Digital Artifacts and (Dis)Connections between Routines: The Experience of an Organization in its Technological Transition
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2238-104X.2024v14n2.69887Keywords:
Organizational Routines, Connections, Digital Artifacts, Digital TransformationAbstract
Purpose: As organizations are increasingly susceptible to the introduction or alteration of technologies in their operations affecting actors and routines of various work natures, this study aimed to identify how an organization addressed the connections between its interdependent routines when envisioning a new technological setup. Method: The investigation strategy adopted was a single case study, employing participant observation, semi-structured interviews, document collection, and thematic analysis. Main findings: Three themes emerged as results of this investigation: i) the role of digital artifacts among interdependent routines; ii) the absence of a holistic view on interdependent routines; and iii) the lack of professional identification with the new configuration. While digital artifacts were positioned as mechanisms for connecting routines, the latter two themes emerged as organizational factors of disconnection among them. Academic contributions: This study advances in the theory of interdependence among organizational routines, by presenting implications for characterizing their boundaries. Additionally, although the literature points to the relationship between artifacts and actors from deterministic or voluntarist orientations, it is shown that digital artifacts can assume various orientations when designed to influence actions among routines taking into account sociomaterial aspects. Practical contributions: In technological interventions, it is important for managers and their intervention teams to understand both the current state of the impacted routines and the actors' perception of the new configuration, in order to identify possible inadequate execution scenarios of routines and undesirable occurrences.
Downloads
References
Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021). The Next Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical Framework of Delegation to e from Agentic IS Artifacts. MIS quarterly, 45(1), 315-341. https://doi.org/ 10.25300/MISQ/2021/15882
Baldessarelli, G., Lazaric, N., & Pezzoni, M. (2022). Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 32(4), 1119-1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-022-00779-2
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. United Kingdon: SAGE Publications.
Brinkmann, S. (2018). The interview. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 576-599). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Coffey, A. (2014). Analysing documents. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 367-379). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Conaty, F. (2021). Abduction as a methodological approach to case study research in management accounting—an illustrative case. Accounting, Finance & Governance Review, 27. https://doi.org/10.52399/001c.22171
D'Adderio, L. (2003). Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: the influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial e Corporate Change, 12(2), 321-350. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/12.2.321
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts e distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research policy, 37(5), 769-789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741000024X
D’Adderio, L. (2021). Materiality & Routine Dynamics. In M. S. Feldman, B. T. Pentland, L. D’Adderio, K. Dittrich, C. Rerup and D. Seidl (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics (pp. 85-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340.009
D’Adderio, L., & Pollock, N. (2014). Performing modularity: Competing rules, performative struggles e the effect of organizational theories on the organization. Organization studies, 35(12), 1813-1843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614538962
D'Adderio, L., & Pollock, N. (2020). Making routines the same: Crafting similarity e singularity in routines transfer. Research Policy, 49(8), 104029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104029
Dittrich, K., Guérard, S., & Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678-697. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1024
Dönmez, D., Grote, G., e Brusoni, S. (2016). Routine interdependencies as a source of stability e flexibility. A study of agile software development teams. Information e Organization, 26(3), 63-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.07.001
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
Ewenstein, B., e Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: the role of visual representations asepistemic objects'. Organization studies, 30(1), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608083014
Feldman, M. S., D'Adderio, L., Pentland, B. T., Dittrich, K., Rerup, C., & Seidl, D. (Eds.). (2021). Cambridge handbook of routine dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative science quarterly, 48(1), 94-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620
Feldman, M. S., & Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00294
Hoekzema, J. (2020). Bridging the gap between ecologies e clusters: Towards an integrative framework of routine interdependence. European Management Review, 17(2), 559-571. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12391
Howard-Grenville, J., & Lodge J. (2021). Context, Embeddedness and Routine Dynamics. In M. S. Feldman, B. T. Pentland, L. D’Adderio, K. Dittrich, C. Rerup and D. Seidl (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics (pp. 229-243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340.020
Kallinikos, I., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2010). A theory of digital objects. First monday, 15(6), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i6.3033
Karali, E. (2021). Professional Routine Dynamics Identity. In M. S. Feldman, B. T. Pentland, L. D’Adderio, K. Dittrich, C. Rerup and D. Seidl (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics (pp. 370-379). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340.031
Knol, W. H., Lauche, K., Schouteten, R. L., & Slomp, J. (2022). Establishing the interplay between lean operating e continuous improvement routines: a process view. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 42(13), 243-273. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2020-0334
Kremser, W., Pentland, B. T., e Brunswicker, S. (2019). Interdependence within e between routines: A performative perspective. In Routine dynamics in action: Replication e transformation (pp. 79-98). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Kremser, W., Pentland, B.T., & Brunswicker, S. (2019). Interdependence within and between Routines: A Performative Perspective. In M. S. Feldman, L. D’Aderio, K. Dittrich and P. Jarzabkowski (Eds.). Routine Dynamics in Action: Replication and Transformation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 61, p. 79-98). https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000061005
Labatut, J., Aggeri, F., & Girard, N. (2012). Discipline e change: How technologies e organizational routines interact in new practice creation. Organization studies, 33(1), 39-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611430589
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oup Oxford.
Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6-7).
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, e the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS quarterly, 35(1), 147-167.
Leonardi, P. M., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2012). Sociomateriality as a lens for design: Imbrication e the constitution of technology e organization. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 4.
MacKenzie, D. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. Mit Press.
Musante, K., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Rowman Altamira.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management annals, 2(1), 433-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2023). The digital undertow e institutional displacement: a sociomaterial approach. Organization Theory, 4(2), 26317877231180898. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231180898
Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial e corporate change, 14(5), 793-815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth070
Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information e organization, 18(4), 235-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.08.001
Pentland, B., Recker, J., & Wyner, G. (2016). Conceptualizing e measuring interdependence between organizational routines. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016) (pp. 1-10). Association for Information Systems (AIS).
Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-e-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577-610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61968107
Riger, S., & Sigurvinsdottir, R. (2016). Thematic analysis. Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research: Qualitative, quantitative, e mixed methods, 33-41.
Riger, S., & Sigurvinsdottir, R. (2016). Thematic Analysis. In L. A. Jason and D. S. Glenwick (Eds.). Handbook of Methodological Approaches to Community-Based Research: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods (p. 33.41). https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780190243654.003.0004
Rosa, R. A., Kremser, W., & Bulgacov, S. (2021). Routine Interdependence: Intersections, Clusters, Ecologies and Bundles. In M. S. Feldman, B. T. Pentland, L. D’Adderio, K. Dittrich, C. Rerup and D. Seidl (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics (pp. 244–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sele, K., & Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722-738. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1031
Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P., e Smets, M. (2016). The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organization Science, 27(3), 759-781. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1050
Turner, S. F., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0653
Wegener, F. E., & Glaser, V. L. (2021). Design and Routine Dynamics. In M. S. Feldman, B. T. Pentland, L. D’Adderio, K. Dittrich, C. Rerup, & D. Seidl (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics (pp. 301–314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340.026
Yamauchi, Y., & Hiramoto, T. (2020). Performative achievement of routine recognizability: An analysis of order taking routines at sushi bars. Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), 1610-1642. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12555
Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: The Guilford Press.
