Understanding software solutions in the routines of administrative employees of an oil company
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/rege-09-2022-0129Keywords:
Organizational routines, Technological artifacts, Digital transformationAbstract
PurposeThis study aimed to understand how administrative employees of an oil company perceive the role of software solutions in their routines.
Design/methodology/approachStarting from an interpretive perspective, we used the phenomenographic method to analyze software solutions based on users’ experience, by means of 20 interviews carried out between November 2020 and May 2021.
FindingsInterviewees ranked the function of software solutions in their routines in three categories: (1) information repository; (2) orchestration mechanism and (3) guidelines for action. Four explanatory dimensions were identified: (1) artifact performance; (2) configuration between actors; (3) degree of automation and (4) accountability aspects.
Research limitations/implicationsThe results expand knowledge on the role of software solutions in organizations. As players consider software essential to their routines, human agency in actions tends to decrease. Furthermore, the incorporation of digital elements in routines varies, based on how actors perceive their integration, from external tools to dominant elements that shape actions.
Practical implicationsRespecting the autonomy of the actors involved in automated routines; ideally, automating routine steps that add value to the process.
Originality/valueThe study explores the function of software solutions in organizational routines through the phenomenographic approach, presenting different concepts of that event.
Downloads
References
Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 321–334. doi: 10.1080/07294360500284672.
Baldessarelli, G., Lazaric, N., & Pezzoni, M. (2022). Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 32(4), 1119–1154. doi: 10.1007/s00191-022-00779-2.
Baralou, E., & Dionysiou, D. D. (2022). Routine dynamics in virtual teams: The role of technological artifacts. Information Technology and People, 35(7), 1980–2001. doi: 10.1108/ITP-03-2020-0109.
Bowden, J., & Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenography. RMIT University Press. Available from: https://www.rmit.edu.au/up/about/publication-services/university-press
Bowden, J. A. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic team research process. In J. A. Bowden, & P. Green (Eds), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 11–31). Ch. 2, 036538663850495: RMIT University Press. doi: 10.3316/informit
Costa, J. C. Jr, Nascimento, L. S., Silva, M. V. S., & Jerônimo, T. B. (2024). Routine dynamics and sociomateriality: Insights into technological artifacts and their roles. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 33(2), 319–331. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-09-2023-3970.
Davenport, T. H., & Miller, S. M. (2022). What machines can't do (yet) in real work settings. MIT Sloan Management Review, 64(1), 1–5. Available from: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8336&context=sis_research
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.21318923.
D’Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the virtual prototype: How firms integrate knowledge and capabilities across organizational boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 1409–1424. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00159-7.
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012.
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230. doi: 10.1017/S174413741000024X.
D’Adderio, L. (2021). Materiality and routine dynamics. In M. S. Feldman, (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics (pp. 85–102). Cambridge University Press, Ch. 7. doi: 10.1017/9781108993340.
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as epistemic objects. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30. doi: 10.1177/0170840608083014.
Faraj, S., & Leonardi, P. M. (2022). Strategic organization in the digital age: Rethinking the concept of technology. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 771–785. doi: 10.1177/14761270221130253.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118. doi: 10.2307/3556620.
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Rerup, C., & Seidl, D. (2021). What is routine dynamics?. In M. S. Feldman (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics Ch. 1 (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108993340.
Gao, D., & Yang, Y. (2023). Identifying the impact of artifacts-based exploration and exploitation on routines’ formation dynamics: An agent-based model. The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 26(3). doi: 10.18564/jasss.5092.
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618–636. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0150.
Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 47–71. doi: 10.2307/258105.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781446215777.
Kellogg, K., Valentine, M., & Christin, A. (2019). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. The Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. doi: 10.5465/annals.2018.0174.
Kiær, K. (2024). Routine dynamics and fluid technologies at work. Tecnoscienza–Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 15(1), 61–78. doi: 10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17961.
Langenmayr, T., Seidl, D., & Splitter, V. (2024). Interdiscursive struggles: Managing the co‐existence of the conventional and open strategy discourse. Strategic Management Journal, 45(9), 1696–1730. doi: 10.1002/smj.3599.
Leonardi, P. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v15i6.3036.
Lepratte, L., & Yoguel, G. (2023). Artefacts, routines, and co-production: A pioneering case of artificial intelligence-based health services in Argentina. Industry & Innovation, 30(9), 1190–1212. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2023.2194241.
Mansell, R.,Avgerou, C., Silverstone, R., & Quah, D. (Eds) (2007), The oxford handbook of information and communication technologies. Oxford University Press.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography — describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. doi: 10.1007/BF00132516.
Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. In R. B. Webb, & R. Sherman (Eds), Qualitative Research in Education (Ch. 10). Routledge.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203053690.
Omidvar, O., Safavi, M., & Glaser, V. (2023). Algorithmic routines and dynamic inertia: How organizations avoid adapting to changes in the environment. Journal of Management Studies, 60(2), 313–345. doi: 10.1111/joms.12819.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work, and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. doi: 10.5465/19416520802211644.
Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth070.
Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235–250. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.08.001.
Seidl, D., Grossmann-Hensel, B., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2021). Strategy as practice and routine dynamics, 481–500. Cambridge University Press Ch. 35. Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. doi: 10.1017/9781108993340.
Splitter, V., Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2023). Middle managers' struggle over their subject position in open strategy processes. Journal of Management Studies, 60(7), 1884–1923. doi: 10.1111/joms.12776.
Stjerne, I., Geraldi, J., & Wenzel, M. (2024). Strategic practice drift: How open strategy infiltrates the strategy process. Journal of Management Studies, 61(3), 820–856. doi: 10.1111/joms.12895.
Westerman, G., Calméjane, C., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2011). Digital transformation: A roadmap for billion-dollar organizations (pp. 1–68). MIT Center for Digital Business and Capgemini Consulting. Available from: https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Digital_Transformation__A_Road-Map_for_Billion-Dollar_Organizations.pdf
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis‐Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00762.x.
Zhang, P., Scialdone, M., & Ku, M. -C. (2011). IT artifacts and the state of IS research. In ICIS 2011 Proceedings (Vol. 14). Available from: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/generaltopics/14
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sandra Regina da Rocha-Pinto, Eduardo Starling do Rego Monteiro, Erick Cardoso da Silva Figueira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
