation project. The authors of this article were part of a collaborative innovation implementation project involving approximately 54 practitioners. The project was run by five stakeholders: (1) the Division of Assistive Technology in the Dalarna County Council Regional Healthcare Administration, (2) the Habilitation Division, (3) the Division for Home Care and Social Services in the municipality of Leksand, (4) Dalarna University, and (5) Uppsala University. Through a ‘Pearl growing’ technique six implementation management perspectives were, as a framework, identified and presented for the practitioners. The practitioners worked further to concretize these six perspectives. Data was collected through five workshops and collaborations between the researchers and the practitioners. Data was clustered regarding what the managers want to achieve within these six perspectives (ideal situation) and the main means for reaching this situation.

The study underlying this article generated 35 concrete enabling factors for successful innovation implementation, distributed over the initially presented six theoretical perspectives.

Concretizing management principles into enabling factors shows, on the one hand, that the theoretical principles have practical value, but on the other that they must be adopted to the specific circumstances of each organization, and that too abstract principles can hardly be operationalized.



Commentaries Published on this Paper

  •  Strategic Encounters in Innovation and Regulation: Healthcare Transformation in the Era of Digital Connectivity; Comment on “What Managers Find Important for Implementation of Innovations in the Healthcare Sector – Practice Through Six Management Perspectives”

        Abstract | PDF


  • Beyond Organisational Borders: The Soft Power of Innovation in the Health Sector; Comment on “What Managers Find Important for Implementation of Innovations in the Healthcare Sector – Practice Through Six Management Perspectives”

        Abstract | PDF


  • From Implementation Towards Change Management: A Plea for a Multi-stakeholder View on Innovation Implementation; Comment on “What Managers Find Important for Implementation of Innovations in the Healthcare Sector – Practice Through Six Management Perspectives”

        Abstract | PDF


  • How Openness Serves Innovation in Healthcare?; Comment on “What Managers Find Important for Implementation of Innovations in the Healthcare Sector – Practice Through Six Management Perspectives”

        Abstract | PDF



  1. Weintraub P, McKee M. Leadership for innovation in healthcare: an exploration. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(3):138-144. doi:15171/ijhpm.2018.122
  2. Guarcello C, de Vargas ER. Service innovation in healthcare: a systematic literature review. Lat Am Bus Rev. 2020;21(4):353-369. doi:1080/10978526.2020.1802286
  3. Moreira MRA, Gherman M, Sousa PSA. Does innovation influence the performance of healthcare organizations? Innovation. 2017;19(3):335-352. doi:1080/14479338.2017.1293489
  4. Boyer R. How scientific breakthroughs and social innovations shape the evolution of the healthcare sector. In: Lechevalier S, ed. Innovation Beyond Technology: Science for Society and Interdisciplinary Approaches. Singapore: Springer; 2019:89-119. doi:1007/978-981-13-9053-1_5
  5. Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ, McKinney MM, Minasian L. Determinants of implementation effectiveness: adapting a framework for complex innovations. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(3):279-303. doi:1177/1077558707299887
  6. Currie G, Lockett A, El Enany N. From what we know to what we do: lessons learned from the translational CLAHRC initiative in England. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3 Suppl):27-39. doi:1177/1355819613500484
  7. Brorström S. Implementing innovative ideas in a city: good solutions on paper but not in practice? Int J Public Sect Manag. 2015;28(3):166-180. doi:1108/ijpsm-11-2014-0137
  8. Stewart J. Implementing an innovative public sector program: the balance between flexibility and control. Int J Public Sect Manag. 2014;27(3):241-250. doi:1108/ijpsm-05-2013-0076
  9. Piening EP. Insights into the process dynamics of innovation implementation. Public Manag Rev. 2011;13(1):127-157. doi:1080/14719037.2010.501615
  10. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. doi:1186/s13012-015-0242-0
  11. Choi JN, Chang JY. Innovation implementation in the public sector: an integration of institutional and collective dynamics. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(1):245-253. doi:1037/a0012994
  12. West MA, Anderson NR. Innovation in top management teams. J Appl Psychol. 1996;81(6):680-693. doi:1037/0021-9010.81.6.680
  13. Taylor A, Greve HR. Superman or the fantastic four? knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Acad Manage J. 2006;49(4):723-740. doi:2307/20159795
  14. Wadhwa A, Kotha S. Knowledge creation through external venturing: evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Acad Manage J. 2006;49(4):819-835. doi:2307/20159800
  15. Simsek Z. Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. J Manag Stud. 2009;46(4):597-624. doi:1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x
  16. March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci. 1991;2(1):71-87. doi:1287/orsc.2.1.71
  17. Moore M, Hartley J. Innovations in governance. Public Manag Rev. 2008;10(1):3-20. doi:1080/14719030701763161
  18. Somech A, Drach-Zahavy A. Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: the role of team composition and climate for innovation. J Manage. 2013;39(3):684-708. doi:1177/0149206310394187
  19. Birken SA, Lee SY, Weiner BJ, Chin MH, Chiu M, Schaefer CT. From strategy to action: how top managers' support increases middle managers' commitment to innovation implementation in health care organizations. Health Care Manage Rev. 2015;40(2):159-168. doi:1097/hmr.0000000000000018
  20. Denti L. Leadership and Innovation in R&D Teams. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg; 2013.
  21. Albury D. Creating the conditions for radical public service innovation. Aust J Public Adm. 2011;70(3):227-235. doi:1111/j.1467-8500.2011.00727.x
  22. Grol R. Personal paper. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ. 1997;315(7105):418-421. doi:1136/bmj.315.7105.418
  23. May C. A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:86. doi:1186/1472-6963-6-86
  24. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535-554. doi:1177/0038038509103208
  25. May CR, Finch T, Ballini L, et al. Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:245. doi:1186/1472-6963-11-245
  26. Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci. 2016;11:33. doi:1186/s13012-016-0398-2
  27. Jacobs SR, Weiner BJ, Reeve BB, Hofmann DA, Christian M, Weinberger M. Determining the predictors of innovation implementation in healthcare: a quantitative analysis of implementation effectiveness. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:6. doi:1186/s12913-014-0657-3
  28. Metz A, Bartley L. Active implementation frameworks for program success. Zero Three. 2012;32(4):11-18.
  29. Palm K, Algehed J. Exploring enablers of innovative quality development in public administration. Int J Qual Serv Sci. 2017;9(2):203-217. doi:1108/ijqss-03-2016-0021
  30. Bolman LG, Deal TE. Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1984.
  31. Hemman EA. Creating healthcare cultures of patient safety. J Nurs Adm. 2002;32(7-8):419-427. doi:1097/00005110-200207000-00010
  32. Nemec J, Spacek D, de Vries MS. Coordinating healthcare under a pluralistic health insurance system: the case of Slovakia. Transylv Rev Adm Sci. 2015;11(45):168-184.
  33. McKimm J, Jones PK. Twelve tips for applying change models to curriculum design, development and delivery. Med Teach. 2018;40(5):520-526. doi:1080/0142159x.2017.1391377
  34. Zhitlukhina OG, Babak LN, Rakutko SY, et al. Specificity of the relationship between project management and organizational culture. J Entrep Educ. 2018;21(3):1-9.
  35. Bolman LG, Deal TE. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. John Wiley & Sons; 2017.
  36. Arbnor I, Bjerke B. Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications; 2009. doi:4135/9780857024473
  37. Denscombe M. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2014.
  38. Hawkins DT, Wagers R. Online bibliographic search strategy development. Online. 1982;6(3):12-19.
  39. Badampudi D, Wohlin C, Petersen K. Experiences from using snowballing and database searches in systematic literature studies. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); 2015. doi:1145/2745802.2745818
  40. Reason P, Bradbury H. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. SAGE Publications; 2001.
  41. Stringer ET. Action Research: SAGE Publications; 2013.
  42. Chevalier JM, Buckles DJ. Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry. Routledge; 2019.
  43. Ford JD, Ford LW. The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):541-570. doi:2307/258787
  44. Collins J, Hansen MT. Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos and Luck-Why Some Thrive Despite Them All. Random House; 2011.
  45. Vacik H, Kurttila M, Hujala T, et al. Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-based planning in natural resource management. J Environ Manage. 2014;144:304-315. doi:1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.029
  46. Bushe GR, Marshak RJ. Dialogic organization development. In: Jones BB, Brazzel M, eds. The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change. John Wiley & Sons; 2014:193-211.
  47. Bushe GR, Marshak RJ. The dialogic mindset in organization development. In: Research in Organizational Change and Development. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2014.
  48. Nesta and IDEO. Designing Public Services: a practical guide. http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/designing-public-services-practical-guide. Published 2016.
  49. Cross N. Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Des Issues. 2001;17(3):49-55.
  50. Norman D. Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions. 2002;9(4):36-42. doi:1145/543434.543435
  51. Bason C. Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-creating for a Better Society. Policy Press; 2010.
  52. Gaziulusoy Aİ, Ryan C. Shifting conversations for sustainability transitions using participatory design visioning. Des J. 2017;20(Suppl 1):S1916-S1926. doi:1080/14606925.2017.1352709
  53. Roberts JP, Fisher TR, Trowbridge MJ, Bent C. A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare. 2016;4(1):11-14. doi:1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002
  54. Rahemi Z, DʼAvolio D, Dunphy LM, Rivera A. Shifting management in healthcare: an integrative review of design thinking. Nurs Manage. 2018;49(12):30-37. doi:1097/01.NUMA.0000547834.95083.e9
  55. Vink J, Edvardsson B, Wetter-Edman K, Tronvoll B. Reshaping mental models–enabling innovation through service design. J Serv Manag. 2019;30(1):75-104. doi:1108/josm-08-2017-0186
  56. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The triple helix--university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Rev. 1995;14(1):14-19.
Volume 11, Issue 10
October 2022
Pages 2261-2271
  • Receive Date: 02 September 2020
  • Revise Date: 20 October 2021
  • Accept Date: 23 October 2021
  • First Publish Date: 25 October 2021