Artificial intelligence (AI) usually enters organizations as a tool whose work-design implications appear only after implementation. This study shifts the analytic starting point upstream to examine how healthcare AI “makers,” through market-facing narratives, frame AI as suitable for adoption in a regulated, professionally governed field. We ask how technology makers construct and legitimate work-design scripts before organizational implementation. We then analyze public-facing materials from 100 U.S. healthcare AI firms (2023–2026)—including vision statements, product descriptions, and white papers—alongside 19 healthcare trade-journal articles (2023–2025) quoting hospital executives and physician leaders. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identify three recurring design logics that makers use to frame AI as adoptable: efficiency , which simplifies complexity and boosts productivity; safety , which establishes quality control and risk management; and precision , which ensures accuracy through human oversight. Makers operationalize these logics through three adoption scripts: turnkey solutions that promise rapid deployment and interoperability, configurable solutions that frame bounded rule-setting as a route to governability, and customizable solutions that emphasize partnership and validation for contextual fit. Trade-journal discourse provides demand-side triangulation by framing responsible adoption in governance terms. By showing how technology makers’ scripts direct work organization before implementation even begins, the study advances a theory of upstream work design centered on the marketing of novel technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iyer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: