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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Ricky Buchanan & Natasha Layton, 2019. "Innovation in Assistive Technology: Voice of the User," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, June.
    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. Andrew Lynn, 2022. "Ethics, Economics, and the Specter of Naturalism: The Enduring Relevance of the Harmony Doctrine School of Economics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 661-673, July.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Nir Halevy & Sora Jun & Eileen Y. Chou, 2020. "Intergroup Conflict is Our Business: CEOs’ Ethical Intergroup Leadership Fuels Stakeholder Support for Corporate Intergroup Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 229-246, February.
    7. Lamin B. Ceesay, 2020. "Exploring the Influence of NGOs in Corporate Sustainability Adoption: Institutional-Legitimacy Perspective," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 9(2), pages 135-147, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Ayman Hassan Bazhair & Mohammed Naif Alshareef, 2022. "Dynamic relationship between ownership structure and financial performance: a Saudi experience," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 2098636-209, December.
    10. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    11. Francesca Bernini & Fabio La Rosa, 2024. "Research in the greenwashing field: concepts, theories, and potential impacts on economic and social value," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(2), pages 405-444, June.
    12. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter, 2016. "Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 97-108.
    13. Bazin, Damien, 2009. "What exactly is corporate responsibility towards nature?: Ecological responsibility or management of nature?: A pluri-disciplinary standpoint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 634-642, January.
    14. Jallat, Frédéric & Shultz, Clifford J., 2011. "Lebanon: From cataclysm to opportunityâCrisis management lessons for MNCs in the tourism sector of the Middle East," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 476-486, October.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Horban Vasylyna B., 2016. "Management of Sustainable Energy Efficient Development at the Local Level: Stakeholder-Oriented Approach," The Problems of Economy, RESEARCH CENTRE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS of NAS (KHARKIV, UKRAINE), issue 4, pages 47-56.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Maria Rosa De Giacomo & Raimund Bleischwitz, 2020. "Business models for environmental sustainability: Contemporary shortcomings and some perspectives," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3352-3369, 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.