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-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:29:38.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 17 - Routine Interdependence

Intersections, Clusters, Ecologies and Bundles

from Part III - Themes in Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

By
Rodrigo A. Rosa ,
Waldemar Kremser  and
Sergio Bulgacov
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

In this chapter, we review the literature on interdependent routines. We group previous studies on routine interdependence around key concepts – boundaries & intersections, clusters, ecologies, and bundles – and highlight the different analytical foci and results of each group. Hence, we make an argument for leveraging the analytical differences of such concepts as cluster and ecologies, rather than treating them as synonyms. In closing, we point out several avenues for future research.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsinterdependenceboundariesclustersbundlesecologiesnetworks
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 244 - 254
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

Abbott, A. (1995). Boundaries of social work or social work of boundaries? The social service review lecture. Social Service Review, 69(4), 545–562.Google Scholar
Abell, P., Felin, T. and Foss, N. (2008). Building micro‐foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(6), 489–502.Google Scholar
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.Google Scholar
Birnholtz, J. P., Cohen, M. D. and Hoch, S. V. (2007). Organizational character: On the Regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove. Organization Science, 18(2), 315–332.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. D. and Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A., Frederiksen, L., Cacciatori, E. and Hartmann, A. (2018). The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations. Research Policy, 47(8), 1403–1417.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
Dönmez, D., Grote, G. and Brusoni, S. (2016). Routine interdependencies as a source of stability and flexibility: A study of agile software development teams. Information and Organization, 26(3), 63–83.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.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), 94–118.Google 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 Studies, 27(3), 505–513. Special Issue.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309–331.Google Scholar
Galunic, C. and Weeks, J. (2005). Intraorganizational ecology. In Baum, J. A. C., ed., Blackwell Companion to Organizations, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 75–98.Google Scholar
Geiger, D., Danner-Schröder, A. and Kremser, W. (2021). Getting ahead of time: Performing temporal boundaries to coordinate routines under temporal uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 220–264. doi:10.1177/0001839220941010.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
Goh, K. T. and Pentland, B. T. (2019). From actions to paths to patterning: Toward a dynamic theory of patterning in routines. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1901–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, M., Hærem, T. and Pentland, B. T. (2018). Repertoire, routinization, and enacted complexity in patterns of action. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 10734.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. (2018). The behavior and capabilities of firms. In Nelson, R., Dosi, G., Helfat, C., Pyka, A., Saviotti, P. and Lee, K., et al., eds., Modern Evolutionary Economics: An Overview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekzema, J. (2020). Bridging the gap between ecologies and clusters: Towards an integrative framework of routine interdependence. European Management Review, 17(2), 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds. (2016). Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed (vol. 5). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. (2017). Interdependente Routinen. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Blagoev, B. (2021). The Dynamics of Prioritizing: How actors temporally pattern complex role-routine ecologies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 339–379. doi:10.1177/0001839220948483.Google Scholar
Kremser, W., Pentland, B. and Brunswicker, S. (2019) Interdependence within and between routines: A performative perspective. In Feldman, M. S., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K. and Jarzabkowski, P., eds., Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698–721.Google Scholar
Langley, A., Lindberg, K., Mørk, B. E., Nicolini, D., Raviola, E. and Walter, L. (2019). Boundary work between groups, occupations, and organizations: From cartography to process. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 704–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, A. (2020). Developing theory through integrating human and machine pattern recognition. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 90–116.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of the Firm. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, Belknap.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, D. X., Schroeder, R. G. and Shah, R. (2008). Linking routines to operations capabilities: A new perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 730–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (2004). Towards an ecology of inter-organizational routines: A conceptual framework for the analysis of net-enabled organizations. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference (pp. 264–271). IEEE.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (2011). The foundation is solid, if you know where to look: Comment on Felin and Foss. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W. and Haerem, T. 2020. The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 19–47.Google Scholar
Pentland, B.T., Liu, P., Kremser, W. and Hærem, T. (2021). Can small variations accumulate into big changes? In Lounsbury, M., Anderson, D. and Spee, P., eds., Research in the Sociology of Organizations Vol. 71. On Practice and Institution: New Empirical Directions. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 29–44.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Recker, J. and Wyner, G. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring interdependence between organizational routines. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016), December, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Peteraf, M. and Tsoukas, H. (2017). How differences in understanding the dynamic capabilities construct may be reconciled through process research. In Sandberg, et al., eds., Skillful Performance: Enacting Capabilities, Knowledge, Competence, and Expertise in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Prange, C., Bruyaka, O. and Marmenout, K. (2017). Investigating the transformation and transition processes between dynamic capabilities: Evidence from DHL. Organization Studies, 1–27.Google Scholar
Puranam, P., Raveendran, M. and Knudsen, T. (2012). Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 419–440.Google Scholar
Quick, K. S. and Feldman, M. S. (2014). Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work for building efficient resilience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 673–695.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. (2009). The contribution of event-sequence analysis to the study of organizational routines. In Becker, M. C. and Lazaric, N., eds., Organizational Routines. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 68–102.Google Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilke, O., Hu, S. and Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439.Google Scholar
Seidl, D. and Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1407–1421.Google Scholar
Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722–738.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P. and Smets, M. (2016). The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 27(3), 759–781.Google Scholar
Strauss, A. L., Schatzman, L., Ehrlich, D., Bucher, R. and Sabshin, M. (1963). The Hospital and Its Negotiated Order. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G. and Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaheer, S., Albert, S. and Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 725–741.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×