Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Fredrik Tell
Structure of presentation
1. What are routines? 2. Questions regarding the nature of routines 3. The role of routines in organizations 4. Routines and innovation
2009-09-09
Sid 2
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 3
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 4
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 5
Linkpings universitet
cognitive regularities
which give rise to recurrent interaction patterns
dispositions
to engage in previously adopted or acquired behavior, triggered by an appropriate stimulus or context
(Becker, 2007)
2009-09-09
Sid 7
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 8
Linkpings universitet
Effortful accomplishment
Observation: in a variety of organizations, routines are characterized by being changeable and open to variation possible resolution of the apparent contradiction between routines as mindless or effortful (Feldman 2002, 2003, Feldmann and Pentland 2003): ostensive (label, referring to) vs. performative (carrying out) neglect of performative aspect leads to neglect of role of actor (agency): Organizational routines are not simply followed or reproduced rather, people have a choice between whether to do so, or whether to amend the routine
2009-09-09
Sid 9
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 10
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 11
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 12
Linkpings universitet
Empirical findings
Knott and McKelvey (1999) compare the relative value of residual claims and routines in generating firm efficiency; US quick printing industry. Conclusion: routines can be more efficient for co-ordination and control than residual claims Standards (and standardized routines) are especially influential for exerting control (Segelod 1997), one way to bring about coordination; routine behavior is easier to monitor and measure than non-routine behavior (cf. Langlois 1992)
2009-09-09
Sid 13
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 14
Linkpings universitet
Empirical findings
routines are not inert, but typically change over time (endogenously) routines have a great potential for change due to an internal dynamic participants responding to the outcomes of previous iterations of a routine (Feldman 2000, 2003; Feldman and Pentland 2003) artifacts have an impact on the processes that they are used in (Hutchins 1991, 1995; Clark 1997; D'Adderio 2001, 2003)
2009-09-09
Sid 15
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 16
Linkpings universitet
Empirical findings
routines economize on cognitive resources by establishing organizational predispositions to respond to issues in certain ways (Ashmos, Duchon and McDaniel 1998) Experiments indicate that routines also economize on the time necessary for reaching a solution; this allows for spontaneous reactions even under constraint situations, such as time constraints (Betsch, Fiedler and Brinkmann 1998).
2009-09-09
Sid 17
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 18
Linkpings universitet
Empirical findings
declarative and procedural knowledge (Cohen and Bacdayan (1994) 'procedural knowledge' characterizes knowledge of how things are done, which is relatively inarticulate and encompasses both cognitive and motor activities a thorough mapping of a routine would also include the documents and artifacts used. (Hutchins 1991; 1995)
2009-09-09
Sid 19
Linkpings universitet
Empirical findings
routines are sometimes used as 'quarry', that is, they are used as 'a system of manipulable elements', as a 'structuring resource' for manipulating the list of activities and restructuring their position in time. Routines are used as heuristics: instead of being executed in a precise way, they are followed as a guideline, with a rather high portion of variation injected (Narduzzo, Rocco and Warglien 2000) changes in the knowledge held in the organization, for example the creation and articulation of knowledge, have an impact on the routines in use. As case studies in the French food and steel industries have illustrated, such changes put the routines and the 'truce' surrounding them in question (Lazaric)
2009-09-09
Sid 20
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 21
Linkpings universitet
(f)
Legitimacy
routines legitimize behavior (less need for justification as it has already been carried out this way before)
2009-09-09
Sid 22
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 23
Linkpings universitet
Explanatory power
Including dimensions in the explanation Exploring interactions between those dimensions (upwards- and downwards-reconstitution)
2009-09-09
Sid 24
Linkpings universitet
Conclusions
Organizational routines concept is central for analyzing the behavior of organizations As sources of stability ... But sometimes also as drivers of endogenous change And, under certain circumstances, organizational routines can also be drivers of/generate innovation
2009-09-09
Sid 25
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 26
Linkpings universitet
Innovation routines
Keith Pavitt, innovating routines good reasons why knowledge of innovating routines especially in large firms deserves greater attention:
identify ingredients for the successful management of innovation more realistic interpretation of what managers actually do in a messy and changing world there are opportunities of successfully combining the new theoretical concepts of innovating routines with rich bodies of empirical evidence on what happens inside the innovating firm (Pavitt 2002, 118).
2009-09-09
Sid 27
Linkpings universitet
Innovation routines
The idea is not new but builds on Nelson & Winter: Identify the way in which the routine functioning of an organisation can contribute to the emergence of innovation (Nelson and Winter 1982, 129). There is, however, more to be said about the relations of routine behavior and innovation than to observe that these concepts are commonly (and appropriately) regarded as opposed ideas (Nelson and Winter 1982, 129) Schumpeterian idea
2009-09-09
Sid 28
Linkpings universitet
2009-09-09
Sid 29
Linkpings universitet