Health Information System Safeguards
Eveteg
Understandingchampionbehaviourinahealth-careinformationsystemdevelopmentprojectndashhowmultiplechampionsandchampionbehavioursbuildacoherentwhole.pdf
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Understanding champion behaviour in a health- care information system development project – how multiple champions and champion behaviours build a coherent whole
Joeri van Laere1 and Lena Aggestam2
1School of informatics, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden; 2School of Business, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden
Correspondence: Joeri van Laere, School of informatics, University of Skövde, P.O. Box 408, SE-54128 Skövde, Sweden. Tel: +46-70-5594895; Fax: +46-500-448849; E-mail: [email protected]
Received: 18 April 2013 Revised: 14 May 2014 2nd Revision: 10 December 2014 Accepted: 09 February 2015
Abstract Champions are commonly suggested as a means of promoting the adoption of information systems. Since there are many different definitions of the concepts of champion and champion behaviour in the literature, practitioners and researchers may be confused about how to exactly use these concepts. A qualitative analysis of a single case study in a Swedish health-care organisation enabled us to explain how different champion behaviours relate to each other and how multiple champions interact. Combining our rich case observations with an analysis of champion literature reveals how champion behaviours form a coherent and meaningful whole in which networks of different types of champions at different levels in an organisation utilise their network of relations, their knowledge of the organisation and their insight into strategic decision- making politics to time and orchestrate the framing of innovations and the involvement of the right people. In conclusion, championing is a complex performance of contextually dependent collective social interaction, varying over time, rather than a heroic act of one individual promoting an idea. Future studies need to focus more on how the relations between different champions and their behaviours develop across innovations and over time, in order to develop a richer understanding of championing. European Journal of Information Systems (2016) 25(1), 47–63. doi:10.1057/ejis.2015.5; published online 28 April 2015
Keywords: champions; champion behaviours; information system development; organisa- tional change; health-care informatics
Introduction Since 1963, studies of both product and process innovations have identified and confirmed the role of influential individuals associated with the success of a technological innovation, so-called champions of innovation (Schön, 1963; Chakrabarti, 1974; Maidique, 1980; Howell & Higgins, 1990). Several studies have specifically focused on the adoption of Information Systems (IS) as a type of innovation (Curley & Gremillion, 1983; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Beath, 1991; Heng et al, 1999), confirming that lessons learned from champion literature in general also hold for champions influencing IS adoption. Even in health-care, the context of our case study, it has been shown how champions contribute to a change of work practices (Soo et al, 2009) or IS adoption (Malik & Khan, 2009).
European Journal of Information Systems (2016) 25, 47–63 © 2016 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/16
www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/
Practitioners and researchers often suggest that cham- pions could be a solution for successful IS implementa- tion in health-care (e.g., Zandieh et al, 2008; Millery & Kukafka, 2010), although what the exact role and con- tribution of the champions could be has not been explicitly discussed in their recommendations. The latter is problematic, since a closer look at the champion literature reveals that clear, generally accepted, uniform definitions are lacking for what the champion role involves and for what is regarded as champion behaviour and what is not (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Howell & Shea, 2006). Even recent studies in IS literature, which discuss champions and related concepts, such as top manage- ment support (Dong et al, 2009), intra-organisational alliances (Ngwenyama & Nørbjerg, 2010), charismatic leadership (Neufeld et al, 2007) and organisational influ- ence processes (Ngwenyama & Nielsen, 2014), confirm that both the nature of championing and its assumed impacts need further investigation. Two research streams can be identified in the champion
literature:
● a heroic, individualistic perspective of one person acting as an all-round champion (Schön, 1963; Howell et al, 2005; Walter et al, 2011),
● an interactive perspective where several specialised indi- viduals cooperate, each serving a distinctive role (Witte, 1973; Witte, 1977; Rost et al, 2007; Fichter, 2009).
The heroic, individualistic perspective is the dominating perspective in champion literature. Rost et al (2007) sug- gest that the findings of both perspectives can be inte- grated, in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of championing or promoting innovations. Both research streams have put much effort into respec- tively identifying unique champion behaviours and unique champion roles. Although Taylor et al (2011, p. 430) state ‘champion-driven leadership processes are often highly dynamic, context sensitive and involve many leaders’, little is still known regarding how different cham- pion behaviours actually influence each other and how different champions develop and execute their collabora- tive performance. The main contribution of our study is a more elaborated
conceptualisation of the interactive nature of championing by, in detail, picturing how different champions cooperate and how different champion behaviours interact. Our results are primarily based on an in-depth qualitative analysis of championing in a health-care information system develop- ment project, complemented with an extensive literature study. Furthermore, some additional specific lessons learnt, which can inspire future research, are identified. Finally, our findings are translated into implications for practitioners, in the form of some straightforward guidelines. Before presenting the applied research method and the
results of our case study, a short review is given of how different champion roles and different champion beha- viours are currently portrayed in the literature and what issues are currently not being addressed.
Championing in the literature
The champion as one heroic individual Champions can be defined as individuals who informally emerge in an organisation (Schön, 1963; Chakrabarti, 1974; Howell et al, 2005) and make a decisive contribution to the innovation by actively and enthusiastically promoting its progress to critical stages, in order to obtain resources and/or active support from top management (Rothwell et al, 1974). A problem with this definition is that it leaves quite a lot of room for subjective interpretation of what a ‘decisive con- tribution’ involves and what ‘progress to critical stages’ means. Schön (1963) is, for instance, more demanding when using the following formulations: ‘the champion must be … willing to put himself on the line for an idea of doubtful success. He is willing to fail. … using any and every means of informal sales and pressure in order to succeed … identify with the idea as their own, and with its promotions as a cause, to a degree that goes far beyond the requirements of their job … display persistence and courage of heroic quality’, as quoted in Maidique (1980, p. 60) and (Howell & Higgins, 1990, p. 320). For a further illustration of the differentiation in the definitions of the champion concept, we refer to Walter et al (2011) and (Roure, 2001) who respectively list 12 and 16 definitions that clearly differ in highlighting certain aspects of the champion concept. In addition, it is worth mentioning that besides the identifi- cation of the product champion by Schön (1963), other related roles have been ascertained, for example, gatekeepers, project champions, business innovators, technological inno- vators, user champions, sponsor/coach, godfather, power promotor, expert promotor, process promotor, early adop- ters, and opinion leaders (Rogers, 1962; Rothwell et al, 1974; Witte, 1977; Maidique, 1980; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Smith, 2007; Fichter, 2009). The existence of so many identified roles, which are, just as the champion role, only roughly defined and often clearly overlap, makes it hard to compare studies, since determining what elements of differ- ent innovation process roles are included or excluded in their champion concepts may not always be clear (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Walter et al, 2011). Also, this makes it hard to correctly identify champions in this study and future studies.
Champion personality characteristics and champion behaviours Over the years, research has first focused on the question of what kind of person a champion actually is (personality characteristics) and then on the question of what a champion actually does (champion behaviour). However, since personality traits (charisma) are sometimes written as behaviours (being charismatic), this distinction is proble- matic when analysing the literature. Champion personal- ity characteristics are often related to transformative leadership, that is, leaders who inspire their followers to transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective purpose (Bass, 1985; Howell & Higgins, 1990). Champions are risk takers, they are innovative and can articulate a compelling vision, as well as instil confidence in others to
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam48
European Journal of Information Systems
participate effectively, and they can display innovative actions to achieve goals (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Howell et al, 2005). By being charismatic, champions capture the attention of others, provide emotional meaning and energy to the idea, and induce the commitment of others to the innovation (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Heng et al, 1999). Champions rely on personal networks in and out- side the organisation when scouting for new ideas and obtaining support. They tailor selling strategies that tie these ideas to stakeholder interests and positive organisa- tion outcomes (Howell, 2005). In addition, Chakrabarti (1974) has already suggested that product champions should have knowledge about the technology, the organi- sation and the market, besides having drive, aggressive- ness, and political astuteness. Recently, more extensive quantitative studies have been conducted to determine the key components of champion behaviour. These studies identify ‘expressing enthusiasm and confidence’, ‘getting the right people involved’ (Howell et al, 2005), ‘pursuing the innovative idea’, ‘network building’, ‘taking responsi- bility’ (Walter et al, 2011) and ‘persistence under adversity’ (Howell et al, 2005; Walter et al, 2011) as key behaviours.
Interaction between multiple champions with fixed roles Witte (1973, 1977) argues that innovation processes involve very complex and multi-person decision processes that cannot only be borne by one individual. Witte’s Promotor Theory was initially a two-centre theory of power, where two specialists cooperate; the expert promo- tor contributes through expert knowledge and the power promotor through hierarchical power (Witte, 1977; Rost et al, 2007; Fichter, 2009). Later, other promotor roles have been added (Rost et al, 2007; Fichter, 2009), for instance, a process promotor, a relationship promotor, and techno- logical gatekeepers. Promotor theory stresses that it is not necessary for the different specialised promotor roles to be played by different individuals. These roles can also be combined in one person, the ‘universal promotor’, which is then similar to the champion concept of one heroic individual (Rost et al, 2007; Fichter, 2009). Even in the literature on the individual all-round champion, there has been some attention on the fact that champions do not operate alone, but interact with project teams, executives, and other stakeholders (Howell & Shea, 2006). Champions positively influence team member beliefs in team effec- tiveness and, in turn, rely on the extent to which they can leverage the talents and resources of the innovation team (Howell & Shea, 2006). Still, this is a perspective of a heroic individual impacting and influenced by others, rather than cooperation between different champions, as described in promotor theory; or the kind of co-performance of cham- pion behaviour as presented in this study.
Unaddressed issues in research on championing Previous research has identified important individual champion behaviours and ascertained several unique champion roles that are taken on by different people. Still,
little is known about how these people, roles and beha- viours actually interact. One reason for this could be that research is predominantly based on quantitative surveys that combine the insights gathered in a large number of questionnaires or interviews. A clear benefit of those studies is that they include many cases, which enables generalisations stating that a single champion behaviour or champion role is important in many instances. A draw- back is that the analysis of each case is rather obscure and any in-depth insight into how champion behaviours and different champions interact in the specific case is lacking. In addition, some recent studies have suggested that the
appliance or occurrence of champion behaviours may depend on a range of contextual and situational factors. For instance, there is increasing awareness that there can be degrees of championing (Howell & Shea, 2001; Walter et al, 2011), rather than defining individuals as either cham- pions or non-champions. Walter et al (2011) and Hendy & Barlow (2012) show that there is a limit to ‘persisting under adversity’ and ‘taking responsibility’. A champion pushing an innovation too long may be counterproductive (creating resistance, lack of innovation spread) or harmful (imple- menting a faulty innovation). Also, Taylor et al (2011) and Hendy & Barlow (2012) describe how champion behaviour varies between different phases of the innovation process. In the initiation phase, when almost nobody believes in the innovation, there may be one enthusiastic individual (cf. the heroic champion perspective). During the endorsement phase, when top management support needs to be obtained, a project champion and an executive champion may work in tandem (cf. Witte’s original two-centre theory of power). Finally, in the implementation phase, when it is necessary to spread the innovation throughout the whole organisation, multi-disciplinary, cross-boundary project teams and high levels of collaboration, involving many leaders from all parts of the organisation, may be needed (cf. Promotor theory with a network of multiple promotors). Our study extends the current body of knowledge by the
in-depth study and analysis of how championing is per- formed in different situations in an IS development project and, hence, the detailed description of how champions and champion behaviours interact, and how this interaction is adapted to the context over time. Our analysis shows that the interaction of champions and champion behaviours is more situational and diversified than currently portrayed in the literature.
Research method Our research design is based on an inductive research strategy and a qualitative research method. A single, in- depth case study has been conducted, studying the phe- nomenon of championing in a 14-month IS development project at a large Swedish health-care organisation. Data collection was based on participatory observation by the second author and one in-depth interview by the first author. Data sources included all the project documenta- tion and personal notes, as well as reflective group
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam 49
European Journal of Information Systems
discussions and the interview. The data analysis was con- ducted by both authors after the conclusion of the project and comprised several iterations of comparing different theoretical perspectives of championing with the collected data. A more detailed discussion of each of these design choices follows.
Inductive research strategy and in-depth single case study A clear theory on how champion behaviours are related and exactly how champions interact is lacking. As such, there is a need for theory building rather than theory testing, which leads us to an inductive research strategy (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Since our aim is to provide unique and rich descriptions of champion collaboration and the interaction of champion behaviours, a single case study provided better opportunities for extensive data collection and a deeper understanding of contextual cir- cumstances. A drawback is, of course, that our findings may be dependent on the particular circumstances in just this case study. However, the aim of inductive qualitative research with a theory-building objective is not to present a statistical generalisation, from this single case study, to the entire community of champions in IS development projects or even innovation projects (Yin, 2014). Rather, the aim is to expand and generalise theories (analytic generalisation), implying that we aim to provide one example of a new perspective on championing, which can then be used to inform qualitative case studies in other organisations/projects or to design quantitative survey studies in a different way (Yin, 2014).
Data collection through participative observation The second author was a member of the project studied in this case and data collection was therefore primarily based on participative observation throughout the whole period of 14 months. In addition, the first author conducted a complementary interview with one steering group mem- ber, which focused on situations that did not include the presence of the second author. The second author had been an IS researcher for approximately 7 years before leaving academia to work full time in the health-care sector at the Västra Götaland Regional Council (Västra Götalandsregionen (VGR). The second author documen- ted and captured data in the project, not only from the perspective of a project participant, but also from a research perspective. The data collected comprised meet- ing notations and personal reflection accounts of more than 100 meetings held in different constellations during the project, the power point presentation files used at these meetings, the different versions and iterations of work process models created in the project, personal reflection accounts of informal discussions with groups or individuals in the project, and the interview. The data collection had a broad perspective and was focused on capturing the events that occurred during this project in general, from an IS development and organisational
change point of view (Aggestam & van Laere, 2012). Championing as such was not a focus issue. As discussed hereafter, the issue of championing emerged during the analysis of the data. This is not seen as a weakness (e.g., champion issues may have been missed since capturing them was not the aim), but rather as a strength (cham- pioning emerged as an important factor during the analysis, although we were not explicitly looking for it).
Data analysis through three iterations As shown in Figure 1, our initial theoretical frame of analysis was IS development (ISD) in general and, more particularly, the use of certain critical success factors (CSF). During the analysis of the case chronology from that perspective, the personal charisma of one steering group member and her ability to influence the support of the project at decisive moments emerged as an important factor not addressed in CSF. As a consequence, the interview with the steering
group member was conducted. Thereafter, the data and case chronology were analysed with the aim of identify- ing different champion behaviours, according to the championing perspective of one heroic individual (which dominated the initial literature review). During the sec- ond data analysis, it became increasingly apparent that the steering group member’s contribution was consider- able and this individual could be defined as a champion. However, we became mired in the analysis in two ways. First, it was hard to distinguish between the different champion behaviours in our analysis, as they continu- ously became entangled. Also, it became increasingly clearer that the decisive contributions of the steering group member were not the individual acts of one hero, but cooperative efforts in which her qualities in combina- tion with those of other important people together enabled championing. This required a new literature review where the perspective of different champion behaviours performed by different people, as described in the promotor theory, was identified. In the third iteration of the case data analysis, taking into account both these perspectives, it emerged that neither of these theories could explain the interaction between beha- viours and between champions, as had been observed and documented in this case study. This led to a final analysis based on both literature perspectives and the data from our case study, which resulted in a more elaborated conceptualisation of championing, captured in Figure 12 and the many examples in our results section.
The case study: the referral and answer subproject (RASP) in VGR A convenient way of reporting on a case study that enhances readability is to apply a question and answer format (Yin, 2014, p. 185). Hence, we set the scene by answering the following questions: What innovation was pursued in what kind of organisation? What kind of
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam50
European Journal of Information Systems
complexities existed that required championing? Who were the main people involved that could perform cham- pion behaviours? What happened chronologically? In the results section, the focus is on the main research question, that is, how did multiple champions perform multiple interrelated champion behaviours in concert?
What innovation was pursued in what kind of organisation? Our analysis is limited to a subproject of the Referral and Answer Project (RAP), hereafter called the RA SubProject (RASP). RAP aimed to ensure patient security by imple- menting a standardised way of working and information content that support the referral process for all types of referrals. The goals in achieving this aim included devel- oping and implementing a VGR common-regulations book, a desired common and unified VGR referral process, as well as a common VGR IT solution. The first two goals, and the additional goal of encouraging people to be
motivated and positive, were central to RASP. RASP started in the autumn of 2010 and ended on 6 October 2011. RAP had started earlier and continued after October 2011. RASP developed a participatory way of working that was regarded as an innovation in itself.
What kind of complexities existed that required championing? RAP was addressing a necessary and important change in VGR, but the organisation had been struggling with this desired change for 10 years and earlier initiatives had become mired. Many people were aware that the current referral and answer process was not functioning well, but RAP was seen as a difficult project with a high risk of failure for several reasons. First, RAP and RASP had to overcome the size and accompanying complexity of the health-care organisation that includes 17 hospitals, 121 health-care centres, and 170 public dental-care centres. Changing the referral and answer work process involved
Data collected
a 14 months’ IS development project
in health-care
FIRST ANALYSIS
Appearance of charisma and influence tactics at decisive moments
FIRST LITERATURE PERSPECTIVE
IS development Organisational change
Critical Success Factors
SECOND ANALYSIS
Champion behaviours are entangled and cannot be isolated
Championing is not an effort of one hero but a collective performance
SECOND LITERATURE PERSPECTIVE
Theory ”champion as one heroic individual”
THIRD ANALYSIS
Champion behaviours are interelated and strengthen each other
Champions do not work individually on tasks which they are specialised in,
but perform champion behaviours collaboratively while contributing
different expertise according to their backgrounds and specialisations
THIRD LITERATURE PERSPECTIVE
Theory ”Interaction between multiple champions with fixed roles”
A MORE ELABORATED CONCEPTUALISATION OF CHAMPIONING
Championing framework (figure12) Rich exemplifying descriptions and detailed figures of interactions (results section)
considering ”how multiple champions perform multiple interrelated champion behaviours in concert”
Figure 1 Three iterations of data analysis.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam 51
European Journal of Information Systems
the entire organisation of 15 administrations and 48,000 employees. Many different existing referral routines needed to be aligned to enable a common IT support solution. Second, VGR was organised into 15 highly autonomous administrations, of which each had its own board con- trolled by an administration manager. The high level of autonomy meant that development projects, such as RAP, had to work with agreements between the administrations. As such, many different groups had to be convinced and committed. Furthermore, earlier referral projects had not achieved their aims and another recent high stake VGR-IT project was, according to many stakeholders, regarded negatively. Finally, in parallel with RAP and RASP, a National eReferral project was planned. Consequently, RASP would have to keep itself informed about the deci- sions and results of the National eReferral project, since VGR’s processes must comply with national rules. Also, since VGR is a large organisation, several other develop- ment projects that could at some point interfere with RASP were being carried out.
Who were the main people involved that could perform champion behaviours? RASP comprised the RASP team, an informal steering group, and a number of working groups. In addition, the RASP team had important relations with the RAP team and the formal RAP steering group, which included participat- ing in meetings with RAP. The RASP team consisted of three project team members:
a subproject leader with a health-care background (PL-HC), a subproject member with a health-care background (PM-HC) and a subproject member with an Information Systems background (PM-IS). Both PL-HC and PM-HC have a health- care education, a lot of experience in health-care work and development projects, as well as long careers in VGR. PM-IS (the 2nd author) has an academic background: a Ph.D. in Data and Systems Science and a key research interest in CSF in IS development. PM-IS had worked in VGR since March 2010. The team members were individuals with a strong personality and an enthusiastic attitude. The formal RAP steering group consisted of members
that represented different perspectives, both with regard to professional roles and the administrations of VGR. One of the RAP steering group members served as a contact person (CP) for the RASP team. This CP was a well-respected and experienced member of the VGR organisation who had worked in its different administrations for more than 40 years. For example, the CP had worked both as physi- cian and more recently as an administration manager, which has given her much insight into how health-care work is performed, a significant amount of leadership experience in just this organisation, as well as a large number of contacts at different levels in VGR. Although semi-retired, when the RAP and RASP projects were carried out, she was still active in some strategic projects and maintained a strong position and a very good reputation in the larger VGR organisation. She was also regarded as a
trustworthy person. The RASP team members and the CP shared a strong belief in the importance of stakeholder interaction. A participatory structure was created, includ- ing a group with RASP administration managers and local interdisciplinary working groups (Figure 2). The group with RASP administration managers
included a representative from each of the 15 administra- tions in VGR, who were members of or had a strong connection to their respective administration’s manage- ment board. As such, it became an informal steering group. Each RASP administration manager was responsi- ble for creating and managing an interdisciplinary group, consisting of physicians, nurses and administrative staff, at their local administration.
What happened chronologically? RASP commenced in September 2010. To enable good stakeholder interaction with all 15 administrations, a clear common objective related to patient security was created and the participatory structure was designed. A commit- ment to work according to this participatory structure was subsequently obtained, first from the formal steering group, then from VGR’s top management board in which all administrations are represented, and finally from the 15 selected RASP administration managers that would become the heart of the participatory structure. In the following phase, process modelling activities were carried out with several iterations in the local interdisciplinary work groups of each administration, where the RASP team led the meetings supported by the local RASP administra- tion manager. In a final iteration, models were discussed and refined in
cross administration meetings. Results from all these mod- elling meetings were analysed and synthesised by the RASP team and then discussed with the RASP administra- tion managers and the CP. Parallel to the modelling work, time was spent maintaining commitment at all levels. Finally, preparations were carried out to get a formal approval for the results of RASP. RASP ended when its results were formally ratified by the Director of Health-Care on 6 October 2011.
Figure 2 The participatory structure in RASP as it was described in the project.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam52
European Journal of Information Systems
Results and analysis: how champions and champion behaviours interact and form a meaningful whole In this section, eight examples of championing, as observed in RASP, are presented. Each example is illu- strated in a small figure, according to the syntax shown in Figure 3, and thereafter explained. The general champion behaviours are adopted from lists of champion behaviours identified in a number of earlier studies (Howell et al, 2005; Howell & Shea, 2006; Walter et al, 2011). The examples play an important role in achieving our
article’s aim, since they together provide an in-depth insight into what championing is about. In the subsequent analysis, a more elaborated conceptualisation of cham- pioning is constructed from the example descriptions.
Example 1: Recruiting the RASP team members During different moments in RASP, it was important to recruit the right people. One example is when the CP recruited PM-IS, PM-HC and PL-HC. This example illus- trates how the CP relied on experience from earlier inno- vation projects and how different champion behaviours strengthen each other (Figure 4). The CP and PM-IS knew each other from a network of
logistical change managers in which PM-IS was one of the members and the CP was the mentor. When the CP became aware that PM-IS was dissatisfied with her current work role and planned to resign, the CP approached her and discussed potential opportunities and needs for her in VGR. Simultaneously, the CP spoke with a potential new manager. After informally receiving a positive response from both PM-IS and the new manager, the CP and the new manager arranged the formal appointment of PM-IS. The interview with the CP reveals that the strategy of
combining informal and formal channels to obtain the interest and nomination of desired persons was applied consciously. This strategy involved contacting both the desired person and that person’s manager, first informally, to check out the situation, and then, if the result was positive, more formally, in order to obtain the formal appointment decision. The informal discussions provided insights into the person’s appropriateness, regarding com- petence and motivation, and whether the person was able to leave the current assignment. The informal discussions prevented the necessity of posing an inappropriate formal request that would be refused. The CP applied this strategy not only in RASP: ‘to select the appropriate staff- and
project members has been my main success factor throughout my career’. The interview with the CP also reveals that PM-IS, PM-
HC, and PL-HC were recruited with a strategy in mind. They were selected because they would contribute knowl- edge or strategic relations that the CP or the project currently lacked. The CP stated: ‘when I do not have a certain relation with an important person or important organisational unit myself, I invite someone into the project that has that relation’. PM-HC was a Development Manager and a respected member of the largest adminis- tration who had been working with referral processes in that administration. PL-HC was an Operation Controller who represented another large administration and had worked in organisation development projects across dif- ferent administrations. Both had long careers in VGR and understood the organisation well. PM-IS has an academic background in ISD and CSF. The combination of these RASP team members resulted in good knowledge in IS development, insight into how health-care functions in general and in VGR in particular, as well as access to many personal networks in different parts of the VGR organisa- tion. The involvement of these three people lifted the capabilities and status of RAP (and later RASP).
Example 2: Recruiting interdisciplinary group members Later, in RASP, RASP-administration managers had to recruit members for the interdisciplinary work groups of each local administration. This example shows how the champion behaviours from Example 1 were applied differ- ently in a later phase of the project and at a different level of the VGR organisation. The adaptation involves multiple champions cooperating and co-performing certain cham- pion behaviours (Figure 5). The RASP team supported each RASP administration
manager in recruiting by designing general require- ments which were presented on a slide to the RASP- administration managers. The requirements were that the group should include experience from and knowl- edge about the referral and answer process from different perspectives, it should be interdisciplinary and it should have members with enough time to work in RASP. With the support of these requirements, the actual selection was carried out by the RASP-administration managers, as they had the contextual knowledge to find the appro- priate persons within their administrations. The RASP team was available for consultation, if the RASP admin- istration managers had questions concerning how this
Actual application in this example
Person(s) who perform(s)
General champion behaviour
Influence on next champion behaviourInfluence from previous champion behaviour
Figure 3 Syntax for the example models presented in the results section.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam 53
European Journal of Information Systems
could be achieved. In addition, PM-HC contributed to forming the interdisciplinary group in her local admin- istration. PM-HC discussed how to put the group together with her RASP administration manager and provided support by informally consulting some of the identified key persons.
Example 3: Developing the participatory structure One of the clearest impacts on how the involvement of certain people redefined the nature and content of the innovation process became obvious when PM-IS, PM-HC, PL-HC and CP became involved in the discussion regard- ing how the RAP objectives should be achieved. This resulted in the development of the participatory structure (Figure 2). Example 3 illustrates how different champions contribute their range of experiences and backgrounds and how they together create a meaningful whole when they
integrate their knowledge and champion behaviours (Figure 6). In the first meetings with the RAP project team, user
participation was discussed. Everybody shared the view that user participation was important for achieving suc- cess. However, during the forthcoming project planning discussions, when the activities regarding how to achieve user participation at a more detailed level were being defined, it became clear that opinions diverged concerning the practical implications of user participation. Opinions varied from actually involving the users in each step of the development work to the project team first carrying out the development work and then asking some users to provide feedback on the models. Taking experiences from earlier research into account, PM-IS had strong scientific arguments for the necessity of involving the users inten- sively throughout the whole development process, a point of view that was also in line with both PL-HC’s and PM-
Recruiting members of the RASP team
CP
Getting the right people involved
Knowledge about the referral process
in health-care
CP
Knowing the innovation
First check appropriateness informally, then formal request
CP
Using informal and formal processes
Need for an expert on ISD
CP
Knowing the innovation
Need for people with social network
in parts of organisation
CP
Having a large social network
Need for representative from
largest administration
CP
Knowing the organisational
context
Figure 4 Championing in example 1.
Deliberating selection strategy
with the the RASP team
RASP admin mgrs PM-IS, PM-HC, PL-HC
Using informal and formal processes
Knowledge about CSF in IS
development
PM-IS
Knowing the innovation
Formulating requirements for
group design
RASP team
Knowing the innovation
Strategy for recruiting RASP team members
CP
Getting the right people involved
Knowledge about appropriate
functions to involve in work groups
PM-HC, PL-HC
Knowing the organisational
context
Select members interdisciplinary
work groups
RASP admin mgrs, PM-HC
Getting the right people involved
Knowledge about appropriate work group members
RASP admin mgr
Knowing the organisational
context
Figure 5 Championing in example 2.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam54
European Journal of Information Systems
HC’s practical experiences. Since PM-IS shared an office with CP and worked with CP on other projects, PM-IS had the opportunity, during informal discussions, to ‘now and then’ discuss the necessity of actually invol- ving the users in the project. From these discussions it emerged that PM-IS’s scientific arguments and the desired participatory approach were also in line with the CP’s own experiences. Accordingly, the CP contrib- uted to further developing the participatory way of working. In this process, PM-IS served as a link between the RASP team and the CP. During RASP team meetings, which were often held in the building that housed the office of PM-IS and CP, RASP team members had the opportunity to consult the CP when questions arose, or the CP could briefly join the meeting. When meetings were organised elsewhere, PM-IS collected questions and discussed them with the CP the next day.
While the RASP team developed the participatory struc- ture, the CP contributed, among other things, with the requirements that the RASP administration managers had to have a connection to the local management board of each respective administration and be nominated by the administration manager. This is further described in Example 4 concerning building support for this structure.
Example 4: Support from the higher decision-making levels Working according to the participatory structure was an innovation in itself and, as such, it was necessary to convince different stakeholders in VGR of its benefits. This example also illustrates how different champions coopera- tively orchestrate their champion behaviours and demon- strates how informal anchoring and formal decision meetings are used to build support (Figure 7).
Agreement about the participatory structure to be
applied
RASP team, CP
Building support
Discuss participatory structure with
Steering group chairman
CP
Using informal and formal processes
Discuss participatory structure with Administration
managers
Using informal and formal processes
CP
Listening to or discussing the talks
Environmental scanning through
people
CP, PM-IS
Obtain formal support for way of
working from steering group
CP
Building support
Obtain formal support for way of
working from VGR mgt board
Building support
CP
Knowledge about CSF in IS
development
PM-IS
Knowing the innovation
Lack of stakeholder interaction in recent
previous projects
CP, PL-HC, PM-HC
Knowing the organisational
context
Deliberation about need for real user
participation
RASP team, CP
Using informal and formal processes
Figure 7 Championing in example 4.
Knowledge about CSF in IS
development
PM-IS
Knowing the innovation
Designing participatory
stucture
RASP team
Formulating the innovation
Requirement that RASP- admin managers should be admin-mgt-board member
CP
Getting the right people involved
Lack of stakeholder interaction in recent
previous projects
CP, PL-HC, PM-HC
Knowing the organisational
context
Need for connection with administration
mgt board
CP
Knowing the decision making
context
Deliberation about need for real user
participation
RASP team, CP
Using informal and formal processes
Figure 6 Championing in example 3.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam 55
European Journal of Information Systems
As described earlier, PM-IS and CP shared an office and worked together in other projects, which gave them numerous opportunities for informal conversations. Through these and other interactions between the RASP team and the CP, as well as between PM-IS and the CP, the RASP team had favourable opportunities to gain support for their strategies from the CP. In turn, the CP was the link between RASP and the steering committee and between RASP and the management board in VGR. After the CP was committed to the work structure proposed by RASP, she focused on obtaining support from the RAP steering group and the 15 administration managers that form the VGR management board. On various occasions, the CP discussed the intended working structure with the Chairman of the Steering Committee. These conversations were regularly communicated from CP to PM-IS, but some- times PM-IS was, in a way, part of the conversations, since CP met the Chairman or talked with him by telephone in the office shared with PM-IS. This meant that PM-IS had a clear and updated understanding of the steering commit- tee’s opinions. Another challenge was to have the way of working sanctioned by the VGR management board. This was important because without their approval it would not be prioritised and necessary resources would not be allo- cated. In order to obtain their commitment, the CP had informal meetings that served as a means of obtaining information about the important aspects for the adminis- tration, as well as an opportunity to explain why it was necessary to work according to the intended structure. Consequently, arguments were dealt with before the
formal meetings and, by listening well, the message at the meetings could be attuned to addressing any important matters of interest put forth by the Chairman and the managers. The CP openly reflected over this informal anchoring process in discussions with PM-IS: ‘Have we talked with all now?’
Example 5: Support from the RASP administration managers After securing commitment from top management, sup- port for the participatory way of working had to be obtained from those who would participate in RASP. This was primarily achieved during the first two formal meet- ings with RASP administration managers (Example 5) and the first meetings with the local interdisciplinary working groups (Example 6). Examples 5 and 6 illustrate how the champion behaviour from Example 4 was adapted to different contexts when applied in a later phase of the project and at a different level in the VGR organisation (Figure 8). The first meeting with the group of RASP administration
managers was a critical step, because without their com- mitment to the aims of RASP and the intended way of working (the participatory approach), it would have been necessary to re-plan everything. The fact that the man- agers were not used to being involved so early in the project is illustrated by the following comment: ‘Are we included already now?’ The meeting was planned in close cooperation between the RASP team and the CP, in a highly iterative manner similar to the description in
Present the patient security goal
CP
Building support
Present the suggested way of
working
Building support
PM-IS
Possibility for local adaptation
Formulating the innovation
RASP admin mgrs
Present the facts and figures of
referral processes
PL-HC, PM-HC
Building support
Committing to RASP and the way of
working
Innovation success
RASP admin mgrs
Long career in VGR
PL-HC, PM-HC
Having a respected status
Knowledge about CSF in IS
development
PM-IS
Knowing the innovation
Knowledge about the referral process
in VGR
CP, PL-HC, PM-HC
Knowing the innovation
Prepare presentation participatory
stucture
RASP team
Formulating the innovation
Sanction contents, Propose changes
CP
Knowing the organisational
context
Leadership experience
CP
Having a respected status
Academic career in CSF/ISD
PM-IS
Having a respected status
Early involvement
Building support
RASP admin mgrs
Vigorous support
CP
Persisting under adversity
Figure 8 Championing in example 5.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam56
European Journal of Information Systems
Example 3. Furthermore, the RASP team prepared slides whose contents were sanctioned by the CP, who also meticulously reformulated certain sensitive matters that could divert the discussion in the wrong direction (given her knowledge of the organisation). The plan included that each RASP member should be responsible for the preparation and presentation of parts which related to their specific competence. The CP, who represented a direct link to the top management level and who is favoured with a highly respected status in the organisa- tion, presented the goal of RAP as an opportunity to really increase patient security. PL-HC and PM-HC, with long careers in VGR and extensive knowledge of how the organisation functions at all levels, presented the facts and figures of the referral processes, as well as real patient cases, in order to substantiate the objective and make the appeal more emotional. PM-IS, with academic experience regard- ing CSF in IS development, presented the participatory structure. The CP was vigorous and persistent concerning the necessity of RAP and RASP to address patient security, explicitly illustrating and repeating this message whenever questions arose in the first meeting. At the same time, although a commitment to this general objective was required (the why and what), each administration was free to choose how to reach this objective, thus allowing local adaptions of the implementation (the how). This was important since the prerequisites of the different adminis- trations varied greatly. Hence, enabling local adaptations was necessary in order to secure their commitment, but also for increasing patient security. In addition, the RASP team answered questions and took note of comments received,
reflected upon them and prepared more elaborate answers for the next meeting with the same group. This created an atmosphere in which doubts and scepticism were openly discussed and used to strengthen the way of working and the developed referral process (see also Example 7).
Example 6: Support from the interdisciplinary work groups Meetings with the interdisciplinary work groups in a way mirrored those with the RASP administration managers, but also included discussions of referral and answer challenges at a more detailed level, as well as modelling work. The design and implementation was in line with the description in Example 5, however, the RASP team themselves designed and carried out the presentations on the basis of the decisions made and discussions held in the meetings with the RASP administration managers and the CP. As such, this example shows how previously applied champion beha- viours once again are adapted to a new context and how champions take over each other’s roles (Figure 9). Again, the RASP team members utilised their different
backgrounds and, as such, their status related to different topics, both during the presentation and when moderating the following modelling activities. Owing to the large number of meetings, it was not always possible to have all three RASP members present, but at least two of them participated in each meeting. Since the RASP administra- tion managers had some pre-understanding from the meet- ing with all the RASP administration managers, they were at this stage actively used to supporting the RASP team in the local context. The RASP administration managers were
Present the patient security goal
RASP team
Building support
Present the suggested way of
working
Building support
PM-IS
Clarify how RASP canbe
implemented in local context
Formulating the innovation
RASP admin mgrs
Present the facts and figures of
referral processes
PL-HC, PM-HC
Building support
Interdisciplinary groups committed to RASP and the way of working
Innovation success
RASP admin mgrs
Long career in VGR
PL-HC, PM-HC
Having a respected status
Knowledge about CSF in IS
development
PM-IS
Knowing the innovation
Knowledge about the referral process
in VGR
CP, PL-HC, PM-HC
Knowing the innovation
Prepare presentation participatory stucture
RASP team
Formulating the innovation
Connection to local administration
board
RASP admin mgrs
Having a respected status
Academic career in CSF/ISD
PM-IS
Having a respected status
Understanding local context
Knowing the organisational
context
RASP admin mgrs
Discussion around earlier presentations
of participatory structure
RASP team, CP, RASP admin mgrs
Formulating the innovation
Vigorous support
RASP admin mgrs
Persisting under adversity
Figure 9 Championing in example 6.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam 57
European Journal of Information Systems
already informed about the RAP and RASP mission of increasing patient security. Therefore, the RASP team could invite the administration managers to help confirm and clarify the goal of RASP for the members of the interdisci- plinary work groups. The local RASP administration man- ager was also utilised by the RASP team when questions and issues arose regarding how this could be performed and achieved in their own situation and context. In this way, the local RASP administration manager partly filled the role of the CP. For example, in one administration work group, members shared concerns about sometimes not having the time to sign a referral before it had to be sent. At that point, the RASP administration manager vigorously stated that this matter needed to be solved by adjusting the local working routines.
Example 7: Establishing the participatory approach and that the object of design includes both the referral process and the rule book Although the RASP team and the CP were initially most active in defining and formulating the participatory way of working, others became more involved in defining the participatory way of working and the new way of conduct- ing the referral and answer process in VGR. This example shows how the champion behaviours of ‘formulating the innovation’ and ‘building support’ are closely interrelated and, again, how championing is adapted to new situa- tions, as well as how multiple champions contribute and together create a meaningful whole (Figure 10). After the first meeting with the RASP administration
managers, the RASP team felt they had not succeeded in properly answering the question: ‘Why shall we succeed this time?’ When this question was raised by the RASP administration managers, the answers of the CP and the RASP team had been based on stories and assumptions, not on facts, and thus the answer had not been convincing enough. The RASP team therefore put an effort into
analysing prior referral and answer projects in more detail. The main differences between the former way of working and the new approach were summarised on a slide as answers to: ‘What is there to say that we will succeed this time?’ At the second meeting with the RASP administration managers, the CP presented this overview, a strategic move to signal the importance of the issue. The same slide was later used in the meetings with the interdisciplinary work groups. The efforts of the RASP administration managers, who questioned the first arguments, and those of the RASP team, enhancing the motivation, resulted in a more con- vincing first presentation to the interdisciplinary work groups. When the RASP team evaluated the models of the new referral process, which were developed collaboratively with all the administrations, deficiencies in an official document called the rule book became apparent. When the reciprocal relationship between the rule book and the referral process was discovered, the CP, the RASP team and the RASP administration managers concluded that both should be ʻobjects of design’. Next, the CP lobbied by discussing this question informally and formally with the RASP steering group, while the RASP administration man- agers built support at the local level. Next the CP and PL-HC presented the proposal that the referral process and the rule book from then on would be included in one document at a formal management meeting and obtained a formal deci- sion. This meant that a new referral process automatically implied a new version of the rule book.
Example 8: Maintaining support After the initial engagement had been created at higher decision-making levels (Example 4), among the RASP administration managers (Example 5) and among their interdisciplinary work groups (Example 6), a continuous challenge was to maintain motivation and support at all these levels. This example shows how multiple champions are involved to maintain support (Figure 11).
Posing questions about the
participatory structure
RASP admin mgrs
Formulating the innovation
Searching for and developing
better answers
RASP team
Formulating the innovation
Presenting the participatory
approach
RASP team, CP
Environmental scanning
through people
Presenting the elaborated answers
CP
Building support
Discovering reciprocal relationship between rule book and
referral process
RASP team
Formulating the innovation
Gain support for inclusion of rule book as object of design
CP, RASP admin mgrs
Using informal and formal processes
Collaboratively developing
new referral process
RASP team RASP adming mgrs
Formulating the innovation
Obtaining formal decision inclusion rule book in
referral process
C, PL-HC
Building support
Figure 10 Championing in example 7.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam58
European Journal of Information Systems
Although the CP was vigorous in her support at the first two meetings with the RASP administration managers, she was not as active in the discussions at subsequent meetings. Instead, the RASP team handled the discussions while the CP was supportive through her presence and body lan- guage. The symbolic value of her presence was critical to maintaining the commitment and support over time, including that of the formal steering group. Nevertheless, there was a clear difference in the degree of support between the earlier and later meetings. Informal discussions were not only utilised to build support in preparation for formal meetings, but also to monitor whether support was being maintained. Here, not only the CP, but each RASP team member used their social network. For example, during a coffee break at a meeting related to another project, a person from one of the administrations approached PM-IS and raised some doubts concerning RASP, as well as com- municated some deficiencies in the local administration. This made it possible for PM-IS to both explain some matters and to adapt the forthcoming meetings for that administration’s local work group, in order to deal with the scepticism. In similar ways, all members of RASP promoted the project and gathered relevant information to adjust the project to local circumstances in different administrations. In the concluding phase, when the RASP team and the CP prepared the final presentation to the VGR management board, it appeared that support for most of the decisions concerning RASP was already in place, thanks to the applied participatory structure. RASP administration managers and interdisciplinary group members had already spread the results of RASP and certified that the local interests of their administration had been acknowledged in the end result.
Analysis Table 1 and Figure 12 present the main elements of our more elaborated conceptualisation of championing which
is based on a thorough analysis of the previously described examples. In all the examples (except Example 1), champion
behaviours are performed by multiple champions, either each of those champions performs a single behaviour, or several champions co-perform a single championing activity. This is clearly shown in all the figures where the names of different champions are connected to the behaviours, or where more champions are connected to a single beha- viour. Next, all the examples show how different champion behaviours are interrelated and how they strengthen each other (as indicated by the arrows between the behaviours). This is indicated within examples but also across examples. For instance, within Example 4, ‘the use of informal and formal processes’ strongly contributes to ‘building sup- port’. It was hard to discern between ‘developing the participatory structure’ in Example 3 (which is an example of ‘formulating the innovation’) and building support in Example 4. ‘Building support’ is enabled by means of ‘formulating the innovation’ in such a way that it attracts the target groups and is recognised by them. Conversely, the ‘building support’ process consists of carefully listen- ing to target group representatives during informal discus- sions so that their comments and viewpoints can later be used to ‘re-formulate the innovation’ to better suit their interests and, in turn, facilitate its acceptance. Combining the previous observations, championing implies that the collective knowledge of all involved champions, their collective status and networks, and so forth, influence how they collectively perform and co-perform champion behaviours to impact overall project success. From this realisation followed another aspect of championing that became increasingly clearer during the analysis; champion behaviours do not just (randomly) interact and champions do not (randomly) choose behaviours, instead, both cham- pions and champion behaviours form a meaningful whole. This means that the different champions are continuously and
Gaining support bottom up
through the participatory approach
RASP admin mgrs
Using informal and formal processes
Prepare final presentation for VGR management board
RASP team, CP
Using informal and formal processes
Obtain commitment from VGR management board
CP, PL-HC
Building support
Collect feedback and explain ambiguities
CP, RASP team
Using informal and formal processes
Know people on different levels and in different units of VGR
CP, RASP team
Having a large social network
Maintain support for RASP
on all levels on a continual basis
CP, RASP team RASP admin mgrs
Building support
Symbolic value of her presence
CP
Having a respected status
Figure 11 Championing in example 8.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam 59
European Journal of Information Systems
consciously adapting their champion behaviours to each other, thereby, together in interaction, creating a coherent and meaningful whole. This coherent performance becomes meaningful by adapting it to the current situation and context in which championing is being performed. ‘Building support’ involved different champions and dif- ferent champion behaviours, depending on the level in the organisation and the phase of the project (Examples 4, 5, 6 and 8). In this continuous adaptation process, cham- pions can switch roles completely. Where the CP is persistent at defining moments during high level board meetings (Example 3), the RASP administration managers fulfil this role during modelling sessions that the CP does not attend (Example 7). Similarly, recruiting is performed by the CP in Example 1 and by RASP administration managers sup- ported by the RASP teams in Example 2. Finally, in Example 1, the CP states explicitly several times that she
heavily relies on championing experience from previous innova- tion projects. This is implicitly expressed by other cham- pions when they explain why they favoured certain champion behaviours in particular situations. As a result, champions learn from championing in previous innova- tion projects and take the lessons learnt with regard to championing from this project to future innovation projects. The discussed aspects of championing are presented in
Figure 12. Figure 12 gives an overview how multiple cham- pion behaviours performed by multiple champions form a meaningful whole in a particular context and situation; how this collective performance is adapted from situation to situa- tion over time; how each collective performance utilises each champion´s knowledge and experiences and simultaneously generates new learning; and how this continuous process of collective performance impacts innovation success. The figure can be interpreted as a summary of how championing has
Table 1 Characteristics of championing observed in RASP
Characteristics of championing observed in RASP
Multiple champions perform champion behaviours Champions co-perform a single champion behaviour Champion behaviours are interrelated and strengthen each other Champions and their champion behaviours form a meaningful whole Championing (the behaviours selected and who performs them) is adapted to the situation and over time Champions switch roles Champions learn across innovation projects by relying on acquired championing experience in earlier innovation projects and by gathering championing experience for future projects
multiple behaviours performed by multiple champions forming a meaningful whole in a
particular situation
multiple behaviours performed by multiple champions forming a meaningful whole in a
particular situation
Collective experience of champion 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
Knowing the innovation Knowing the organisational context Knowing the decision making context Having a large social network Having a respected status Using informal and formal processes Getting the right people involved Formulating the innovation Building support Environmental scanning through people Persisting under adversity
Adaption to new situation over time
Utilising previous experience
Learning
Utilising previous experience Learning
Continuous adaption to new situations over time
Collective championing
Continuous utilisation of experience and continuous learning
Innovation success
• • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 12 A more elaborated conceptualisation of championing.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam60
European Journal of Information Systems
been observed in our case study, and as a richer concep- tualisation of how collective championing is performed in general, that can inform future research and practitioners.
Discussion, limitations and implications for future research The way that championing has been observed in our case study goes to the best of our knowledge beyond the existing portrayal of championing in the literature. Cham- pioning is not performed by single heroes (as in the heroic, individualistic perspective); instead, there are multiple heroes that collaborate intensively. In that collaboration, they do not have strictly separate roles (as in the inter- active perspective where several specialists each serve a distinctive role), but can both co-perform championing activities (while simultaneously contributing with experi- ence from their specialisations) and even switch roles completely, if situational circumstances require it. Finally, our case examples show that adaption to situational con- text over time is much more complex than an inverted U relationship (Walter et al, 2011) or an adaption to three general phases (Taylor et al, 2011). As discussed previously, one limitation of our study is
that it is the study of just one project. This research design choice was inevitable to enable the discovery and in- depth study of interactions between champion beha- viours. However, there is a clear need to apply our frame- work in other organisations and other areas, in order to validate and develop it further. Another limitation is how the champions and champion behaviours have been identified. Most often in studies on championing, many different people involved in the innovation are first invited to nominate a champion and then an analysis of the particular behaviours the nominated champion exhi- bits is conducted. However, our approach has been to first identify champion behaviours and then seek out the person who performs them. It is clear that nominating champions by seeking out the most influential individual (as in the individual heroic perspective) hampers the identification of collective champion performance. Therefore, an interesting option for future studies would be to aim at combining our way of identifying champions and the traditional way of broadly seeking out influential individuals (plural!), to see whether the same persons are identified. Another research implication is that concepts such as
‘getting the right people involved’ can be interpreted in multiple ways and more unified definitions should be proposed. For instance, in our study, the concepts ‘getting the right people involved’ and ‘building support’ were clearly different notions, whereas others (Howell et al, 2005) have used them as synonyms. A completely unex- plored topic is how groups of champions take champion experiences from one innovation project to another, since, to our knowledge, champion studies always limit them- selves to studying just one innovation project and not several sequential ones.
Implications for practitioners As researchers, we have a pragmatist stance which implies an interest for what works and what does not work in a practical context (Goldkuhl, 2012). Hence, based on our study, we have developed some guidelines for practitioners:
● Be aware of the importance of champions for innova- tion project success. People that are continuously posi- tive about the project, talk well about it and can act as sponsors must be involved in the project.
● Pay attention and put effort into finding good cham- pions (plural) for the project. The champions should complement, not resemble, each other, and each cham- pion must be committed to the goal of the project. In RASP, this was patient security.
● Collectively, the champions should have the following qualifications: � A respected status among stakeholder groups that are critical for the project
� A relevant and strong social network � Complementary skills and competences � Knowledge about the organisational context and the innovation itself
● The project leader is a key champion and, hence, the most important qualification is that this person is respected, confident, and has status in the context where change is needed.
● Effective championing requires a holistic approach and adaptation to situations and over time. Hence, it is important that champions are good listeners and have the capacity to reflect and learn, for example, to under- stand people’s daily work experiences and to envisage how the project may improve their situation.
Conclusion Our main contribution is a rich illustration and exemplifi- cation of championing presented in eight examples and a more elaborated conceptualisation of championing cap- tured in Figure 12, that explains:
● how champion behaviours are interrelated ● how champion behaviours are performed by multiple
champions ● how champions and their champion behaviours form a
coherent and meaningful whole ● and how the constellation of behaviours and champions
is adapted to situational context and over time.
In addition to this main contribution, some other lessons learnt have been identified. Champions involved in a project can co-perform certain champion behaviours, while simultaneously contributing different expertise according to their backgrounds and specialisations. In adapting to situational circumstances, champions can also exchange roles, in order to apply the best champion behaviours available, during the various stages of a pro- ject. Also, champions learn from championing in earlier
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam 61
European Journal of Information Systems
projects and gather experiences during the current pro- ject that can enable more effective championing in the future. For practitioners, this implies that a diversified group of
champions should be recruited, rather than one heroic individual. The members of this champion group should complement each other’s knowledge, status and social net- works, and be careful listeners who are eager to learn how to adapt to each other and to situational circumstances.
The most important challenge for future research is to study these championing collectives across several sequen- tial innovation projects.
Acknowledgements We thank the members of the VGR organisation for their generosity in sharing their experiences. We are also grateful for the support and insightful comments of the Associate Editor and two anonymous reviewers.
About the authors
Joeri van Laere is an Assistant Professor at University of Skövde, Sweden. He holds a Ph.D. in Information Systems from Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. Joeri performs research at the interface of organisation science, communication science and information systems. His research interests include decision support, crisis manage- ment, gaming-simulation, knowledge management, organi- sational change and distributed work. He has published at several international conferences such as ECIS, HICSS, and ISCRAM, and in journals including the Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, the Journal of Information Fusion and the Journal of Production, Planning and Control.
Lena Aggestam is an Assistant Professor at University of Skövde, Sweden. She holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Stockholm University, Sweden. Based on systems thinking, in the areas of learning organisations and knowl- edge management, her research interests include change management and how to achieve sustainable development, information systems development and critical success fac- tors. She has published at several international conferences such as ECIS, HICSS, and IRMA, and in journals including the International Journal of Knowledge Management, Information, the Journal of Cases on Information Technology and the Inter- national Journal of Systems and Service-Oriented Engineering.
References AGGESTAM L and VAN LAERE J (2012) How to successfully apply critical
success factors in healthcare information systems development–A story from the field. ECIS 2012 Proceedings, Paper 220, http://aisel.aisnet.org/ ecis2012/220.
BASS BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. Free Press, New York.
BEATH CM (1991) Supporting the information technology champion. MISQ 15(3), 355–372.
CHAKRABARTI AK (1974) The role of champion in product innovation. California Management Review 17(2), 58–62.
CURLEY KF and GREMILLION LL (1983) The role of the champion in DSS implementation. Information and Management 6(4), 203–209.
DONG L, NEUFELD D and HIGGINS C (2009) Top management support of enterprise systems implementations. Journal of Information Technology 24(1), 55–80.
EISENHARDT KM and GRAEBNER ME (2007) Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 25–32.
FICHTER K (2009) Innovation communities: the role of networks of promotors in open innovation. R&D Management 39(4), 357–371.
GOLDKUHL G (2012) Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative informa- tion systems research. European Journal of Information Systems 21(2), 135–146.
HENDY J and BARLOW J (2012) The role of the organizational champion in achieving health system change. Social Science & Medicine 74(3), 348–355.
HENG MSH, TRAUTH EM and FISCHER SJ (1999) Organisational champions of IT innovation. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 9(3), 193–222.
HOWELL JM (2005) The right stuff: identifying and developing effective champions of innovation. Academy of Management Executive 19(2), 108–119.
HOWELL JM and HIGGINS CA (1990) Champions of technological innova- tion. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(2), 317–341.
HOWELL JM and SHEA CM (2001) Individual differences, environmental scan- ning, innovation framing, and champion behavior: key predictors of proj- ect performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18(1), 15–27.
HOWELL JM and SHEA CM (2006) Effects of champion behavior, team potency, and external communication activities on predicting team performance. Group & Organization Management 31(2), 180–211.
HOWELL JM, SHEA CM and HIGGINS CA (2005) Champions of product innovations: defining, developing, and validating a measure of cham- pion behavior. Journal of Business Venturing 20(5), 641–661.
MAIDIQUE MA (1980) Entrepreneurs, champions and technological inno- vation. Sloan Management Review 21(2), 59–76.
MALIK MA and KHAN HR (2009) Understanding the implementation of an electronic hospital information system in a developing country: a case study from Pakistan. In Proceedings of the Third Australasian Workshop on Health Informatics and Knowledge Management (HIKM 2009), CRPIT volume 97 (Warren JR, ed), pp 31–36, Australian Computer Society, Wellington, New Zealand.
MILLERY M and KUKAFKA R (2010) Health information technology and quality of health-care: strategies for reducing disparities in under- resourced settings. Medical Care Research & Review 67(5Suppl), 268–298.
NGWENYAMA O and NIELSEN PA (2014) Using organizational influence processes to overcome IS implementation barriers: lessons from a longitudinal case study of SPI implementation. European Journal of Information Systems 23(3), 205–222.
NGWENYAMA O and NØRBJERG J (2010) Software process improvement with weak management support: an analysis of the dynamics of intra- organizational alliances in IS change initiatives. European Journal of Information Systems 19(3), 303–319.
NEUFELD DJ, DONG L and HIGGINS CA (2007) Leadership and user acceptance of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems 16(4), 494–510.
ROTHWELL R, FREEMAN C, HORLSEY A, JERVIS VTP, ROBERTSON AB and TOWN- SEND J (1974) SAPPHO updated – project SAPPHO phase II. Research Policy 3(3), 258–291.
ROURE L (2001) Product champion characteristics in France and Germany. Human Relations 54(5), 663–682.
ROGERS EM (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam62
European Journal of Information Systems
ROST K, HÖLZLE K and GEMUNDEN HG (2007) Promotors or champions? Pros and cons of role specialisation for economic progress. Schmalenbach Business Review 59, 340–363.
SCHÖN D (1963) Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard Business Review 41(2), 77–86.
SMITH DJ (2007) The politics of innovation: why innovations need a godfather. Technovation 27(3), 95–104.
SOO S, BERTA W and BAKER GR (2009) Role of champions in the implementation of patient safety practice change. Health Care Quarterly 12(sp), 123–128.
TAYLOR A, COCKLIN C, BROWN R and WILSON-EVERED E (2011) An investiga- tion of champion-driven leadership processes. The Leadership Quarterly 22(2), 412–433.
WALTER A, PARBOTEEAH KP, RIESENHUBER F and HOEGL M (2011) Championship behaviours and innovations success: an empirical investigation of univer- sity spin-offs. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28(4), 586–598.
WITTE E (1973) Organisation fur Innovationsentscheidungen – Das Promotor- enmodell. Schwart, Gottingen.
WITTE E (1977) Power and innovation: a two center theory. International Studies of Management and Organization 7(1), 47–70.
YIN RK (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, London. ZANDIEH SO, YOON-FLANNERY K, KUPERMAN GJ, LANGSAM DJ, HYMAN D and
KAUSHAL R (2008) Challenges to EHR implementation in electronic- versus paper-based office practices. Journal of General Internal Medicine 23(6), 755–761.
Understanding champion behaviour Joeri van Laere and Lena Aggestam 63
European Journal of Information Systems
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
