title: Combining communication technology utilization and organizational innovation: evidence from Canadian healthcare decision makers.
abstract: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Organizational Innovation (OI) are seen as the miracle of post-modernity in organizations. In this way, they are supposed to resolve most organizational problems, efficiently and rapidly. OI is highly dependent on the capacity and the investment in knowledge management (internal and external) to support decision making process and to implement significant changes. We know what explains ICT utilization (ICTU) and what determines OI development (OID) in healthcare services. Moreover, the literature tends to link ICTU to OID and vice versa. However, this dependency has never been explored empirically through the lens of roles combination. To identify the existing combined roles profiles of ICTU and OID among healthcare decision makers and determine factors of the shift from a profile to another. We did the following: (1) a structured review of the literature on healthcare management by focusing on ICTU and OID which allowed us to build two indexes and a comprehensive framework; (2) a copula methodology to identify with high precision the thresholds for ICTU and OID; and (3) a cross-sectional study based on a survey done with a sample of 942 decision makers from Canadian healthcare organizations through a multinomial logit model to identify determinants of the shift. ICTU and OID are correlated at 22% (Kendal's Tau). The joint distribution (combination) of ICTU and OID shows that four major profiles exist among decision makers in Canadian healthcare organizations: the traditional decision maker, the innovative decision maker, the technologic decision maker and the contemporary decision maker. We found out that classic factors act as barriers to the shift from one profile to the desired profile (from 1 to 4, from 2 to 4 and from 3 to 4). We have identified that the attitude toward research and relational capital are transversal barriers of shift. We have also found that some factors have a specific impact such as engaging in activities of research acquisition, the administrative position (being a manager), the preference for applied research results as source of information, the degree of novelty of research results, and the gender. Modern Canadian healthcare organizations need contemporary decision makers who use ICT and develop OI, if performance is the target. Our results let us suggest that the isolated administrative agents profile is no more effective in a dynamic and changing world. Contemporary decision makers need to be more active intellectually and to take risks in their decisions. Relying exclusively on research results and on their social network is no more helpful for a real shift. Moreover, the traditional factors, i.e. organization size, time, experience ... are no more effective, especially when we consider combined roles. We propose some practical and theoretical recommendations to support these changes.
authors.affiliation: Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. jalila.jbilou@fsa.ulaval.ca
authors.forename: Jalila
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Jbilou
authors.forename: Réjean
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Landry
authors.forename: Nabil
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Amara
authors.forename: Salaheddine
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: El Adlouni
mesh_terms: D002170:Canada; D003142:Communication; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003659:Decision Making, Organizational; D004059:Diffusion of Innovation; D006296:Health Services; D006298:Health Services Administration; D006801:Humans; D033181:Information Dissemination; D007256:Information Systems; D007400:Interprofessional Relations; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D009864:Ontario; D015279:Organizational Culture; D009936:Organizational Innovation; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
references.citation: Brief Bioinform. 2007 May;8(3):141-9
references.pmid: 17502336
references.citation: Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2007 Aug 27;4:7
references.pmid: 18066357
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 2007 Apr;97(4):601-5
references.pmid: 17329658
references.citation: BMC Public Health. 2005 Dec 20;5:137
references.pmid: 16364186
references.citation: Health Law Can. 2007 Aug;28(1):1-15
references.pmid: 17982982
references.citation: Health Informatics J. 2007 Jun;13(2):75-87
references.pmid: 17510221
references.citation: Aust Health Rev. 2007 Aug;31(3):379-84
references.pmid: 17669060
references.citation: Eur J Health Econ. 2007 Sep;8(3):181-93
references.pmid: 17186204
references.citation: J Nurs Adm. 2007 Jul-Aug;37(7-8):343-9
references.pmid: 17939465
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;134:163-8
references.pmid: 18376043
references.citation: Behav Genet. 2004 Mar;34(2):161-71
references.pmid: 14755181
references.citation: Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005 Feb;8(1):21-31
references.pmid: 15738690
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2007 Jan;22(1):28-39
references.pmid: 17237492
references.citation: Health Care Manage Rev. 2007 Jul-Sep;32(3):263-70
references.pmid: 17666997
references.citation: Int J Electron Healthc. 2006;2(3):250-62
references.pmid: 18048248
references.citation: J Biomed Inform. 2007 Dec;40(6 Suppl):S17-20
references.pmid: 17945542
references.citation: Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Jun;64(3):279-303
references.pmid: 17507459
references.citation: J Med Syst. 2007 Feb;31(1):35-47
references.pmid: 17283921
references.citation: Nurs Manage. 2007 Jun;38(6):10, 14
references.pmid: 17538454
references.citation: J Health Organ Manag. 2007;21(4-5):381-92
references.pmid: 17933370
references.citation: J Med Syst. 2007 Jun;31(3):185-96
references.pmid: 17622021
references.citation: Harv Bus Rev. 2007 Jun;85(6):121-30, 142
references.pmid: 17580654
references.citation: J Healthc Manag. 2007 May-Jun;52(3):170-86; discussion 187
references.pmid: 17552354
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jan;58(1):207-17
references.pmid: 14572932
references.citation: Med Care. 2007 May;45(5):463-71
references.pmid: 17446833