The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organizing Work by Adaptation
Abstract
Common sense suggests that work is organized in accordance with plans that are created by designers who reflect on the work setting and manipulate representations of the work process in order to determine new and efficient organizational structures. Or, even if “outside” designers are not involved, the reorganization of work is normally attributed to the conscious reflection by members of the work group itself. A detailed examination of the response of a real-world group to a sudden and unexpected change in its informational environment shows that these common sense assumptions may be quite misleading. While entering a harbor, a large ship suffered an engineering breakdown that disabled an important piece of navigational equipment. This paper considers the response of the ship's navigation team to the changed task demands imposed by the loss of this equipment. Following a rather chaotic search of the space of computational and social organizational alternatives, the team arrived at a new stable work configuration. In retrospect, this solution appears to be just the sort of solution we would hope designers could produce However, while some aspects of the response appear to be the products of conscious reflection, others, particularly those concerning the division of cognitive labor, are shown to arise without reflection from adaptations by individuals to what appear to them as local task demands. It is argued that while the participants may have represented and thus learned the solution after it came into being, the solution was clearly discovered by the organization itself before it was discovered by any of the participants.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0612 · Cited by 1,753
How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds
Hutchins, E. (1995) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1 · Cited by 1,880
Self-citationOrganizational Routines as Grammars of Action
Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393300 · Cited by 936
Avolio (2000) · doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(00)00062-x · Cited by 767
Management paradoxes: A relational view
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726702555001 · Cited by 498
Organizational improvisation and organizational memory
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259058 · Cited by 1,248
Information literacy as a sociotechnical practice
Tuominen, K., Savolainen, R., & Talja, S. (2005) · The Library Quarterly · doi:10.1086/497311 · Cited by 376
Activity Theory and Distributed Cognition: Or What Does CSCW Need to DO with Theories?
Halverson, C. A. (2002) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1023/a:1015298005381 · Cited by 283
Pil, F. K., & Leana, C. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.47084647 · Cited by 280
The quality of group tacit knowledge
Erden, Z., von Krogh, G., & Nonaka, I. (2008) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2008.02.002 · Cited by 238
(2007) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · Cited by 141
Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2026) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.13246 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Hutchins, E.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1991-02
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-39
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2121694194
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.