Cited by 654Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation

Open access
HEEKS, R·2006·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Background and purpose The generalised assumption of health information systems (HIS) success is questioned by a few commentators in the medical informatics field. They point to widespread HIS failure. The purpose of this paper was therefore to develop a better conceptual foundation for, and practical guidance on, health information systems failure (and success).Methods Literature and case analysis plus pilot testing of developed model.Results Defining HIS failure and success is complex, and the current evidence base on HIS success and failure rates was found to be weak. Nonetheless, the best current estimate is that HIS failure is an important problem. The paper therefore derives and explains the "design-reality gap" conceptual model. This is shown to be robust in explaining multiple cases of HIS success and failure, yet provides a contingency that encompasses the differences which exist in different HIS contexts. The design-reality gap model is piloted to demonstrate its value as a tool for risk assessment and mitigation on HIS projects. It also throws into question traditional, structured development methodologies, highlighting the importance of emergent change and improvisation in HIS.Conclusions The design-reality gap model can be used to address the problem of HIS failure, both as a post hoc evaluative tool and as a pre hoc risk assessment and mitigation tool. It also validates a set of methods, techniques, roles and competencies needed to support the dynamic improvisations that are found to underpin cases of HIS success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.024

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Galliers, W.L. Currie (Eds.) Rethinking Management Information Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 279309.
  2. A. Salazar, Evaluating information systems for decentralisation: health management reform in Ecuador, in: R.B. Heeks (Ed.) Reinventing Government in the Information Age, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 156176.
  3. M.W. Guah, Evaluation and Analysis of Multimedia Information System Design and Implementation at the Coloscopy Unit of St. James University Hospital, Leeds, UK, MSc dissertation, Manchester: School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, 1998.
  4. M.F. Arnold, Tools for planning, in: M.F. Arnold, L.V. Blankenship, J.M. Hess (Eds.) Administering Health Systems, AldineAtherton, Chicago, 1971, pp. 250 262.
  5. M. Ashmore, M. Mulkay, T. Pinch, Health & Efficiency, Open University Press, Buckingham, 1990.
  6. C. Davies, Professionalism and the conundrum of care, in: B. Davey, A. Gray, C. Seale (Eds.) Health and Disease, Open University Press, Buckingham, 1995, pp. 346351.
  7. C. Scott, Public and Private Roles in Health Care Systems, Open University Press, Buckingham, 2001.
  8. L.O. Silva, J.C. Castro, E.O. Rodriguez, Outsourcing as an improvisation, IFIP WG9.4 Conference on Information Flows, Local Improvisations and Work Practices, Cape Town, 2000.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HEEKS, R.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
HEEKS, R
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
75
Issue
2
Pages
125-137
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144548612
Cited by
654
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 52
FWCI
26.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
health information systems, contingency theory, risk assessment, risk mitigation, improvisation, emergent change, health information system development, project evaluation
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Information Systems, Medical Informatics, Models, Theoretical, Organizational Innovation, Risk Management, State Medicine, Systems Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review