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-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:41:19.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 21 - Innovation Work and Routine Dynamics

from Part III - Themes in Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

By
Fleur Deken  and
Kathrin Sele
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 focus on organizational routines for innovation work. We counter the view that routines and innovation are an unlikely couple. Emphasizing that innovation work is characterized by emergence, dispersed collaboration between heterogeneous actors, and novelty, we are beginning to see how mundane actions—as opposed to grand creative acts—and the interplay between routines and standard operating procedures are driving the development of innovations-in-the-making. We review empirical routine dynamic studies of innovation work to point out affordances of the routine dynamic lens and suggest new avenues for studying innovation work to contribute new theoretical insights about organizational routines.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsinnovation workinnovation processstandard operating proceduresstrategy routinesheterogeneous collaborationnovelty
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 288 - 300
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

Adler, P. S. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.Google Scholar
Akrich, M., Callon, M. and Latour, B. (2002). The key to success in innovation part I: The art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E. and Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations, 41(4), 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social-order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78–108.Google Scholar
Bartel, C. A. and Garud, R. (2009). The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization Science, 20(1), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartunek, J. M., Trullen, J., Immediato, S. and Schneider, F. (2007). Front and backstages of the diminished routinization of innovations: What innovation research makes public and organizational research finds behind the scenes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), 295–314.Google Scholar
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312–330.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 643–677.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. and Zirpoli, F. (2009). Innovation routines: Exploring the role of procedures and stable behaviour patterns in innovation. In Becker, M. C. and Lazaric, N., eds., Organizational Routines: Advances in Empirical Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 303–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244.Google Scholar
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Cacciatori, E. (2012). Resolving conflict in problem‐solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1559–1585.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
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.Google Scholar
Christiansen, J. K. and Varnes, C. J. (2009). Formal rules in product development: Sensemaking of structured approaches. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 502–519.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. G. (1996). Overhauling the new product process. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(6), 465–482.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage‐gate idea‐to‐launch process update, what’s new, and nexgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1991). New product processes at leading industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 20(2), 137–147.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. and Sommer, A. F. (2016). The Agile–Stage‐Gate hybrid model: A promising new approach and a new research opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513–526.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the virtual prototype: How firms integrate knowledge and capabilities across organizational boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 1409–1424.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routine dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deken, F. and Lauche, K. (2014). Coordinating through the development of a shared object: An approach to study interorganizational innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 11(1).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. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in routine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.Google Scholar
Dougherty, D. and Heller, T. (1994). The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms. Organization Science, 5(2), 200–218.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.CrossRefGoogle 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 Science, 27(3), 505–513.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
Ford, C. M. and Gioia, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making. Journal of Management, 26(4), 705–732.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Gehman, J. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies, 32(6), 737–767.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R. and Shapira, Z. B., eds. (1997). Technological Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garud, R. and Rappa, M. A. (1994). A sociocognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3), 344–362.Google Scholar
Garud, R., Tuertscher, P. and Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775–819.Google Scholar
Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. R. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. (2005). Technology brokering and innovation: Linking strategy, practice, and people. Strategy and Leadership, 33(1), 32–36.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. B. and Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501.Google Scholar
Harvey, S. (2013). A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 822–832.Google Scholar
Hoekzema, J. (2020). Bridging the gap between ecologies and clusters: Towards an integrative framework of routine interdependence. European Management Review. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/emre.12391Google 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
Jarzabkowski, P. A., Lê, J. K. and Feldman, M. S. (2012). Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 907–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, M. and Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). The Innovation Marathon: Lessons from High Technology Firms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Kahn, K. B., Kay, S. E., Slotegraaf, R. and Uban, S. (2013). The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kannan-Narasimhan, R. (2014). Organizational ingenuity in nascent innovations: Gaining resources and legitimacy through unconventional actions. Organization Studies, 35(4), 483–509.Google Scholar
Kannan‐Narasimhan, R. and Lawrence, B. S. (2018). How innovators reframe resources in the strategy‐making process to gain innovation adoption. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 720–758.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (2006). Is economics performative? Option theory and the construction of derivatives markets. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 28(1), 29–55.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2010). Medical innovation as a process of translation: A case from the field of telemedicine. British Journal of Management, 21, 1011–1026.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D., Mengis, J. and Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.Google Scholar
Obstfeld, D. (2012). Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization Science, 23(6), 1571–1592.Google Scholar
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S. and Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 257–279.Google Scholar
Okhuysen, G. A. and Bechky, B. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433–474.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar
Pavitt, K. (2002). Innovating routines in the business firm: What corporate tasks should they be accomplishing? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 117–133.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Designing routines: Artifacts in support of generative systems. Presented in Sofia Antipolis, France, January 21–22.Google 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.Google Scholar
Rahman, H. A. and Barley, S. R. (2017). Situated redesign in creative occupations: An ethnography of architects. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(4), 404–424.Google 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
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20(2), 384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170–209.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T., Braun, T. and Sydow, J. (2019). Copying routines for new venture creation: How replication can support entrepreneurial innovation. Research in Sociology of Organizations, 55–78.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
Shaw, N., Burgess, T., Hwarng, H. and De Mattos, C. (2001). Revitalising new process development in the UK fine chemicals industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(8), 1133–1151.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Ingelligence, 4, 181–201.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739–758.Google Scholar
Thomke, S. H. (1998). Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science, 44(6), 743–762.Google Scholar
Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L. and OReilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–32.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D., Garud, R. and Venkataraman, S. (1999). The Innovation Journey. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (1990). Methods for studying innovation development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program. Organization Science, 1(3), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, S., Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Romme, A. G. L. and Weggeman, M. (2011). Micro-institutional affordances and strategies of radical innovation. Organization Studies, 32(11), 1485–1513.Google Scholar
Wenzel, M., Danner-Schröder, A. and Spee, A. P. (2020). Dynamic capabilities? Unleashing their dynamic through a practice perspective on organizational routines. Journal of Management Inquiry, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, S. C. and Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. and Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×