Motivations Underlying the Adoption of ERP Systems in Healthcare Organizations: An Analysis from "Success Stories"
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to deal with continuous drastic increases in healthcare spending and major demographic changes, governments in industrialised countries are initiating major reforms aimed at improving the efficiency and the quality of care services provided to their citizens. These reforms along with increasing requirements for accountability tend to "corporatize" these institutions by exposing them to market-like pressures. To face their changing environment, healthcare institutions have invested in ERP systems as their basic technological infrastructure, highlighting a phenomenon that recalls the earlier popularity of the ERP movement with private companies. Based on the analysis of 180 public "success stories, " the main objective of this study is to identify and characterize the sets of motivations that lead to the adoption of ERP systems in healthcare organizations. Our findings indicate that these motivations can be classified into six categories, namely technological, managerial operational, managerial strategic, clinical operational, clinical strategic, and financial. Three clusters of healthcare organizations were identified with regard to these motivations, and labelled as a Business View, a Clinical View, and an Institutional View of ERP systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it