Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:03:30.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 22 - Design and Routine Dynamics

from Part III - Themes in Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

By
Frithjof E. Wegener  and
Vern L. Glaser
Edited by
Martha S. Feldman ,
Brian T. Pentland ,
Luciana D'Adderio ,
Katharina Dittrich ,
Claus Rerup  and
David Seidl
Martha S. Feldman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Brian T. Pentland
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Luciana D'Adderio
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Katharina Dittrich
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Claus Rerup
Affiliation:
Frankfurt School of Finance and Management
David Seidl
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Get access

Summary

Organizational actors spend a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to intentionally change their routines. We conceptualize these intentional changes as routine design—intentional efforts to change one or more aspects of a routine to create a preferred situation. We review existing routines research on intentional change by showing how different perspectives on routines have generated different insights about the relationship between intentional change and design. We highlight a cognitive perspective, a practice perspective, and an ontological process perspective on routine design. We then draw on two perspectives inspired by design studies. Simon’s scientific perspective on design suggests that routines scholars study the effects and implications of designing artifacts. Schön’s reflective practice perspective on design suggests that routines scholars can examine how actors set the problem, engage in (re)framing, and in reflection-in-action. These design studies perspectives offer routines scholars a better understanding of efforts to intentionally change routines. Based on these insights from design studies, we develop a future research agenda for routine design.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsdesignpragmatismprocess ontologydesign sciencedesign inquiryorganizational design
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 301 - 314
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldessarelli, G. (2021). Emotions & Routine Dynamics. In D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., Rerup, C. and Seidl, D., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bapuji, H., Hora, M. and Saeed, A. M. (2012). Intentions, intermediaries, and interaction: Examining the emergence of routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1586–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bapuji, H., Hora, M., Saeed, A. and Turner, S. (2018). How understanding-based redesign influences the pattern of actions and effectiveness of routines. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2132–2162. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 643–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, H., Bousfiha, M. and Mansoori, Y. (2020). Opportunities as artifacts and entrepreneurship as design. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 825–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertels, S., Howard-Grenville, J. and Pek, S. (2016). Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: The role of culture in the integration of routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 573–593.Google Scholar
Bresman, H. (2012). Changing routines: A process model of vicarious group learning in pharmaceutical R&D. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 35–61. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting Routine Dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. (2007). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28(5), 773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohendet, P. S. and Simon, L. O. (2016). Always playable: Recombining routines for creative efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s video game studio. Organization Science, 27(3), 614–632.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2003). Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: The influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 321–350.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2010). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2014). The replication dilemma unravelled: How organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organization Science, 25(5), 1325–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Adderio, L., Glaser, V. L. and Pollock, N. (2019). Performing theories, transforming organizations: A reply to Marti and Gond. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 676–679.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2014). Performing modularity: Competing rules, performative struggles and the effect of organizational theories on the organization. Organization Studies, 35(12), 1813–1843.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. (2020). Making routines the same: Crafting similarity and singularity in routines transfer. Research Policy, 49(8), 104029. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104029.Google Scholar
Dalsgaard, P. (2014). Pragmatism and design thinking. International Journal of Design, 8, 143–155.Google Scholar
Dankfort, Z. (2018, December 4). The Visual Storytelling Toolkit: A Way to Engage Employees with their Organization’s Vision. (Guerreiro Goncalves, M. and Wegener, F., eds.). Delft.Google Scholar
Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H. and Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659–677.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1933/1998). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. Minton: Balch.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory Of Inquiry (pp. 1–550). New York: Henry Holt & Company.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. (2021). Pragmatism & Routine Dynamics. In D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., Rerup, C. and Seidl, D., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re)creation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 181–205.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678–697.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in Routine Dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, B. S. (2020). Dewey and Design: A Pragmatist Perspective for Design Research (pp. 1–208). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. and Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261–274.Google Scholar
Eckersley, M. (1988). The form of design processes: A protocol analysis study. Design Studies, 9(2), 86–94.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farjoun, M., Ansell, C. K. and Boin, A. (2015). PERSPECTIVE – pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787–1804. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1016.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, future. In Howard-Grenville, J. A., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Perspectives on Process Organization Studies: Organizational Routines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on Routine Dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505–513.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Jain, S. and Tuertscher, P. (2008). Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness. Organization Studies, 29(3), 351–371.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2014). Enchanted Algorithms: The Quantification of Organizational Decision-Making. Dissertation, Marshall School of Business.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126–2154.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., Hoopes, D. G. and Knott, A. M. (2015). Redesigning routines for replication. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 851–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2009). The practice of routines and representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 551–574.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J. A., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (2016). Organizational Routines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, W. (1909/1996). A Pluralistic Universe: Hibbert Lectures at Manchester College on the Present Situation in Philosophy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Joas, H. (1996). The Creativity of Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joas, H. and Beckert, J. (2002). A theory of action: Pragmatism and the creativity of action. Transactional Viewpoints, 1(4), 1–4.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated Routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaric, N. and Denis, B. (2005). Routinization and memorization of tasks in a workshop: The case of the introduction of ISO norms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 873–896.Google Scholar
Leutenegger, C., Tuckermann, H., Gutzan, S. and Ruegg-Sturm, J. (2018). Organizational routine design in a hospital: A narrative-based study of ostensive routine dimensions in the making. Presented at the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies, Halkidiki, Greece.Google Scholar
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Perspective – Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918.Google Scholar
Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorino, P. and Mourey, D., (2013). The experience of time in the inter-organizing inquiry: A present thickened by dialog and situations, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(1), 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorino, P., Tricard, B. and Clot, Y. (2011). Research methods for non-representational approaches to organizational complexity: The dialogical mediated inquiry. Organization Studies, 32(6), 769–801.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. and Monteiro, P. (2016). The practice approach: For a praxeology of organisational and management studies. In The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26, 126–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar
Paton, B. and Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573–587.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Hærem, T. (2015). Organizational routines as patterns of action: Implications for organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 465–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Jung, E. J. (2016). Evolutionary and revolutionary change in path-dependent patterns of action. In Organizational Routines. Oxford University Press, pp. 96–113.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Recker, J. and Wyner, G. (2015) A thermometer for interdependence: Exploring patterns of interdependence using networks of affordances. In Carte, T., Heinzl, A. and Urquahart, C., eds., Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems (AIS), http://aisel.aisnet.org/, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Rein, M. and Schön, D. A. (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In Weiss, C. H., ed., Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 235–251.Google Scholar
Rein, M. and Schön, D. A. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577–610.Google Scholar
Reynaud, B. (2005). The void at the heart of rules: Routines in the context of rule-following. The case of the Paris Metro Workshop. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 847–871. http://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth073.Google Scholar
Romme, A. G. L. (2003). Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 14(5), 558–573.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2010). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1984a). Design: A process of enquiry, experimentation and research. Design Studies, 5(3), 130–131.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1984b). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 132–136.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3), 131–147.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–34. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40165285.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial (1st edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1988). The science of design: Creating the artificial. Design Issues, 4(1/2), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, B. (2009). Pragmatism, Mead and the practice turn. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1329–1347.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. (2017). Pragmatism: A philosophy of practice. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 54–68.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. and Lorino, P. (2016). Re-viewing routines through a pragmatist lens. In Howard-Grenville, J. A., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Perspectives on Process Organization Studies: Organizational Routines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions (2nd edition). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43. http://doi.org/10.2307/2486989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27. http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2884.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2021). How to make Routine Dynamics research more dynamic: Advancing theorizing through performative phenomenology. In D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., Rerup, C. and Seidl, D., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. C. H. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. P. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 24–46.Google Scholar
van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. (2019). Problem framing expertise in public and social innovation. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(1), 29–43.Google Scholar
van Hulst, M. and Yanow, D. (2015). From policy ‘frames’ to ‘framing’. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92–112.Google Scholar
van Kuijk, K. (2019, October 18). Designing a Live Routine. (Hende, E. A. and Wegener, F. E., eds.). Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Wegener, F. (2019). When designing routines: Dealing with the challenges of interdependency and affordances through design experiments. Presented at 11th International Process Symposium Organization in the Digital Age: Understanding the Dynamics of Work, Innovation, and Collective Action (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
Wegener, F. and Cash, P. (2020). The future of design process research? Exploring process theory and methodology. Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference 2020.Google Scholar
Wegener, F., Guerreiro Goncalves, M. and Dankfort, Z. (2019). Reflection-in-action when designing organizational processes: Prototyping workshops for collective reflection-in-action. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1(1), 1255–1264.Google Scholar
Wegener, F. and Lorino, P, (2021). Capturing the experience of living forward through ‘withness’. In Reinecke, J., Suddaby, R., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Vol. 7: About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1999). That ’s moving: Theories that matter. J ournal of Management Inquiry, 8(2), 134–142.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, S. G. and Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6), 730–743. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.6.730.10084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanow, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is reflection‐in‐action? A phenomenological account. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1339–1364.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×