In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power
In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power
Statistical Pattern Recognition: A Review
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
Commentary on the Organization Science Special Issue on Complexity
Organization Science
Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change
Organization Science
On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change
Organization Science
Process mining: a research agenda
Computers in Industry - Special issue: Process/workflow mining
Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing
Information and Organization
Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action
Information and Organization
Organizational Character: On the Regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove
Organization Science
Narrative Networks: Patterns of Technology and Organization
Organization Science
Staying in the loop: structure and dynamics of Wikipedia's breaking news collaborations
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration
Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper uses data on invoice processing in four organizations to distinguish empirically between two competing theories of organizational routines. One theory predicts that routines should generate patterns of action that are few in number and stable over time, and that atypical patterns of action are driven primarily by exceptional inputs. The competing theory predicts the opposite. By modeling the routines as networks of action and using a first-order Markov model to test for stationarity, we find support for the competing theory. The routines generated hundreds of unique patterns that changed significantly during a five-month period without any apparent external intervention. Changes did not appear to reflect improved performance or learning. Furthermore, we found that exogenous factors (such as large invoices from unusual vendors) are not associated with atypical patterns of action, but endogenous factors (such as the experience of the participants) are. We also found that increased automation can increase variation under some circumstances. These findings offer empirical support for endogenous change in organizational routines and underscore the importance of the sociomaterial context in understanding stability and change.