The attitude of the building sector towards innovation and its intellectual and organizational preparedness for dealing with the issues of innovation is the aim of this study. The core question can be formulated as follows: Why does a building company accept certain innovations but not others? The fundamental ideas of the study are rooted in the central European tradition of the historico-qualitiative school of thought. Another basic idea for the thesis is Dewcy’s and Bcntley's theory of transactional cognition introduced in Sweden by Hanssen under the term ""field concept" according to which the content and object of knowledge are seen as an entirety. The reason for approaching the problem qualitatively. that is through not highly structured interviews based on the author's long personal experience in the sector, is its compound and many face ted nature a long with the fact that verbal discussion is firmly grounded in building sector tradition. Innovations has to pass trough three different filters. These filters are at the point where the innovation enters the company, during the bid preparation process and upon the absorption of the innovation into the project. Important factors influencing the passage through these filters arc papyrophobia, the old boy network (OBN) and the structure of the production system. Papyrophobia is expressed in a general reluctance to deal with theoretical issues and documentation. OBN denotes an informal communication network. Production is run by and within project organizations. i.e. repetitive ad hoc aggregates independent of the parent organization. These factors in combination with time and financial pressure obstruct the possibility of creating a research tradition. Characteristic features of the socio-cultural tradition of the sector are that it is male dominated, that the educational system classifies those working in the field according to trade and profession, and that the strong position of production aspects have brought to the forefront the energetic practitioner. His values are strictly professional. Information is to a great extent transmitted orally. There is strength in the ability of Swedish construction firms to plan and improvise within an established frame. However, a certain streak of marginalism with the potential of inhibiting innovation does exist in their pattern of action. Also typical of the tradition is the ideal of the free entrepreneur and the organization of large companies as confederations of a number of small and medium size firms. Finally, a fundamental cultural feature of the construction industry is openness. News spreads rapidly to a competitor. Innovations are disseminated in several ways, but one dominant pattern persists that cannot be seen in other industries. While the projects are important for testing and diffusion of innovations, the companies arc more intrumental in propagating information of innovations. The building materials industry's R&amp;D work follows a pattern similar to that of production companies in other sectors. The building sector's readiness to follow and work with innovation issues can generally be rated as low. The confinement of interest to production aspects combined with the marked open· ness provides ample room for the materials manufacturers and companies outside the sector to introduce new products and materials. In the long run, it is the gradual change in this assortment that will transform building techniques and technology. Change is generated by other sectors. / <p>Felaktigt ISBN <em>91-7870-087</em> är angivet i avhandling. ISBN är korrigerat till <em>91-7870-087-6</em>.</p>

The health sector is today facing many challenges, requiring a need for capabilities in managing innovations. At Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden, the management of some of the innovations has been centralized to the Innovation Center. The Innovation Center can be involved in all phases of an innovation process, but have identified difficulties to deal with innovations that have already been successfully implemented. Further implementation of these innovations to other hospital units, creates benefits for more patients and care givers, and is therefore of high importance. Therefore, managing innovations also includes making sure that successfully implemented innovations are spread to other clinics in the hospital, a phenomenon hereby called dissemination of innovations. Studies show that many innovations, even though they are successfully implemented at one location, disseminate slowly, or not at all. In fact, two out of three implementation efforts in the health care sector fail due to various barriers. The purpose of this master thesis is therefore to explore how dissemination of innovations can be facilitated at university hospitals in public health care systems. By dissemination we refer to the intentional spreading of innovations to other hospital units, or repeated implementations following the initial implementation target. Therefore, dissemination is targeted by studying the dynamics of implementation processes through the following research question: How do organizational factors affect the implementation of innovations at public university hospitals? By organizational factors we mean general areas that can be influenced by central management functions, such as: funding, leadership and culture.   The research question has been studied qualitatively through a literature study, a contextual study and three case studies. The cases consist of three innovation projects managed by the Innovation Center that have undergone some sort of dissemination. The empirical data has been collected through semi-structured interviews with both administrative and clinical staff. The data has been structured and analyzed using a theoretical framework developed from findings in previous research. In accordance to previous research, our results indicate that various organizational factors affect the dissemination of innovations. For instance, the complex and unstandardized way of getting funding to dissemination projects are impeding the process. Also, it needs to be clearly established who is to assume responsibility of an innovation, both during its initial implementation process as well as its dissemination. Resistance from clinicians may also function as a barrier and is caused by, for instance, a lack of information about the innovation or bad experiences from earlier failed projects. Additionally, if innovations do not meet identified and prioritized needs at the clinic, or if it is not properly adapted to local conditions and requirements, this may also impede the implementation. To properly involve clinicians is therefore of high significance in order to enable a successful implementation. Finally, rigid structures affect implementation negatively. These are built up by, for instance: extensive use of, and sometimes contradicting, policies and regulations; high administrative requirements as well as an organizational structure that separates medical disciplines. This inertia, together with sparse time allocated for innovation activities among the clinics, leads to difficulties when implementing and disseminating innovations in the hospital.