CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 935Team Dynamics and PerformanceManagement and Organizational StudiesKnowledge Management and Sharing

Coordination in Fast-Response Organizations

Faraj, Samer, Xiao, Yan·2006·Management Science
DOI 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0526
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Organizational coordination has traditionally been viewed from an organizational-design perspective where rules, modalities, and structures are used to meet the information-processing demands of the environment. Fast-response organizations face unique coordination challenges as they operate under conditions of high uncertainty and fast decision making, where mistakes can be catastrophic. Based on an in-depth investigation of the coordination practices of a medical trauma center where fast-response and error-free activities are essential requirements, we develop a coordination-practice perspective that emphasizes expertise coordination and dialogic coordination. We argue that expertise coordination practices (reliance on protocols, community of practice structuring, plug-and-play teaming, and knowledge sharing) are essential to manage distributed expertise and ensure the timely application of necessary expertise. We suggest that dialogic coordination practices (epistemic contestation, joint sensemaking, cross-boundary intervention, and protocol breaking) are time-critical responses to novel events and ensure error-free operation. However, dialogic coordination practices are highly contested because of epistemic differences, reputation stakes, and possible blame apportionment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0526

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • During times of severe adversity, both formal and informal coordination mechanisms are important.

    “During times of severe adversity, when decisions must be made promptly and failures could have dramatic consequences, both formal and informal coordination mechanisms are important (Faraj and Xiao 2006).”

    From Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization (2020) · cites this paper as Faraj and Xiao 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
ORCID
Venue
Management Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
2006-08
Volume
52
Issue
8
Pages
1155-1169
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
DOI
10.1287/mnsc.1060.0526
OpenAlex
W1997685381
Cited by
935
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 50
FWCI
26.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Management Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
organizational coordination, high uncertainty, error-free operation, protocol, communities of practice, knowledge sharing, distributed expertise

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review