The dissertation at hand presents the findings that have emerged from the research intervention in a case study, Gpi Group, conducted with a general objective to propose an approach that would assist an organisation in developing tailored indicators for social impact measurement. Three studies administered within the framework of this interventionist research pursue the aim: i) to explore conditions informing the substantive-symbolic adoption of sustainability agenda; ii) to reveal factors that hinder calculative practices from ensuring accountability of technology companies in the healthcare system; and iii) given the restricted direct stakeholder engagement, to design an approach or methodological tool for the impact measurement indicators. The research has been conducted in the interventionist research tradition, whereby the researcher collaborates with organisational members to solve real-world problems and contribute to scientific knowledge. In this work, the identified problem pertains to the limitations of conventional indicators in measuring implications arising from the Gpi Group’s operations that are borne by final beneficiaries. The company offers a wide range of technological solutions and health booking services for the healthcare sector. However, despite the considerable importance of final beneficiaries, namely medical professionals and patients, they remain underrepresented in materiality, which has motivated this research. The first chapter outlines emerging nuances, power dynamics, and internal tensions when the organisation decides to commit to the sustainability agenda and formalise corresponding standards. By triangulating data from corporate documents, interviews, and survey, and further interpreting them through the lens of Bourdieu’s field theory, it has been revealed that substantive-symbolic adoption of sustainability standards depends on the power dynamics that enable a shared meaning of sustainability and accordingly shape individuals’ habitus. The second chapter explores whether existing calculative practices for impact can ensure the accountability of technology companies operating in the healthcare sector. By identifying commonly used indicators from extant scientific research and non-academic reports and further critically scrutinising them with organisational members of the case study, a limited practical validity of calculative practices is revealed for technology companies. Pragmatic constructivism applied to the interview analysis points to the topoi mismatch and insufficient addressing of a practical validity condition across all dimensions of the actor’s reality construction, which led to the abstract and theoretical indicators. The third chapter describes in detail the indicator-building approach for social impact measurement and the process of integrating derived indicators into Gpi Group’s materiality assessment. Materiality, which is a highly contested concept in the literature, has been examined from a pragmatic stance in this chapter. The application of this approach to the organisational setting, where it is prohibited to involve final beneficiaries by virtue of regulations and ethical concerns, has enabled deriving 21 indicators composing four major materiality topics.

Introduction: The traditional IT investment evaluation methods and/or techniques tend to measure the quantitative value added by eHealth. However, there are contributions brought by innovation which are intangible and sundry, and thus are difficult to identify, measure and manage. A model presented by Vimarlund & Koch (2011) aims for identifying the benefits that IT investments bring to health and social care organizations. It could be used as a tool that identifies and classifies the effects and indicators of IT innovation in-vestments at different organizational levels for different stakeholders. Purpose and research questions: This is an evaluative study with the purpose to validate Vimarlund & Koch’s (2011) evaluation model through practical application. A care study of EIAS (ERAS Interactive Audit System) is conducted. ERAS stands for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, which is an innovative process aims to enhance patient’s outcome after ma-jor surgery. EIAS is a system that supports the ERAS process. The aim is to achieve a deep understanding of IT investment evaluation. The model will be used in a real case as a guide to evaluate and identify impact that derives from the use and implementation of IT applica-tions. The process of evaluation could also be seen as a process of validation of the model in terms of comprehensiveness, practicality and applicability. Through this study, we aim to find out: 1) What are the possible contributions that EIAS brings to Jönköping County Council? 2) How is the performance of Vimarlund & Koch’s (2011) evaluation model in practical application, in terms of comprehensiveness, practicality and applicability? Method: The purpose of this study is evaluative and it is conducted by using adductive ap-proach. Single case study will be adopted as the research strategy. In this study, qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interview with key respondents. The data collected will be analyzed qualitatively with a narrative approach. Conclusion: Guided by Vimarlund & Koch’s (2011) evaluation model, the innovations that have been brought into healthcare organizations by EARS are electronic information supply, internal integration of clinical information and possibilities to learn from the system. The model has been validated in terms of comprehensiveness, practicality and applicability. The evaluation model is a generic model to demonstrate the contribution of IT to innovation and change in health care. It could be used in both formative and summative assessment and as well as goal-free and goal-based evaluation. The issue of the productivity paradox has been noticed as some effects are not immediate after introducing of IT. User-participation or not could be considered as an important condition for the validity of the evaluation guided by the evaluation model.