This paper reports on a qualitative field study of 16 hospitals implementing an innovative technology for cardiac surgery. We examine how new routines are developed in organizations in which existing routines are reinforced by the technological and organizational context All hospitals studied had top-tier cardiac surgery departments with excellent reputations and patient outcomes yet exhibited striking differences in the extent to which they were able to implement a new technology that required substantial changes in the operating-room-team work routine. Successful implementers underwent a qualitatively different team learning process than those who were unsuccessful. Analysis of qualitative data suggests that implementation involved four process steps: enrollment, preparation, trials, and reflection. Successful implementers used enrollment to motivate the team, designed preparatory practice sessions and early trials to create psychological safety and encourage new behaviors, and promoted shared meaning and process improvement through reflective practices. By illuminating the collective learning process among those directly responsible for technology implementation, we contribute to organizational research on routines and technology adoption.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnconaD. G.: 1990“Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in the organization.”Academy of Management Journal, 33: 334–365.
BarleyS. R.: 1986“Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 78–108.
8.
ChristensenC. M.: 1997The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A.: 1990“Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 28–152.
10.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. G.: 1963A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11.
DepretE. F.FiskeS. T.: 1993“Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation.” In WearyG.GleicherF.MarshR. (eds.), Control Motivation and Social Cognition: 176–202. New York: Springer Verlag.
12.
DoughertyD.: 1992“Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms.”Organization Science, 3: 179–202.
13.
EdmondsonA. C.: 1996“Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error.”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 5–28.
14.
EdmondsonA. C.: 1999“Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.
15.
EisenhardtK. M.: 1989“Building theories from case study research.”Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.
GallowayA. C.SheminR. J.GlowerD. D.BoyerJ. H.Jr.GrohM. A.KuntzR. E.BurdonT. A.RibakoveG. H.ReitzB. A.ColvinS. B.: 1999“First report of the Port Access International Registry.”Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 67: 51–56.
20.
GersickC. J. G.HackmanJ. R.: 1990“Habitual routines in task-performing teams.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47: 65–97.
21.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L.: 1967The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
22.
HackmanJ. R.: 1987“The design of work teams.” In LorschJ. (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior: 315–342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
HargadonA.SuttonR. I.: 1997“Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716–749.
25.
HendersonR. M.ClarkK. B.: 1990“Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9–30.
26.
IansitiM.ClarkK. B.: 1994“Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers.”Industrial and Corporate Change, 3: 557–605.
27.
KatzR.: 1982“The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 81–104.
28.
KimberlyJ. R.EvaniskoM. J.: 1981“Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations.”Academy of Management Journal, 24: 689–713.
29.
KolbD. A.: 1984Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
30.
LeeF.TeichJ.SpurrC.BatesD.: 1996“Implementation of physician order entry: User satisfaction and usage patterns.”Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 3: 42–55.
31.
Leonard-BartonD. A.: 1988“Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization.”Research Policy, 17: 251–267.
32.
Leonard-BartonD. A.: 1992“Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development.”Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111–125.
33.
Leonard-BartonD.DeschampsI.: 1988“Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology.”Management Science, 34: 1252–1266.
34.
LevineJ. L.MorelandR. L.: 1999“Knowledge transmission in work groups: Helping newcomers to succeed.” In ThompsonL. L.LevineJ. M.MessickD. M. (eds.), Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge: 267–296. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
LevittB.MarchJ. G.: 1988“Organizational learning.”Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319–340.
36.
LewinK.: 1947“Group decision and social change.” In NewcombT N.HartleyE. L. (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology: 330–344. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
37.
MarchJ. G.SimonH. A.: 1958Organizations. New York: Wiley.
38.
McGrathJ. E.KellyJ. R.MachatkaD. E.: 1984“The social psychology of time: Entrainment of behavior in social and organizational settings.”Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5: 21–44.
39.
MorelandR. L.: 1999“Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations.” In ThompsonL. L.LevineJ. M.MessickD. M. (eds.), Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge: 3–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
MorelandR.MyaskovskyL. L.: 2000“Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication?”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82: 117–133.
41.
NelsonR. R.WinterS. G.: 1982An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
42.
O'ConnorG. T.PlumeS. K.OlmsteadE. M.MortonJ. R.MaloneyC. T.NugentW. C.HernandezF.Jr.CloughR.LeavittB. J.CoffinL. H.MarrinC. A.WennbergD.BirkmeyerJ. D.CharlesworthD. C.MalenkaD. J.QuintonH. B.KasperJ. F.: 1996“A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group.”Journal of the American Medical Association, 275: 841–846.
43.
OrlikowskiW. J.: 1993“Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation.”Information Society, 9: 237–250.
44.
OrlikowskiW. J.: 2000“Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations.”Organization Science, 11: 404–428.
45.
OrlikowskiW. J.HofmanJ. D.: 1997“An improvisational model for change management: The case of groupware technologies.”Sloan Management Review, Winter: 11–21.
46.
PisanoG. P.: 1996“Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology.”Research Policy, 25: 1097–1119.
47.
ReasonJ.: 1984“Lapses of attention in everyday life.” In ParasuramanR.DaviesD. R. (eds.), Varieties of Attention: 515–549. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
48.
RogersE. M.: 1980Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.New York: Free Press.
49.
ScheinE.: 1993“How can organizations learn faster? The problem of entering the green room.”Sloan Management Review, 34: 85–92.
50.
ScheinE.BennisW.: 1965Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods. New York: Wiley.
51.
SchönD. A.: 1983The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
52.
SengeP.: 1990The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
53.
SzulanskiG.: 2000“The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82: 9–27.
54.
ThomkeS.: 1998“Managing experimentation in the design of new products.”Management Science, 44: 743–762.
TylerT. R.LindE. A.: 1992“A relational model of authority in groups.” In ZannaM. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 115–191. New York: Academic Press.
57.
TyreM. J.OrlikowskiW. J.: 1994“Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations.”Organization Science, 5: 98–119.
58.
Van de VenA.: 1992“Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note.”Strategic Management Journal, 13: 169–191.
59.
von HippelE.: 1994“‘Sticky information’ and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation.”Management Science, 40: 429–439.
60.
WaltonR. E.: 1975“The diffusion of new work structures: Explaining why success didn't take.”Organizational Dynamics, Winter: 3–21.
61.
WeickK. E.: 1979The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
62.
YinR. K.: 1977“Production efficiency versus bureaucratic self-interest: Two innovative processes?”Policy Sciences, 8: 381–399.
63.
YinR. K.: 1989Case Study Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
