Implementation Climate

The absorptive capacity for change, shared receptivity of involved individuals to an intervention, and the extent to which use of that intervention will be rewarded, supported, and expected within their organization. 

The absorptive capacity for change, shared receptivity of involved individuals to an intervention [1], and the extent to which use of that intervention will be ‘rewarded, supported, and expected within their organization’ [2]. Climate can be assessed through tangible and relatively accessible means such as policies, procedures, and reward systems [3]. Six sub-constructs contribute to a positive implementation climate for an intervention: Tension for Change, Compatibility, Relative Priority, Organizational Incentives and Rewards, Goals and Feedback, and Learning Climate.

We introduce the concept of Implementation Climate, that is adapted from Klein and Sorra’s conceptual model [2] which they also tested empirically [4][5]. It is important to recognize that organizations have a multiplicity of coexisting cultures and climates. Greenhalgh, et al. refer to “receptive context for change” and “absorptive capacity” which each include an amalgam of several factors. We parse these out separately, defining some as part of Implementation Climate and others as part of Readiness for Implementation. Implementation climate is a socially-constructed concept (i.e., a collective reflection of stakeholders’ experience of culture [3] as it relates to a particular implementation) and may transcend vertical and horizontal organizational boundaries and interrelationships between them. However, climate may vary from unit to unit. The appropriate scope of Implementation Climate (at the team, unit, service line, organization, system level, etc.) is determined by the scope and nature of the particular intervention. It is important to understand up front in a particular study, the organizational level at which “Implementation Climate” is salient. Implementation Climate has a significant mediating role between management support and implementation effectiveness [4]. 

Inclusion Criteria

Include statements regarding the general level of receptivity to implementing the innovation.

Exclusion Criteria

Exclude statements regarding the general level of receptivity that are captured in the sub-codes.

Maria Fernandez and colleagues developed 4 items related to Implementation Climate. Measures are available for review here. For permission to use, please contact Dr. Fernandez at: Maria.E.Fernandez at uth-dot-tmc-dot-edu

Also, check out SIRC’s Instrument Review project and published systematic review protocol, which has cataloged over 400 implementation-related measures. 

Note: As we become aware of measures, we will post them here. Please contact us with updates.

  1. 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.
  2. Klein KJ, Sorra JS: The Challenge of Innovation Implementation. The Academy of Management Review 1996, 21:1055-1080.
  3. Gershon R, Stone PW, Bakken S, Larson E: Measurement of Organizational Culture and Climate in Healthcare. J Nurs Adm 2004, 34:33-40.
  4. Klein KJ, Conn AB, Sorra JS: Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. J Appl Psychol 2001, 86:811-824.
  5. 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.