Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T03:00:59.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflection-in-Action When Designing Organizational Processes: Prototyping Workshops for Collective Reflection-in-Action

Part of: Design Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Frithjof Eberhard Wegener ,
Milene Guerreiro Gonçalves  and
Zoë Dankfort

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this paper on designing organizational processes, we combine insight on reflection-in-action with the role of reflection and experimenting from the organizational routine dynamics literature. Illustrated through a case at a strategy consultancy, we show how a prototyped workshop can elicit reflection-in- action when designing organizational processes. The artifacts used in the prototyped workshop made previous implicit assumptions about the work more explicit. This led to on the spot reflection-in-action of how to improve the prototype. This shows how collective reflection-action can be created by creating a space for reflection, that simultaneously allows for experimentation. Future research between design science and organizational science would thus be fruitful when studying the role of collective reflection- in-action when prototyping organizational processes.

Keywords

Organizational processesDesign processCollaborative designRoutine designAffordances
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1255 - 1264
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Ansell, C. (2012), “What is a ‘Democratic Experiment’?”, Contemporary Pragmatism, Brill, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 159–180.Google Scholar
Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2017), “Taming Deep Uncertainty: The Potential of Pragmatist Principles for Understanding and Improving Strategic Crisis Management”, Administration & Society, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 153, pp. 1–34.Google 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, Vol. 24, pp. 014920631774425–31.Google Scholar
Becker, M.C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (2005), “Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 775–791.Google Scholar
Boland, R.J. and Collopy, F. (Eds.) (2004), Managing as Designing, Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Brown, B., Buchanan, R., Doordan, D. and Margolin, V. (2007), “Introduction”, Design Issues, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1–1.Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (2007), “Introduction: Design and Organizational Change”, Design Issues, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (2015), “Worlds in the Making: Design, Management, and the Reform of Organizational Culture”, She Ji: the Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5–21.Google Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016), “The Interplay of Reflective and Experimental Spaces in Interrupting and Reorienting Routine Dynamics”, Organization Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 594–613.Google Scholar
Carlile, P.R. (2002), “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development”, Organization Science, Informs, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 442–455.Google Scholar
Carlile, P.R. (2004), “Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 555–568.Google Scholar
Cohen, M.D. (2007), “Reading Dewey: Reflections on the Study of Routine”, Organization Studies, SAGE Publications, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 773–786.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P., Suri, J.F. and Canales, K. (2007), “Prototypes as (Design) Tools for Behavioral and Organizational Change”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 122–134.Google Scholar
Dankfort, Z. (2018), The Visual Storytelling Toolkit: A Way to Engage Employees with their Organization's Vision. M.Sc. Thesis. Delft University of Technology. Available at: http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:0e85ba80-77fe-4ad9-ba5f-16d39d767960 (Accessed: 7 April 2019)Google Scholar
Deken, F., Carlile, P.R., Berends, J.J. and Lauche, K. (2016), “Generating Novelty Through Interdependent Routines: A Process Model of Routine Work”, Organization Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, p. orsc.2016.1051-21.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, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 181–205.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018), “Emerging Intentionality in Routine Dynamics: A Pragmatist View”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016), “Talking About Routines: The Role of Reflective Talk in Routine Change”, Organization Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 678–697.Google Scholar
Fachin, F.F. and Langley, A. (2018), “Researching Organizational Concepts Processually: The Case of Identity”, in Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A.L. and Grandy, G. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods: History and Tradition, pp. 308–345.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M., Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2015), “PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World”, Organization Science, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1787–1804.Google Scholar
Feldman, M.S. (2000), “Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 611–629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M.S. (2015), “Routines As Process: Past, Present And Future”, in Organizational Routines and Process Organization Studies, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003), “Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, p. 94.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, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 505–513.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (2014), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017), “Design Performances: How Organizations Inscribe Artifacts to Change Routines. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 2126–2154. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0842Google Scholar
Greenwood, R. and Miller, D. (2010), “Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 78–88. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2010.24.4.3655970.aGoogle Scholar
Hoekzema, J. and Geiger, D. (2018), “Disentangling Routine Interdependence: Blurry Boundaries and Dynamic Patterning.”, presented at the 32th EGOS Colloquium.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J.A. (2005), “The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 618–636.Google Scholar
Junginger, S. (2008), “Product Development as a Vehicle for Organizational Change”, Design Issues, The MIT Press, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 26–35.Google Scholar
Junginger, S. (2015), “Organizational Design Legacies and Service Design”, The Design Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 209–226.Google Scholar
Kellogg, K.C. (2009), “Operating Room: Relational Spaces and Microinstitutional Change in Surgery”, American Journal of Sociology, The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 657–711.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016), “The Dynamics of Interrelated Routines: Introducing the Cluster Level”, Organization Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 698–721.Google Scholar
Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (2010), “Introducing ‘Perspectives on Process Organization Studies’”, in Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2013), “Process Studies of Change in Organization and Management: Unveiling Temporality, Activity, and Flow”, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Leutenegger, C., Tuckermann, H., Gutzan, S. and Ruegg-Sturm, J. (1997), “Organizational routine design in a hospital: a narrative-based study of ostensive routine dimensions in the making”, presented at the 10th International Symposium on Process Organization Studies, Halidiki, Greece.Google Scholar
Levina, N. and Vaast, E. (2018), “Turning Collaboration into Transaction: A Case of Intranet Use in Boundary-Spanning Practices”, presented at the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, pp. 245a–245a.Google Scholar
Lok, J. and de Rond, M. (2013), “On the Plasticity of Institutions: Containing and Restoring Practice Breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 185–207.Google 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, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 48–62. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.11.011Google Scholar
Miller, D., Greenwood, R. and Prakash, R. (2009), “What Happened to Organization Theory? Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 273–279. http://doi.org/10.1177/1056492609344672Google Scholar
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. and Stappers, P. J. (2015), “DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems”. She Ji: the Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 83–106. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2016.01.002Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W.J. (1992), “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations”, Organization Science, informs, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 398–427.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W.J. and Scott, S.V. (2008), “10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 433–474.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J.A. (2011), “Routines Revisited: Exploring the Capabilities and Practice Perspectives”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 413–453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B.T. and Feldman, M.S. (2005), “Organizational routines as a unit of analysis”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 793–815.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, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 235–250.Google Scholar
Pentland, B.T., Feldman, M.S., Becker, M.C. and Liu, P. (2012), “Dynamics of Organizational Routines: A Generative Model”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 1484–1508.Google Scholar
Pentland, B.T., Recker, J. and Wyner, G. (2017), “A thermometer for interdependence: Exploring patterns of interdependence using networks of affordances”, presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G. and Verona, G. (2013), “The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together”, Strategic Management Journal, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 1389–1410.Google Scholar
Rietveld, E. and Kiverstein, J. (2014), “A Rich Landscape of Affordances”, Ecological Psychology, Routledge, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 325–352.Google Scholar
Romme, A. G. L. (2003), “Making a Difference: Organization as Design. Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 558–573. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983), Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. BasicBooks, New York.Google Scholar
Simone. (2018), “Organizational routine design in a hospital: a narrative-based study of ostensive routine dimensions in the making”, presented at the PROS, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Simpson, B. and Lorino, P. (2016), “Re-viewing Routines Through a Pragmatist Lens”, in Organizational Routines, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Spee, P. and Jarzabkowski, P.A. (2017), “Agreeing on What? Creating Joint Accounts of Strategic Change”, Organization Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 152–176.Google Scholar
Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (1995), “What Theory is Not”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, p. 371.Google Scholar
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319–1350.Google Scholar
van Aken, J.E. and Romme, A.G.L. (2009), “Reinventing the future: adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies”, Organization Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
van Hulst, M. and Tsoukas, H. (2018), “Patterning Practice: Stability and Change Over Time in a Teaching Routine”, presented at the 10th International Symposium on Process Organization Studies, Halidiki, Greece.Google Scholar
Yanow, D. and Tsoukas, H. (2009), “What is Reflection-In-Action? A Phenomenological Account. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1339–1364. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00859.xGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2013), Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Yoo, Y., Boland, R.J. Jr. and Lyytinen, K. (2006), “From Organization Design to Organization Designing”, Organization Science, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 215–229.Google Scholar