Health Information Management: Integrating Information Technology ...

STRATEGY, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION 189
Figure 10.1 Positioning the project on the basis of project characteristics.
CASE VIGNETTE
Southern Medical’s Board of Directors recognized during project definition
that management weight was needed if the project was to have any chance of
getting near to delivering the stated ambitions. One member of the Board made
the project his main and only initiative, next to his routine activities. During the
project he reserved two mornings each week to speak with a broad range of
people in the organization about the project.
Furthermore, the BoD placed a senior medical specialist within the project,
and a high level manager with mandate for patient logistics, both freed from
other duties for three days a week.
Finally, the BoD organized mandatory bi-weekly meetings for all business
unit managers (24 in total, half doctors and half managers), for the duration of
the project. The bi-weekly meeting was chaired by the BoD and the full BoD was
present.
Structure the decision making on content
Having decided on the level of management representation in the project team,
the next question is how to structure the ability of the project team to resolve
issues related to the content of the work processes at hand. During the
implementation of a Medication System, for example, issues will inevitably arise
that are specific for the treatment of a patient group. Similarly, as we discussed
in the previous chapter, the introduction of a Physician Order Entry System affects
the way doctors and nurses cooperate.
There are three basic structures in the design of the project organization: the
steering committee, the project group and work groups. The steering committee
controls time, money and scope. The project group coordinates the work of the
work groups, resolves issues that span more than one work group, and serves as
the project office for the project. The work groups, of which there can be several,