The practice of routines and representations in design and development

Routines Revisited: Exploring the Capabilities and Practice Perspectives

“…Taken together, these studies affirm that everyday actions are consequential for the generation (Lazaric & Denis, 2005;Reynaud, 2005), performance (D'Adderio, 2003;Hales & Tidd, 2009) and change or stability of routines (Feldman, 2000;Howard-Grenville, 2005;Zbaracki & Bergen, 2010). There can be no doubt from these studies that who performs a routine is extremely important to how that routine is enacted.…”

“…A second common element, also consistent with practice theory, is that authors further uncover the internal dynamics of routine reproduction. Routines are mutually constituted with other structures-such as culture (Howard-Grenville, 2005); patterns of coordination or relationships between groups (Feldman, 2000;Zbaracki & Bergen, 2010); rules (Reynaud, 2005); or artifacts (D'Adderio, 2003;Hales & Tidd, 2009). This can lead to change (Feldman, 2000), but these studies also point to some thresholds that must be passed before actors' flexible performances of routines can alter their future enactments (Howard-Grenville, 2005;Zbaracki & Bergen, 2010) and to the difficulties actors have changing routines that become encoded in artifacts (D'Adderio, 2003;Hales & Tidd, 2009).…”

Open Service Innovation: The Influences of Project Novelty

“…Moreover, this research infers the processes of new service development by interviews and examining documentation, ex post. Such detailed interactions are better studied through a real-time longitudinal research design which allows the regular episodic observation of authentic interactions between individuals engaged in developing a new service over an extended period of time (Hales and Tidd, 2009;Whyte et al, 2008). Further research is still necessary to identify the relationships and interactions which contribute to open innovation, and under what conditions these influence innovation outcomes (Trott and Hartmann, 2009).…”

“…This is because the project team must consider more design alternatives, new development processes, and the new technology required for undertaking a new project. Therefore the development of more novel products is associated with greater use of heavyweight project management and cross-functional teams (Tidd and Bodley, 2002;Hales and Tidd, 2009). In the more specific case of new service development, more novel projects are characterized by denser communications and the co-location of different functions and suppliers (Tidd and Hull, 2006).…”

“…Firms use a range of inter-organizational routines to share and exchange knowledge such as regular meetings, visits, telephoning, and peer-to-peer discussion for sharing knowledge (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000;Mante and Sydow, 2007;Hales and Tidd, 2009). Additionally, these different mechanisms possess different degrees of information richness for transferring knowledge between firms (Daft et al, 1987;Sheer and Chen, 2004).…”