IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i8p4028-d534323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-Making Is in the Making! Aspects of Decision-Making in the Area of Assistive and Welfare Technology—A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Katarina Baudin

    (School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, SE-63105 Eskilstuna, Sweden)

  • Angelina Sundström

    (School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, SE-63105 Eskilstuna, Sweden)

  • Johan Borg

    (Department of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, SE-79188 Falun, Sweden)

  • Christine Gustafsson

    (School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, SE-63105 Eskilstuna, Sweden)

Abstract

Assistive and welfare technology (AT/WT) has been introduced as a way of facing an ageing population and providing support for older adults in their daily lives. There is much research concerning the assessment and recommendation of AT/WT to individual end-users. However, few studies have explored AT/WT decision-making from a managerial perspective. This study explores what aspects influence decision-making in assistive technology organizations concerning new technology procurements. The study is based on interviews with 24 managers engaged in assistive technology organizations, representing 13 of 21 regions in Sweden. The interview data consisted of the participants’ experiences deciding on AT/WT procurement. A reflexive inductive thematic analysis was used to identify aspects that influenced decision-making. The main findings show that decision-making is in the making, meaning that decision-making is a constant on-going managerial process. Furthermore, the findings show that managers experience uncertainty in the decision-making, sometimes make ad hoc decisions and request an evidence-based, person-centred approach to improve decision-making. The study concludes that supportive, technology, patient, and knowledge aspects influence managers’ decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarina Baudin & Angelina Sundström & Johan Borg & Christine Gustafsson, 2021. "Decision-Making Is in the Making! Aspects of Decision-Making in the Area of Assistive and Welfare Technology—A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4028-:d:534323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4028/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4028/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ricky Buchanan & Natasha Layton, 2019. "Innovation in Assistive Technology: Voice of the User," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, June.
    2. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    3. Katarina Baudin & Maria Mullersdorf & Angelina Sundstrom & Christine Gustafsson, 2020. "The Policies of Provision of Assistive and Welfare Technology—A Literature Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Ana-Maria Bercu, 2013. "Strategic Decision Making in Public Sector: Evidence and Implications," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(1), pages 21-27, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruben Burga & Davar Rezania, 2016. "Stakeholder theory in social entrepreneurship: a descriptive case study," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Wei Peng & Baogui Xin & Yekyung Kwon, 2019. "Optimal Strategies of Product Price, Quality, and Corporate Environmental Responsibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-24, November.
    3. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    4. WANG Jifu & GUPTA Vipin & LYBOLT Liza & WANG Xiuli, 2022. "Corrected Game Model In Csr: Mnc Strategies And Chinese Practice," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 17(3), pages 269-287, December.
    5. Müllner, Jakob & Puck, Jonas, 2018. "Towards a holistic framework of MNE–state bargaining: A formal model and case-based analysis," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 15-26.
    6. Vincenzo Formisano & Bernardino Quattrociocchi & Maria Fedele & Mario Calabrese, 2018. "From Viability to Sustainability: The Contribution of the Viable Systems Approach (VSA)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Michaela Haase & Emmanuel Raufflet, 2017. "Ideologies in Markets, Organizations, and Business Ethics: Drafting a Map: Introduction to the Special Issue," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(4), pages 629-639, June.
    8. Yuxuan Li & Xin Miao & Dequan Zheng & Yanhong Tang, 2019. "Corporate Public Transparency on Financial Performance: The Moderating Role of Political Embeddedness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, October.
    9. Jill Brown & William Forster, 2013. "CSR and Stakeholder Theory: A Tale of Adam Smith," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 301-312, January.
    10. Sandra Waddock, 2019. "Shaping the Shift: Shamanic Leadership, Memes, and Transformation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 931-939, April.
    11. Jesús Mauricio Flórez Parra, 2016. "El gobierno corporativo en el ámbito del sector público: un estudio bibliométrico en las revistas ubicadas en el área de Administración Pública," Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, vol. 25(1), pages 161-175, December.
    12. Muhamad Azrin Nazri & Nor Asiah Omar & Aini Aman & Abu Hanifah Ayob & Nur Ainna Ramli, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Performance in Takaful Agencies: The Moderating Role of Objective Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-18, October.
    13. M. Tina Dacin & Jeffrey S. Harrison & David Hess & Sheila Killian & Julia Roloff, 2022. "Business Versus Ethics? Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 863-877, October.
    14. Nina Evans & Janet Sawyer, 2010. "CSR and stakeholders of small businesses in regional South Australia," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 6(3), pages 433-451, August.
    15. Tomina Saveanu & Daniel Badulescu & Sorana Saveanu & Maria-Madela Abrudan & Alina Badulescu, 2021. "The Role of Owner-Managers in Shaping CSR Activity of Romanian SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    16. Ante Glavas & Jenny Mish, 2015. "Resources and Capabilities of Triple Bottom Line Firms: Going Over Old or Breaking New Ground?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 623-642, March.
    17. Michelle Harbour & Veronika Kisfalvi, 2014. "In the Eye of the Beholder: An Exploration of Managerial Courage," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 119(4), pages 493-515, February.
    18. Kreiling, Laura & Serval, Sarah & Peres, Raphaële & Bounfour, Ahmed, 2020. "University technology transfer organizations: Roles adopted in response to their regional innovation system stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 218-229.
    19. Angus W. H. Yip & William Y. P. Yu, 2023. "The Quality of Environmental KPI Disclosure in ESG Reporting for SMEs in Hong Kong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-26, February.
    20. Zhongju Liao & Xiang Zhu, 2022. "A configurational analysis of firms' environmental innovation: Evidence from China's key pollutant‐discharge listed companies," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1511-1522, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4028-:d:534323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.