Abstract
This study examines the performance of cognitive work—as constrained by physical, policy and resource-related factors—in the near-simultaneous design and execution of disaster response operations. The demands of the situation described here—the removal of debris from a high-value barrier island in the US state of New York after Hurricane Sandy (2012)—lay at the far boundaries of the responding organizations’ experience, making this case an excellent candidate for study. Data are analyzed on the deliberative processes of the responding organization in order to characterize the interaction between the design and operation of the debris removal network over time. Statistical data modeling of these processes reveals a number of temporal dependencies between ideation and decision-making processes, as well as between components of the system. The illumination and quantification of these processes using data produced through normal operations contributes significantly to theories of the cognitive and behavioral phenomena that underlie organizational response to highly non-routine events, thus building upon broader theories of organizational improvisation and performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker T, Nelson RE (2005) Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Admin Sci Q 50(3):329–366
Brooks JD, Mendonça D (2013) Simulating market effects on boundedly rational agents in control of the dynamic dispatching of actors in network-based operations. In: Proceedings of 2013 Win. Simu. Conference, pp 169–180
Dean RT, Dunsmuir WTM (2016) Dangers and uses of cross-correlation in analyzing time series in perception, performance, movement, and neuroscience: the importance of constructing transfer function autoregressive models. Behav Res Methods 48(2):783–802
Greiner LE (1989) Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Read Strat Manag 5–6:373–387
Hadida AL, Tarvainen W, Rose J (2014) Organizational improvisation: a consolidating review and framework. Int J Manag Rev 17(4):437–459
Hamilton JD (1994) Time series analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Hayes-Roth B, Hayes-Roth F (1979) A cognitive model of planning. Cogn Sci 3(4):275–310
Hernes T (2007) Understanding organization as process: theory for a tangled world. Routledge, New York
Keller N, Cokely ET, Katsikopoulos KV, Wegwarth O (2010) Naturalistic heuristics for decision making. J Cogn Eng Decis Making 4(3):256–274
Kim J, Deshmukh A, Hastak M (2018) A framework for assessing the resilience of a disaster debris management system. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 28:674–687
Kreps GA, Bosworth SL (1993) Disaster, organizing, and role enactment: a structural approach. Am J Sociol 99(2):428–463
Liao C, Chuang SH, To PL (2011) How knowledge management mediates the relationship between environment and organizational structure. J Bus Res 64(7):728–736
Mendonça DJ, Wallace WA (2007) A cognitive model of improvisation in emergency management. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 37(4):547–561
Miles RE, Snow CC, Meyer AD, Coleman HJ Jr (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Acad Manag Rev 3(3):546–562
Moorman C, Miner AS (1998a) The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. J Market 62(3):1–20
Moorman C, Miner AS (1998b) Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Acad Manag Rev 23(4):698–723
Nijstad BA, Stroebe W, Lodewijkx HF (2002) Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: exposure effects in an idea generation task. J Exp Soc Psychol 38(6):535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00500-0
Okoli JO, Weller G, Watt J (2016) Information processing and intuitive decision-making on the fireground: towards a model of expert intuition. Cogn Technol Work 18(1):89–103
Orlikowski WJ (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Inf Syst Res 7(1):63–92
Paulus PB, Brown VR (2007) Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: a cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 1(1):248–265
Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS (2001) Studying organizational change and development: challenges for future research. Acad Manag J 44(4):697–713
Rankin A, Dahlbäck N, Lundberg J (2013) A case study of factor influencing role improvisation in crisis response teams. Cogn Technol Work 15(1):79–93
Rerup C, Feldman MS (2011) Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: the role of trial-and-error learning. Acad Manag J 54(3):577–610
Schank RC, Abelson RP (2013) Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Psychology Press, USA
Simon HA (1960) The new science of management decision. Harper & Brothers, USA
Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, UK
Tolbert PS, Hall RH (2015) Organizations: structures, processes and outcomes. Routledge, New York
Tran Q, Tian Y (2013) Organizational structure: influencing factors and impact on a firm. Am J Ind Bus Manag 3(2):229–236
Vanhaverbeke W, Torremans H (1999) Organizational structure in process-based organizations. Knowl Process Manag 6(1):41–52
Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL (1974) A task contingent model of work-unit structure. Admin Sci Q 19(2):183–197
Weick KE (1993) Organizational change and redesign. New York, USA, Oxford, pp 346–379
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number CMMI-1313589.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, X., Mendonça, D. Co-evolution of work structure and process in organizations: improvisation in post-disaster debris removal operations. Cogn Tech Work 23, 343–352 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00631-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00631-2