Advertisement

Intelligent Healthcare Organisations and Patient-Dominant Logic in the New Service Space

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the characteristics of intelligent healthcare organisations. We propose that an intelligent organisation is able to operate interactively at the boundaries between different organisations and institutions. This view holds that an intelligent organisation shares its expertise and cross-social and healthcare professional silos, learns from mistakes, has unlearning capabilities and acts adaptively in relation to changes in the operating environment. This means that the existing and classical organisation theories do not suffice anymore. This chapter discusses the need for a new interpretation of organisational theories from the perspective of intelligence with special emphasis on research discussion concerning the crossing of organisational interfaces. We also discuss the role of isomorphic mechanisms in the field of healthcare: this view holds that healthcare organisations are becoming more and more homogeneous. In addition, we incorporate the concept of ‘service space’ into the development of intelligence in the field of healthcare organisations, developed and theorised by the authors in our earlier publications. To briefly formulate this concept, we understand a ‘service space’ as a space of relations and networks of service providers, embedded as integral parts in service (eco)systems, among agencies (personal, organisational) acting through communication (flows), utilising the possibilities of ubiquitous technologies and providing customer-driven services by deploying service-dominant logic. This chapter puts the healthcare organisations at the heart of the emerging service systems. This perspective includes the idea that intelligent organisations and service systems strengthen their legitimacy only if they take seriously the role of service users, patients and citizens in various forms of co-creation and co-production of services. The concrete topics of this chapter include the rise and fall of classical organisation theories, the evolution of ‘service space’ and the new challenges for public management leadership theories and service-dominant logic—putting service users at the heart of service planning and implementation. These topics highlight the transformation from co-production to co-creation and beyond, patient-centred service models and processes as well as the role of organisation’s development activities in enhancing organisational intelligence.

References

  1. Alam I (2006) Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations through customer interactions. Ind Mark Manag 35(4):468–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alam I, Perry C (2002) A customer-oriented new service development process. J Serv Mark 16(6):515–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvesson M, Spicer A (2016) The stupidity paradox. The power and pitfalls of functional stupidity at work. Profile Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyris C (1993) Knowledge for action: a guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. Argyris C (2010) Organizational traps. Leadership, culture, organizational design. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell D (1973) The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecasting. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Billis D (ed) (2010) Hybrid organizations and the third sector. Palgrave MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogers M, Afuah A, Bastian B (2010) Users as innovators: a review, critique, and future research directions. J Manag 36(4):857–875Google Scholar
  9. Bouckaert G, Halligan J (2008) Managing performance: international comparisons. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourdieu P (2000) Pascalian meditations. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. The University of Chigaco, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Bovard T (2007) Beyond engagement and participation – user and community co-production of public services. Public Adm Rev 67(5):846–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brodie RJ, Glynn MS, Little V (2006) The service brand and the service-dominant logic: missing fundamental premise or the need for stronger theory? Mark Theory 6(3):363–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brynjolfsson E, McAfee A (2014) The second machine age. Work, progress and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Cameron CR, Sirianne C (eds) (1996) Working in the service society. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Checkland PB (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  18. Chesbrough H (2006) Open innovation. The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (2008) Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Chia R (2003) Organization theory as a postmodern science. In: Tsoukas H, Knudsen C (eds) The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Meta-theoretical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113–140Google Scholar
  21. Cook LS, Bowen DE, Chase RB, Dasu S, Stewart DM, Tansik DA (2002) Human issues in service design. J Oper Manag 20(2):159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Currie C, White L (2012) Inter-professional barriers and knowledge brokering in an organizational context: the case of healthcare. Organization 33(10):1333–1361Google Scholar
  23. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (2012) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In: Calhoun C et al (eds) Contemporary sociological theory. Wiley, Chichester, pp 175–192 (Originally published in 1983)Google Scholar
  24. Djellal F, Gallouj F, Miles I (2013) Two decades of research on innovation in services: which place for public services? Struct Chang Econ Dyn 27(4):98–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doz Y, Kosonen M (2010) Embedding strategic agility: a leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):370–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Durand R, Vergne JP (2013) The pirate organization. Lessons from the fringes of capitalism. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Ellis K, Davis A, Rummery K (1999) Needs assessment, street-level bureaucracy and the new community care. Soc Policy Adm 33(3):262–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Evans T, Harris J (2004) Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. Br J Soc Work 34(6):871–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fernandez S, Pitts DW (2007) Under what conditions do public managers favor and pursue organizational change? Am Rev Public Adm 37(3):324–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fernandez S, Rainey HG (2006) Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Adm Rev 66(2):168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fernandez S, Choo YJ, Perry JL (2010) Exploring the link between integrated leadership and public sector performance. Leadersh Q 21(2):308–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fournier M (2013) Émile Durkheim: a biography. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Furco A, Billig SH (eds) (2001) Service learning: the essence of the pedagogy. Information Age Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Grönroos C (2011) Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis. Mark Theory 11(3):279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haveri A (2008) Evaluation of change in local governance. The rhetoric wall and the politics of images. Evaluation 14(2):139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hilgers M, Mangez E (eds) (2015) Bourdieu’s theory of social fields. Concepts and applications’. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Adm 69(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hupe P, Buffat A (2014) A public service gap. Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street level bureaucracy. Public Manag Rev 16(4):548–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ikeda N, Saito E, Inoue M, Ikeda S, Satoh T, Wada K, Stickley A, Katanoda K, Mizoue T, Noda M, Iso H, Fujino Y, Sobue T, Tsugane S, Naghavi M, Ezatti M, Shibuya K (2011) What has made the population of Japan healthy? Lancet 378(9796):1094–1105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Jansson A, Parding K (2011) Changed governance of public sector organisations – challenged conditions for intra-professional relations? Int J Public Sect Manag 24(3):177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaivo-oja J, Virtanen P, Jalonen H, Stenvall J (2015) The effects of the internet of things and big data to organizations and their knowledge management practices. In: Luden L et al (eds) Knowledge management in organizations, vol 224. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 495–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaivo-oja J, Virtanen P, Stenvall J, Jalonen H, Wallin J (2016) Future prospects for knowledge management in the field of health. KMO 2016. In: Proceedings of the 11th international knowledge management in organizations, Article no. 40.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2925995.2926006, ACM, New York. http://dl.acm.org/icps.cfm
  43. Kodner D (2009) All together now: a conceptual exploration of integrated care. Healthc Q 13(4):6–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kolb D (1984) Experimental learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  45. Koppell JGS (2005) Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Adm Rev 65(1):94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kurkela K, Virtanen P, Stenvall J, Tuurnas S (2016) Älykäs kokeilu- ja kehittämistoiminta kunnissa. Kuntien kokeilutoiminta älykkäiden kokonaisratkaisujen mahdollistajana. Loppuraportti (available in Finnish, Experiment and development activities in municipalities. Experimenting facilitating integrated intelligent solutions in municipalities. Final report.) Acta No. 263. The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, University of Tampere, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  47. Larsen P, Tonge R, Lewis A (2007) Strategic planning and design in the service sector. Manag Decis 45(2):180–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lipsky M (1980) Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Lyngsø AM, Godtfredsen NS, Høst D, Frølich A (2014) Instruments to assess integrated care: a systematic review. Int J Integr Care 14(3):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maglio P, Breidbach C (2014) Service science: toward systematic service system innovation. In: Newman A, Leung J (eds) Bridging data and decision. Tutorials in operations research, pp 161–170. http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/book/10.1287/educ.2014
  51. Maglio P, Spohrer J (2013) A service science perspective on business model innovation. Ind Mark Manag 42(5):665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Matthing J, Kristensson P, Gustafsson A, Parasuraman A (2006) Developing successful technology-based services: the issue of identifying and involving innovative users. J Serv Mark 20(5):288–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Michel S, Brown SW, Gallan AS (2008) Service-logic innovations: how to innovate customers, not products. Calif Manag Rev 50(3):49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Molin MD, Masella C (2016) From fragmentation to comprehensiveness in network governance. Public Organ Rev 16(4):493–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nonaka I, Hirose A, Takeda Y (2016) Meso-foundations of dynamic capabilities: team-level synthesis and distributed leadership as the source of dynamic creativity. Glob Strateg J 6(3):168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Normann R (1995) Service management: strategy and leadership in service business. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. North DC (2005) Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton University Press, Princetown, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Osborne S (2010) Introduction. The (new) public governance: a suitable case for treatment? In: Osborne S (ed) The new public governance? Routledge, London, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  60. Osborne S, Radnon Z, Nasi G (2013) A new theory for public service management? Towards a (public) service-dominant approach. Am Rev Public Adm 43(2):135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pestoff V (2012) Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: some crucial conceptual issues. In: Pestoff V, Brandsen T, Vershuere B (eds) New public governance, the third sector and co-production. Routledge, London, pp 13–34Google Scholar
  62. Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis. New public management, governance and the neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  63. Praetorius T, Becker MC (2016) How to achieve care coordination inside health care organizations: insights from organization theory on coordination in theory and in actio. Int J Care Coord. Published online on 2.3.2016,  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053434516634115
  64. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) The future of competition. Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  65. Pugh DS (2007) Introduction to the fifth edition. In: Pugh DS (ed) Organization theory. Classic readings. Penguin Books, London, pp xi–xiiiGoogle Scholar
  66. Rashman L, Withers E, Hartley J (2009) Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Manag Rev 11(4):463–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Saks M (2013) Regulating the English healthcare professions: zoos, circuses or safari parks? J Prof Organ. Published online on December 17, 2013,  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jot001
  68. Schillemans T (2011) Does horizontal accountability work? Evaluating potential remedies for the accountability deficit of agencies. Adm Soc 43(3):387–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schneider B (1984) The service organization: climate is crucial. Organ Dyn 5(2):52–65Google Scholar
  70. Schneier B (2015) Data and goliath. The hidden battles to collect your data and control your world. W.W. Norton & Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Sennett R (1992) The fall of the public man. W.W. Norton, New York (Originally published in 1972)Google Scholar
  72. Shostack GL (1977) Breaking free from product marketing. J Mark 41(2):73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shultz M (2001) The uncertain relevance of newness: organizational learning and knowledge flows. Acad Manag J 44(6):661–681Google Scholar
  74. Spohrer J, Freund LE (eds) (2013) Advances in the human side of service engineering. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  75. Spohrer J, Maglio P (2008) The emergence of service science: toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value. Prod Oper Manag 17(3):238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Spohrer J, Maglio P, Bailey J, Gruhl D (2007) Steps towards a science of service systems. Computer 40(1):71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stacey R (2010) Complexity and organizational reality: uncertainty and the need to rethink management after the collapse of investment capitalism. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Starbuck WH (2003) The origins of organization theory. In: Tsoukas H, Knudsen C (eds) The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Meta-theoretical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 143–182Google Scholar
  79. Tuurnas S (2016) The professional side of co-production. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2163, TampereGoogle Scholar
  80. Tuurnas S, Stenvall J, Rannisto PH (2015) The impact of co-production on frontline accountability: the case of conciliation service. Int Rev Adm Sci 82:131–149.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566010, first published on July 2, 2015
  81. Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark 68(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J Acad Mark Sci 36(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Virtanen P, Kaivo-oja J (2015) Public services and emergent systemic societal challenges. Int J Public Leadersh 11(2):77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Virtanen P, Stenvall J (2014) The evolution of public services from co-production to co-creation and beyond – an unfinished trajectory for the New Public Management? Int J Leadersh Public Serv 10(2):91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Virtanen P, Kaivo-oja J, Ishino Y, Stenvall J, Jalonen H (2016a) Ubiquitous revolution, customer needs and business intelligence. Empirical evidence from Japanese healthcare sector. Int J Web Eng Technol 11(3):259–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Virtanen P, Laitinen I, Stenvall J (2016b) Street-level bureaucrats as strategy shapers in social and health service delivery: empirical evidence from six countries. Int Soc Work 16(3):1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872816660602 Google Scholar
  87. Virtanen P, Uusikylä P, Jalava J, Tiihonen S, Laitinen L, Noro K (2016c) Valtioneuvoston yhtenäisyys – kansainvälinen vertaileva tutkimus [available in only in Fiinish, The unity of government – an international comparative study]. Valtioneuvoston kanslia, Helsinki. Accessed at www.tietokauttoon.fi
  88. Walker L, Gilson L (2004) We are bitter but we are satisfied: nurses as street-level bureaucrats in South Africa. Soc Sci Med 59(6):1251–1261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Weber M (1947) In: Henderson AM, Parsons T (eds) The theory of social and economic organization. The Free Press, New York. Originally published in 1924Google Scholar
  90. Wright S (2006) The administration of transformation: a case study of implementing welfare reform in the UK. In: Henman P, Fenger M (eds) Administering welfare reform – international transformations in welfare governance. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 161–182Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Finnish Innovation Fund SITRAHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.School of ManagementUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations