Implementation Climate

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].