Analyzing Product Development Task Networks to Examine Organizational Change

Collins, Shawn T.; Bradley, Joe; Yassine, Ali A.

doi:10.1109/tem.2009.2033047

Cited by 26 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We collected data over 24 months in 2005-2006 as part of a larger, mixed-methods ethnographic study (Handwerker, 2001), examining expertise and process control in DevCo's Engineering department (Collins, 2009;Collins, Bradley, & Yassine, 2010;Collins, Yassine, & Bogarti, 2009). Our interest in transferring PIP principles from manufacturing to PD contexts, with the associated burden of organizational change, led us to adopt a clinical study methodology (e.g., Barley & Kunda, 2001;Coghlan, 2009;Howard-Grenville, 2005;Schein, 1987Schein, , 1993) that sought to understand how the PIP conceptualized improvement relative to daily practices at DevCo and how the PIP implementation was managed as an organizational change initiative.…”

Section: Research Setting and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

It worked there, so it should work here: Sustaining change while improving product development processes

Collins

Browning

2019

J of Ops Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations operate under ongoing pressure to conduct product development (PD) in ways that reduce errors, improve product designs, and increase speed and efficiency. Often, managers are expected to respond to this pressure by implementing process improvement programs (PIPs) based on best practices elsewhere (e.g., in another part of their organization or in another industrial context). Successful PIP implementation depends on two criteria: (a) demonstrating (symbolic) success by meeting externally imposed deadlines and producing mandated artifacts and (b) sustaining the expected (substantive) changes in their employees' underlying beliefs and practices. Given the mixed success of PIPs in nonmanufacturing contexts, identifying factors that contribute to both symbolic and substantive implementation is important to both researchers and practitioners. We explore this challenge through an in‐depth field study at a PD company (DevCo) that implemented a PIP across its 11 PD projects. We examine DevCo's change message to implement the PIP, how DevCo's engineers experienced it, factors that impeded implementation, and factors that could improve substantive success. Along with this empirical evidence, we leverage organizational change concepts to facilitate effective PIP implementation in new contexts such as PD. We distill our findings into eight propositions that expand theory about effectively transferring PIPs across contexts.

show abstract

Section: Research Setting and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

It worked there, so it should work here: Sustaining change while improving product development processes

Collins

Browning

2019

J of Ops Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such classification might infer several implications pertaining to for example the evaluation of modularity (e.g., [14], [20]), flexibility (e.g., [21], [40]), and susceptibility (e.g., [7], [22], [26]) of a system. Accordingly, there is a considerable evidence of using structural properties of complex networks in the literature, most notably aspects of Centrality and Betweenness metrics [20], [22], [23], [35]. Alongside, there has been some use of matrix properties such as Eigenvector [7] and Matrix Multiplications [14] and [27] to analyze the changeability of system components.…”

Section: Change Propagation In the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Decision Propagation in Complex Sociotechnical System

Hassannezhad¹,

Cassidy²,

Clarkson³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This manuscript focuses on employee-driven change that surfaced spontaneously in organizations (Pfeffer, 1982;Feldman, 2000;Weick, 1979;Weick, 1998;Pentland et al, 2011) as opposed to planned organizational change (Stensaker and Langley, 2010;Collins et al, 2010;Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). I found that employees created positive changes in their organizations by ignoring the things they were told to do and choosing their own work methods instead: positive change emerged from disobedience.…”

Section: Case Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvised routines driving best practices: investing in disobedience

Gerard

2020

QRAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine different processes four organizations use to achieve best practices. There is an apparent contradiction between projects designed to create innovation and rigid rule following used for productivity. While both contribute to best practices this study describes a third source. Employees disobeyed rules and, in some cases, the results became best practices. This study identifies three management responses to deviant employee behaviors. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a multi-case field study design built upon organizational theory in the area of work structures. It uses qualitative methods based on grounded theory. Interviews, observations and archival data were used to triangulate findings. Four firms were selected to participate. One global and one regional accounting firm were compared and contrasted with one global and one regional manufacturing firm. Findings The paper provides insights about how change occurs not only from intentional innovation but also from disobeying rigid rules designed to enhance productivity. It also highlights three specific management responses to deviant behavior and the conditions under which each is selected. Research limitations/implications Because of the chosen research approach, this research may not be easily generalized. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to further test the proposed conclusions. The paper expands organizational routine theory to examine how improvisation may change the structure of a formal work process. Practical implications The paper includes management implications. It suggests that rigid conformance to rules may inhibit a possible source of best practice innovation and gives management potential reasons to rethink imposed constraints. Social implications Relationships of supervisory action to employee performance and productivity become more important when innovation and efficiency are sought in an organization. These relationships should be examined with a specific outcome in mind. There may be a choice between control and discovery that will require further consideration by management. Originality/value Many studies look at processes, procedures and organizational routines, most assuming that what is designed is implemented. Others consider deviant behavior usually in a negative light. This paper provides insights into non-conforming actions by employees and the positive unexpected results that can occur, taking into consideration the studies that took this approach to innovation.

show abstract

Analyzing Product Development Task Networks to Examine Organizational Change

Cited by 26 publications

References 38 publications

It worked there, so it should work here: Sustaining change while improving product development processes

It worked there, so it should work here: Sustaining change while improving product development processes

Predicting Decision Propagation in Complex Sociotechnical System

Improvised routines driving best practices: investing in disobedience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About