Search results

Although it is commonly agreed that prescriptive analytics can benefit organizations by enabling better decision-making, the deployment of prescriptive analytics tools can be challenging. Previous studies have primarily focused on methodological issues rather than the organizational deployment of analytics. However, successful deployment is key to achieving the intended benefits of prescriptive analytics tools. Therefore, this study aims to identify the enablers of successful deployment of prescriptive analytics.

The authors examine the enablers for the successful deployment of prescriptive analytics through five organizational case studies. To provide a comprehensive view of the deployment process, each case includes interviews with users, managers and top management.

The findings suggest the key enablers for successful analytics deployment are strong leadership and management support, sufficient resources, user participation in development and a common dialogue between users, managers and top management. However, contrary to the existing literature, the authors found little evidence of external pressures to develop and deploy analytics. Importantly, the success of deployment in each case was related to the similarity with which different actors within the organization viewed the deployment process. Furthermore, end users tended to highlight user participation, skills and training, whereas managers and top management placed greater emphasis on the importance of organizational changes.

The results will help practitioners ensure that key enablers are in place to increase the likelihood of the successful deployment of prescriptive analytics.

Despite the unparalleled importance of value within healthcare, value-based models remain underutilised in the procurement of medical devices. Research is needed to understand what factors incentivise standard, low-priced device purchasing as opposed to value-adding devices with potentially higher overall health outcomes. Framed in agency theory, we examine the conditions under which different actors involved in purchasing decisions select premium-priced, value-adding medical devices over low-priced, standard medical devices.

We conducted 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects scenario-based vignette experiments on three UK-based online samples of managers (n = 599), medical professionals (n = 279) and purchasing managers (n = 449) with subjects randomly assigned to three treatments: (1) cost-saving incentives, (2) risk-sharing contracts and (3) stronger (versus weaker) clinical evidence.

Our analysis demonstrates the harmful effects of intra-organisational cost-saving incentives on value-based purchasing (VBP) adoption; the positive impact of inter-organisational risk-sharing contracts, especially when medical professionals are involved in decision-making; and the challenge of leveraging clinical evidence to support value claims.

Our results demonstrate the need to align incentives in a context with multiple intra- and inter-organisational agency relationships at play, as well as the difficulty of reducing information asymmetry when information is not easily interpretable to all decision-makers. Overall, the intra-organisational agency factors strongly influenced the choices for the inter-organisational agency relationship.

We contribute to VBP in healthcare by examining the role of intra- and inter-organisational agency relationships and incentives concerning VBP (non-) adoption. We also examine how the impact of such mechanisms differs between medical and purchasing (management) professionals.