Applying organizational routines in analyzing organizations: methodological issues and analytical contributions (original) (raw)

Applying organizational routines in analyzing new product development processes

2005

The concept of organizational routines was introduced to help understand organizational behavior and organizational change (Nelson & Winter, 1982; March & Simon, 1958; Cyert & March, 1963). Previous studies that have applied organizational routines as analytical perspective to understand these issues, however, have shown the task is not trivial. Many seem sceptical of the contribution an analysis employing organizational routines can make. While much has been written on organizational routines, empirical research employing organizational routines as analytical perspective is still at a relatively early stage. Accordingly, methodological questions still create stumbling blocks in applying the concept of organizational routines. We are convinced such problems are directly responsible for the limited analytical potential of organizational routines that has been realized so far. The objective of this article is to advance and strengthen organizational routines as analytical perspective for understanding organizational behavior and organizational change. In order to do so, the article tackles two questions: (1) How to apply organizational routines as analytical perspective so they make a contribution to understanding organizational behavior? (2) What is the contribution that organizational routines as analytical perspective can make to explaining organizational behavior and organizational change? We develop answers to these two questions by applying organizational routines as analytical perspective in analyzing the product development process at an engineering center.

Applying organizational routines in analyzing the behavior of organizations

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2008

The concept of organizational routine can foster our understanding of the behaviour of organizations and of organizational change , but since empirical studies employing organizational routines as analytical perspective are still relatively rare, how to conduct such an analysis and what are its benefits is not yet fully evident. We wish to shed light on how employing routines contributes to understanding the behavior of organizations and to demonstrate the potential of such analysis. The empirical analysis of the product development process at an engineering centre shows that using organizational routines presents advantages over alternative analytical approaches. The paper also contributes to shed light on how to fruitfully employ an organizational routines perspective in analysing the behaviour of organizations, providing the foundation for further empirical work.

Organizational routines as a unit of analysis

Industrial and Corporate Change, 2005

Organizational routines can be conceptualized as generative systems with internal structures and dynamics. In this paper, we propose three different ways that organizational routines can be approached as a unit of analysis. One option is to treat the entire routine as an undifferentiated 'black box'. A second option is to study particular parts of the routine in isolation (e.g. routines as patterns of action). A third option is to study the relationships between these parts and the processes by which the parts change. For some questions, routines can be taken as a unit of analysis without considering their internal structure, but there are many research questions for which it is useful to consider the parts of routines either separately or as they interact. We discuss the importance of understanding the internal structure and dynamics of organizational routines for exploring core organizational phenomena such as stability, change, flexibility, learning and transfer.

Organizational routines and cognition: an introduction to empirical and analytical contributions

Journal of Institutional Economics, 2011

This article introduces this special issue on routines. It offers some suggestions as to why the concept of routines is considered central in methodological considerations of capabilities and organizational evolution. The contributors to this special issue propose various analytical tools, and provide some missing pieces from the puzzle related to the prominent role of routines. Issues discussed in the papers include methodological individualism. Routines lie between the individual and the firm levels of analysis because they are enacted by individuals in a social context. It is also suggested that a multilevel research agenda provides a finer grained analysis because organizational routines are not isolated units but are entangled among the various organizational layers.

Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change

Organization Science, 2000

In this paper I claim that organizational routines have a great potential for change even though they are often perceived, even defined, as unchanging. I present descriptions of routines that change as participants respond to outcomes of previous iterations of a routine. Based on the changes in these routines I propose a performative model of organizational routines. This model suggests that there is an internal dynamic to routines that can promote continuous change. The internal dynamic is based on the inclusion of routine participants as agents. When we do not separate the people who are doing the routines from the routine, we can see routines as a richer phenomenon. Change occurs as a result of participants' reflections on and reactions to various outcomes of previous iterations of the routine. This perspective introduces agency into the notion of routine. Agency is important for understanding the role of organizational routines in learning and in processes of institutionalization.

Organizational Routines A Sceptical Look

2004

Organizational routines and capabilities have become key constructs not only in evolutionary economics, but more recently also in business administration, specifically strategic management. In this chapter we explicate some of the underlying theoretical problems of these concepts, and discuss the need for micro-foundations. Specifically, we focus on some of the explanatory problems of collective-level theorizing, and what we think are tenuous assumptions about human beings. We argue that individual-level considerations deserve significantly more consideration, and that evolutionary economics and strategic management would be well served by building on methodological individualism.

Origin and Evolution of Routines - Radical and Incremental Innovation in the Automotive Industry

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014

Research on organizational routines embodies the classical paradoxical tension between stability and change; yet, most findings are empirically based on stable, simple, technology-based and continuous processes. This paper inductively identifies mechanisms explaining the origin and the evolution of routines using data of problem-solving communication of two repeating car development projects. The study tackles the question of how organizations get new things done-repeatedly. Therefore, this article studies how cross-functional teams organize themselves over time when solving new problems in the fuzzy-front-end phase of innovation. It presents the result of a qualitative longitudinal case study of a project team working on the exterior car design at an automotive manufacturer. The case study concerns an in-depth analysis of a new, and hence reoccurring, technical problem. The research contributes to literature on organizational routines and innovation management in three ways. Firstly, we characterize the performative character of problem-solving, unveiling the generativeness of activities. Secondly, we show the difference of applied activities in new and routinized problemsolving, unveiling the evolution of a routine Thirdly, we observe the ostensive character of routines exemplified by the sequence and combination of activities. Finally, the study unveils reinforcing mechanisms for stabilizing new routines e.g. the intensive usage of engineering artifacts.