Broader lessons from health care app failures
Stumbled upon a lengthy discussion in the LinkedIn group “Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society” that had a number of interesting themes for anyone creating workplace applications.

The opening question was very broad, asking for input on why some implementations of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) are failing to meet expectations. The resulting conversation (over 700 comments) brought up a range of thoughtful points on the root causes of these failures, and I have summarized some of them here in no particular order:

• Lack of vision about system benefits at the leadership level.

• Reactive culture focused on fixing problems, rather than active knowledge work improvement.

• Current IT staff may not be qualified for such a large shift in IT responsibility.

• Emphasis on rapid deployment without sufficient long term evolution and follow through.

• Cultural clash between outside technologists and the knowledge workforce they are “serving.”

• Technology vendors’ lack of understanding about users’ work practices.
See also WTS A1. Influential physical and cultural environments.

• Difficulty integrating diverse systems with conflicting technical standards.
See also WTS K10. Openness to application integration and extension.

• Existing workflow issues can be compounded by adoption of new systems.

• Mistakenly pushing open and emergent work into standardized workflows.
See also WTS A6. Open and emergent work scenarios and C6. Standardized application workflows.

• Skilled professionals need to understand the payoff before investing effort into changing their practices.
See also WTS K3. Recognizable applicability to targeted work.

• Diverse roles within organizations require application views designed to support their goals.
See also WTS C5. Permissions and views tailored to workers’ identities.

• Customization and flexibility are difficult given the range of professional practices.
See also WTS A3. Work practices appropriate for computer mediation and C8. Defaults, customization, and automated tailoring.

• Lack of trusted sources and technology leadership to drive motivated use.
See also WTS K12. Trusted and credible processes and content.

• Excessive data entry slowing common, day-to-day work.
See also WTS D2. Expected effort.

Deployments of EMRs, and the adoption of tech in the healthcare industry generally, provide great models for understanding how to augment cooperative work in layered cultures of established work practice. And it seems that a flock of designers have tuned in: the broader thread on healthcare design is inspiring, though the emphasis often seems to fall more on patients rather than caregivers.

The leading points in the list above can be humbling for designers, emphasizing that the primary factors for success or failure in workplace applications are often in the hands of project and organizational leadership.

I’m reminded of a quote from years ago by David Childs, a SOM architect working at Ground Zero: Something along the lines of “It takes a client to make a building.” I think of it often, and read it two ways: both as a statement of crass commercialism in the face of more civic-minded design intent, and as a basic truth of design services.

I love so-called “paper architecture” and open design exploration, but I’m also driven to promote real improvements in user experiences for people practicing their chosen vocations.

In a hand-waving sense, there are always plenty of abstract arguments about the benefits of computing tools in organizations. Shared industry beliefs, fashionable truisms, and rehearsed marketing pitches. Designers generate conceptual projects that show compelling advancements in user experience. In a conference room, futuristic applications can seem like near term inevitabilities.

But to successfully implement a system like an EMR — a messy, long term bet, involving systemic interventions — requires highly motivated leaders who have bought into a big picture.

Effective designers in these situations are facilitators of pragmatic process, collaborators in service of a vision, willing to dive into the unexpected hurdles of real world adoption. Else, design’s contributions are simply more visionary images projected on the wall, mismatched to the reality of what a client will actually follow through on, to be filed away on some repository and forgotten.

Caregivers and patients deserve better.

Know any great resources on the success or failure of Electronic Medical Records? Have any of the bullet points above impacted your projects?

@J_Burghardt

Filed under: Findings + Commentary | Posted by J_Burghardt on 10/03/2010 9:21 AM | Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Our Design Ideation Book



Explore this free publication

Latest Studio Updates

FlashbulbUX Twitter feed:
  •  
Follow Flashbulb Interaction Studio Updates on Twitter





Copyright 2008 - 2010 Flashbulb Interaction, Inc. All Rights Reserved.