Relative Priority

From CFIR Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Relative Priority
Taxonomy
Domain
Inner Setting
Construct
Implementation Climate
Siblings
Compatibility
Goals & Feedback
Learning Climate
Organizational Incentives & Rewards
Relative Priority
Tension for Change
Measurement maturity
Quantitative tools


Contents

Version 1.0

Individuals’ shared perception of the importance of the implementation within the organization.

Description

Individuals' shared perception of the importance of the implementation within the organization [1][2][3].

Rationale for inclusion

Individuals’ shared perception of the importance of the implementation within the organization[3][2][1]. Few models explicitly incorporate the concept of relative priority. However, this construct has been found to be a significant predictor for implementation effectiveness[3]. If employees perceive that implementation is a key organizational priority (promoted, supported, and cooperative behaviors rewarded), then implementation climate will be strong[3]. When relative priority is high, employees regard the intervention as an important priority rather than a distraction from their "real work"[3]. The higher the relative priority of implementing an intervention, the more effective the implementation is likely to be[3][4]. The ability of an organization to fully implement may be a function of how many other initiatives or changes have been rolled out in the recent past which may lead to being overwhelmed with yet another initiative[5][6] and a low priority being assigned.

Measurement

Qualitative codebook guidelines

Inclusion criteria

Include statements that reflect the relative priority of the innovation e.g., statements related to change fatigue in the organization due to the implementation of many other programs.

  • “We have so many studies going on that I feel like this just doesn’t get the attention it needs. We are all too overwhelmed.”
  • “It’s really important for us to get this done because it will affect our performance measures.”



Exclusion criteria

Exclude or double code statements regarding the priority of the innovation based on compatibility with organizational values to Compatibility, e.g., if an innovation is not prioritized because it is not compatible with organizational values.



Quantitative measures

Attachments

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Klein KJ, Sorra JS: The Challenge of Innovation Implementation. The Academy of Management Review 1996, 21:1055-1080.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE: A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety/Joint Commission Resources 2008, 34:228-243.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Klein KJ, Conn AB, Sorra JS: Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. J Appl Psychol 2001, 86:811-824.
  4. Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ, McKinney MM, Minasian L: Determinants of implementation effectiveness: adapting a framework for complex innovations. Med Care Res Rev 2007, 64:279-303.
  5. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
  6. Gustafson DH, Sainfort F, Eichler M, Adams L, Bisognano M, Steudel H: Developing and testing a model to predict outcomes of organizational change. Health Serv Res 2003, 38:751-776.
Personal tools
Etiquette and Help