AIM Research Working Paper Series:

Drawing from advances in Organisation Studies and recent debates within Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Financial Markets, this paper proposes a theoretical framework that characterises the mutual adaptation between formal routines, rules and actual performances as iterative cycles of framing, overflowing and reframing of knowledge inputs and actions. This framework, combined with the ethnographic observation of the ‘engineering freeze’ process at a leading automotive manufacturer, allows us to advance routines’ theory by 1capturing the dynamics of convergence and divergence between procedures and performances; and 2improving our understanding of the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines’ evolution. 4 AIM Working Paper Series: 064-February-2008 Copyright © Luciana D’Adderio, 2008 INTRODUCTION As a unit of analysis, routines represent an invaluable resource to capture organisational change (Simon 1947, Cyert & March 1963, Nelson & Winter 1982, Becker et al. 2005, Pentland & Feldman 2005a). Revealing the internal structure of routines can indeed provide useful insights into many of the basic questions of organisation science (Pentland & Feldman 2005a). Yet, the complexity of this endeavour has meant that routines’ theory to date has only just begun to address the routines dynamics that underpin core organisational phenomena such as learning, change and adaptation. In particular, notwithstanding the important recent advances in this debate, we are still short of a full theoretical understanding and empirical characterisation of the micro-level dynamics that underpin routines’ evolution. These include the dynamics of interaction between different aspects of routines and the influence of artefacts and agencies on routines’ evolution. This gap in the theory has been exposed by authors who have advocated the need to unravel routines and capabilities’ internal dynamics (Pentland & Reuter 1994, Cohen et al. 1996, Feldman 2000, Lazaric & Denis 2001, Zollo & Winter 2002, Feldman & Pentland 2003, D’Adderio 2001, 2003, Becker et al. 2005, Pentland & Feldman 2005a). This work has pointed to the need to “open up the routines’ black box” to analyse the interactions between different sides, or aspects, of routines. Categories introduced to capture the routines’ internal mechanisms include the distinctions between ‘routines-asrepresentations’ and ‘routines-as-expressions’ (Cohen et al. 1996), ‘rules-to5 AIM Working Paper Series: 064-February-2008 Copyright © Luciana D’Adderio, 2008 be-interpreted’ and ‘rules-to-be-executed’ (Reynaud 1996, in ibid) and ‘ostensive’ and ‘performative’ (Feldman & Pentland 2003, Pentland & Feldman 2005a). These approaches have productively shifted the emphasis from a characterisation of routines as undifferentiated monolithic ‘objects’ to the more sophisticated and productive notion of routines as generative and continuously emerging systems characterised by internal structures and dynamics. In doing so, authors have opened up entirely new grounds for exploring some of the most relevant but as yet under-researched questions about the nature and dynamics of routines. This paper aims to contribute to fill this gap in our understanding of routines’ evolution and performance. In our quest to unravel routines’ internal dynamics we set our focus on artefactual representations of routines – and, specifically, on standard operating procedures (SOPs) and associated rules – which we use as a starting point for our analysis. There are two ways in which a focus on artefacts is useful. First, artefact-embedded rules and procedures provide 6 AIM Working Paper Series: 064-February-2008 Copyright © Luciana D’Adderio, 2008 1 In this paper we focus on formal rules and procedures thus neglecting other categories of ‘stable systemic traits’ (Cohen et al. 1996) such as ‘rules of thumb’ and ‘heuristics’. We also assume that, while explicit rules and procedures are not the same, as formal statements they can afford the same analytical treatment. vantage points to observe the ostensive (abstract) aspects of routines with respect to which they can serve as “proxies” (Pentland & Feldman 2005b). When embedded in material artefacts, rules and procedures can provide ideal loci for observing abstract understandings and otherwise embodied views of routines; this is because they become more stable and visible, which in turn allows them to act as reference points against which variations occurring to performances can be more easily detected. The second way to understand the key role of artefacts as privileged points of observation – which is perhaps more akin to the framework developed here is that abstract understandings of routines are not simply people-embodied but highly distributed across a complex web of people and everyday artefacts. Neglecting to include tools and artefacts in the study of routines dynamics can only provide at best a partial picture. 2 See also D’Adderio 2003. 7 AIM Working Paper Series: 064-February-2008 Copyright © Luciana D’Adderio, 2008 The notion of distributed cognition and distributed agency was introduced by Ed Hutchins in his work on navigation (1995). He argues that to understand cognition ‘in the wild’ one must go beyond the analysis of the individual ‘bounded by the skin’ as cognition frequently involve multiple collaborating human beings interacting with artefacts: ‘[. ] local functional systems composed of a person in interaction with a tool have cognitive properties that are radically different from the cognitive properties of the person alone’ and a ‘group performing [a] cognitive task may have cognitive properties that differ from the cognitive properties of any individual’ (Hutchins 1995: xvi and 176). Starting from these premises, we identify three main research questions. First, how can we theorise the mutual adaptation of formal (artefact-embedded) routines and rules and actual performances? For example, what are the micro dynamics that influence the direction and intensity of their interactions, and how do these dynamics influence routines’ evolution and adaptation? Second, what is the role of artefacts in mediating these interactions? Third, what is the influence of distributed agencies, including heterogeneous organisational communities, in shaping the co-evolution between different aspects of routines? To answer these questions we need to acquire a new set of theoretical notions and constructs. Drawing from recent arguments within Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Financial Markets (Callon 1998 & 2007, MacKenzie 2003, 2006a & 2006b), we theorise the interactions between formal SOPs and rules, on one hand, and performances, on the other, as iterative cycles of framing, overflowing and further reframing of knowledge inputs and actions. The framing action exerted by SOPs, rules and formal tools delimits and closes search spaces providing guidance and control. Framing by rules and SOPs, however, is never complete: there is always overflowing which opens up search spaces thus introducing scope for divergence, adaptation and change. Overflowing is often followed by further reframing which brings again convergence between the procedure(s) or rule(s) and performance(s). The combined novel empirical focus and theoretical characterisation provides important new insights into the mutual 8 AIM Working Paper Series: 064-February-2008 Copyright © Luciana D’Adderio, 2008 adaptation between aspects of routines and the role of artefacts and other agencies as intermediaries in these interactions. Specifically, our framework provides three main contributions to the routines debate. First, we are able to capture the interactions between different sides of routines: the cycles of framing, overflowing and reframing – and their emergent outcomes – form the micro dynamics underpinning the mutual adaptation of different aspects of routines and, ultimately, routines’ evolution. Second, we characterise the influence of artefacts as intermediaries in shaping the interactions between different sides of routines. In contrast with extant literature that sees formal SOPs and rules as either flawed representations that can be easily dismissed/disused or as full prescriptions that are compulsively and automatically performed, we show that in most cases – there is some kind of adaptation. Third, we theorise the influence of distributed, heterogeneous agencies (i.e. occupational communities, communities of practice) on routines’ evolution. We show how routines’ dynamics are the emergent result of contingent struggles amongst competing performative programmes. Our data was obtained through the ethnographic observation of the ‘engineering freeze’ process, an upstream section of the product development process at a leading automotive manufacturer. Here, the introduction of a software-based data and process management tool (Product Data Manager, or PDM) and the consequent inscription of the “freeze” routine in software 9 AIM Working Paper Series: 064-February-2008 Copyright © Luciana D’Adderio, 2008 provide vantage points to observe the interaction and mutual shaping of SOPs and performances. The data collection, aimed at documenting the actual contents of routines (Cohen et al. 1996), involved a mix of participantobservation and in-depth, semi-structured interviews. These were conducted over a one and a half years period and span across most organisational functions (Industrial Design, Product Engineering, Analysis, Testing, Production, Manufacturing, Accountancy, Marketing) and levels (designers, shop floor technicians, project and programme managers). The author’s technical background allowed for full immersion into the micro-level interactions among processes, artefacts, people and technologies. The data was subsequently analysed and compiled into a case study consistently with an inductive, ‘grounded theorising’ approach (Glaser & Strauss 1967, Eisenhardt, 1989). The paper is str