No abstract

Organizational routines are considered basic components of organizational behavior and repositories of organizational capabilities (Nelson & Winter, 1982).They do, therefore, hold one of the keys to understanding organizational change.The article focuses on how the concept of organizational routines can be applied in empirical research to understand organizational change. We identify problems encountered in such research and present proposals for how to deal with them, in order to advance our knowledge of routines and our understanding of organizational change. Developing these themes, we also introduce the articles in the special section 'Towards an Operationalization of the Routines Concept'.

Changing routines and creating new routinization processes are difficult tasks involving both cognitive and political mechanisms. In this paper we use Defial-a French meat-processing firm-in order to illustrate some of the problems involved in creating a new procedural memory in a workshop and in applying the concept of a 'routine'. We discuss some methodological implications resulting from our various observations and the choices we made. In our case study, the complexity arose partly from the many different factors that affect the production process, such as stress and the overload syndrome. We show that time and hierarchical pressures cannot alone ensure the success of the memorization of a task. The routinization process is only truly successful when a new state of confidence towards management has been established, a confidence that helps overcome the socioemotional issues arising from the changes that are taking place and that paves the way for the acceptance of change in both declarative and procedural memory.

Lazaric N., Longhi C. and Thomas C. Gatekeepers of knowledge versus platforms of knowledge: from potential to realized absorptive capacity, Regional Studies. The development of clusters rests on geographical proximity, cognitive interactions as well as entrepreneurial initiatives. Sophia Antipolis, a multi-technology cluster in Valbonne, France, is a good illustration of the type of challenges local systems of innovation face in creating positive knowledge externalities. This paper shows that if the existence of 'gatekeepers of knowledge' can generate the potential implementation of 'absorptive capacity', its effective realization requires some additional effort regarding the transfer of knowledge into the cluster. The concept of 'platform of knowledge' defined shows how a project of knowledge codification could generate externalities by creating new opportunities for effectively combining and absorbing knowledge. [image omitted] Lazaric N., Longhi C. et Thomas C. Deux modalites opposees de diffusion des connaissances: les gardiens versus la platforme. Une illustration a travers le cas d'un cluster high tech, Regional Studies. Le developpement des clusters repose sur la proximite geographique, les interactions cognitives et les initiatives des entrepreneurs. Sophia Antipolis, un cluster fonde sur plusieurs technologies, est une bonne illustration des obstacles que les systemes locaux d'innovation doivent franchir pour creer des externalites de connaissance positives. Cet article montre que l'existence de 'relais de connaissance' ('gatekeepers of knowledge') peut engendrer des capacites d'absorption potentielles, mais que leur realisation effective implique des efforts supplementaires relatifs aux transferts de connaissance dans le cluster. Le concept de 'plate forme de connaissance' propose montre comment un projet de codification des connaissances peut generer des externalites en creant des opportunites nouvelles pour combiner et absorber des connaissances. Cluster high tech Connaissance Gatekeeper Plate forme de connaissance Sophia Antipolis Lazaric N., Longhi C. und Thomas C. Zwei gegenubergestellte Verfahren der Wissensubertragung: Die Gatekeepers versus die Plattform. Eine Illustration anhand eines Hightech clusters, Regional Studies. Die Entwicklung der Cluster hangt von der geographische Nahe, kognitiven Interaktionen und Initiativen der Unternehmer ab. Sophia Antipolis, ein Multi -Technologie Cluster, ist eine gute Illustration der Hemmnisse, die die localen Innovationssysteme uberwinden mussen,um positive Externalitaten zu schaffen. Dieser Artikel zeigt, dass die Existenz von 'Wissensrelais' ('gatekeepers of knowledge') potentielle Absorptionsfahigkeiten erzeugen konnen, aber ihre effektive Realisation zusatzliche Anstrengungen bezuglich der Wissenstransferts in dem Cluster erfordern. Das Konzept der vorgeschlagenen 'Wissensplattform' zeigt, wie ein Projekt zur Kodifizierung des Wissens Externalitaten hervorrufen kann, indem neue Gelegenheiten geschafft werden um Wissen zu kombinieren und zu absorbieren....

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. -In this article the role of habits, rules and norms for collective learning will be discussed. These concepts, although usually shown as being quite different, have certain similarities and complementarities. Routines and habits in the Veblenian tradition are two inseparable notions. In Simon's work, routines are explained more as a cognitive tool to avoid exhaustive deliberation. Rules and routines in Simon's work are identified using the artificialist approach and defined with analogy to the computer. This perspective, which is quite different to that proposed by Veblen, can be used to explain human problem solving and bounded rationality in organizations. The definition of routines from a cognitive perspective proposed by Nelson and Winter in 1982 is far removed from the Veblenian legacy and Simon's work. Here the notion of tacit knowledge is introduced in order to show that it is difficult to duplicate routines and that the artificialist approach cannot always be used to tackle the many different kinds of knowledge anchored in routines. Despite the important work conducted by Nelson and Winter, routines are nevertheless difficult to decipher in organizations and their different ontological levels (concrete and abstract levels) can give rise to some confusion for observers. For this reason, most authors now admit that it is possible to describe routines using the concrete level on the one hand and with their formal representation on the other (as a general rule). Notions of rules, routines and habits are sometimes assimilated, sometimes distinguished/separated depending on the ontological or epistemological level which is being referred to. Although the debate surrounding this issue is important, it is crucial not to forget the existence of the cognitive and political dimensions of every rule, routine and habit in collective learning. This is probably the main conclusion of this article, beyond the epistemological and ontological discussion.

Abstract: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.