IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v14y2003i5p558-573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making a Difference: Organization as Design

Author

Listed:
  • A. Georges L. Romme

    (Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Mainstream organizational research is based on science and the humanities. Science helps us to understand organized systems, from an outsider position, as empirical objects. The humanities contribute to understanding, and critically reflecting on, the human experience of actors inside organized practices. This paper argues that, in view of the persistent relevance gap between theory and practice, organization studies should be broadened to include design as one of its primary modes of engaging in research. Design is characterized by its emphasis on solution finding, guided by broader purposes and ideal target systems. Moreover, design develops, and draws on, design propositions that are tested in pragmatic experiments and grounded in organization science. This study first explores the main differences and synergies between science and design, and explores how and why the design discipline has largely moved away from academia to other sites in the economy. The argument then turns to the genealogy of design methodologies in organization and management studies. Subsequently, this paper explores the circular design methodology that serves to illustrate the nature of design research, that is, the pragmatic focus on actionable knowledge as well as the key role of ideal target systems in design processes. Finally, the author proposes a framework for communication and collaboration between the science and design modes, and argues that scholars in organization studies can guide human beings in the process of designing and developing their organizations toward more humane, participative, and productive futures. In this respect, the organization discipline can make a difference.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Georges L. Romme, 2003. "Making a Difference: Organization as Design," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(5), pages 558-573, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:14:y:2003:i:5:p:558-573
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 1998. "Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-140, April.
    2. Bart Victor & Andrew Boynton & Theresa Stephens-Jahng, 2000. "The Effective Design of Work Under Total Quality Management," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 102-117, February.
    3. Mayer N. Zald, 1993. "Organization Studies as a Scientific and Humanistic Enterprise: Toward a Reconceptualization of the Foundations of the Field," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 513-528, November.
    4. Arie Y. Lewin & Henk W. Volberda, 1999. "Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 519-534, October.
    5. Richard L. Priem & Joseph Rosenstein, 2000. "Is Organization Theory Obvious to Practitioners? A Test of One Established Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(5), pages 509-524, October.
    6. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Claudia Bird Schoonhoven, 1996. "Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 136-150, April.
    7. Joan E. van Aken, 2004. "Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field‐Tested and Grounded Technological Rules," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 219-246, March.
    8. Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson & Martha S. Feldman, 1998. "Electronic Mail and Organizational Communication: Does Saying “Hi” Really Matter?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(6), pages 685-698, December.
    9. Tranfield, David & Smith, Stuart & Foster, Morris & Wilson, Sarah & Ivor Parry, 2000. "Strategies for managing the teamworking agenda: Developing a methodology for team-based organisation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 33-42, April.
    10. Boland, Richard J. & Day, Wesley F., 1989. "The experience of system design: A hermeneutic of organizational action," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 87-104.
    11. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    12. Aken, van J., 2001. "Improving the relevance of management research By developing tested and grounded technologiCAL RULES," Working Papers 01.19, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    13. Bill McKelvey, 1997. "Perspective---Quasi-Natural Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 351-380, August.
    14. Romme, A.G.L., 2002. "Organizing Education by Drawing on Organizational Studies," Discussion Paper 2002-85, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. M. Lynne Markus & Daniel Robey, 1988. "Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 583-598, May.
    16. Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. "The Principles of Scientific Management," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number taylor1911.
    17. Tsuyoshi Numagami, 1998. "Perspective—The Infeasibility of Invariant Laws in Management Studies: A Reflective Dialogue in Defense of Case Studies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, February.
    18. Richard M. Weiss, 2000. "Taking Science out of Organization Science: How Would Postmodernism Reconstruct the Analysis of Organizations?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 709-731, December.
    19. Rogelio Oliva & John D. Sterman, 2001. "Cutting Corners and Working Overtime: Quality Erosion in the Service Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(7), pages 894-914, July.
    20. Matthew S. Kraatz & Edward J. Zajac, 2001. "How Organizational Resources Affect Strategic Change and Performance in Turbulent Environments: Theory and Evidence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 632-657, October.
    21. Richard J. Boland, Jr., 1978. "The Process and Product of System Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(9), pages 887-898, May.
    22. Robert Macintosh & Donald Maclean, 1999. "Conditioned emergence: a dissipative structures approach to transformation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 297-316, April.
    23. Ruth Wageman, 2001. "How Leaders Foster Self-Managing Team Effectiveness: Design Choices Versus Hands-on Coaching," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 559-577, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thinley Tharchen & Raghu Garud & Rebecca L. Henn, 2020. "Design as an interactive boundary object," Post-Print hal-03188179, HAL.
    2. Perkmann, Markus & King, Zella & Pavelin, Stephen, 2011. "Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 539-552, May.
    3. Kopecka, Jarmila A. & Santema, Sicco C. & Buijs, Jan A., 2012. "Designerly ways of muddling through," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 729-739.
    4. Bertrand, Jean-Louis & Brusset, Xavier & Chabot, Miia, 2021. "Protecting franchise chains against weather risk: A design science approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 187-200.
    5. Sarooghi, Hessam & AdelRastkhiz, Seyedeh Elahe & Hornsby, Jeffrey, 2021. "Heterogeneity of entrepreneurial opportunities as design artifacts: A business model perspective," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 16(C).
    6. Zellmer-Bruhn, Mary E. & Forbes, Daniel P. & Sapienza, Harry J. & Borchert, Patricia S., 2021. "Lab, Gig or Enterprise? How scientist-inventors form nascent startup teams," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1).
    7. Holloway, Sjana S. & van Eijnatten, Frans M. & Romme, A.Georges.L. & Demerouti, Eva, 2016. "Developing actionable knowledge on value crafting: A design science approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1639-1643.
    8. Muñoz, Pablo & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A translational framework for entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    9. Parrish, Bradley D., 2010. "Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organization design," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 510-523, September.
    10. Hyytinen, Ari, 2021. "Shared problem solving and design thinking in entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 16(C).
    11. Stadtherr, Frank & Wouters, Marc, 2021. "Extending target costing to include targets for R&D costs and production investments for a modular product portfolio—A case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reid, Gavin C. & Smith, Julia A., 2009. "A coevolutionary analysis of organisational systems and processes: Quantitative applications to information system dynamics in small entrepreneurial firms," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 762-781.
    2. Hedström, Peter & Wennberg, Karl, 2016. "Causal Mechanisms in Organization and Innovation Studies," Ratio Working Papers 284, The Ratio Institute.
    3. Robert Schmidt & Kasper Sanchez Vibaek & Simon Austin, 2014. "Evaluating the adaptability of an industrialized building using dependency structure matrices," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1-2), pages 160-182, February.
    4. Hou, Hong & Shi, Yongjiang, 2021. "Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. MacCormack, Alan & Baldwin, Carliss & Rusnak, John, 2012. "Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1309-1324.
    6. Rahul Kapoor & Ron Adner, 2012. "What Firms Make vs. What They Know: How Firms' Production and Knowledge Boundaries Affect Competitive Advantage in the Face of Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1227-1248, October.
    7. A. Georges L. Romme & Gerard Endenburg, 2006. "Construction Principles and Design Rules in the Case of Circular Design," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 287-297, April.
    8. Öhman, Mikael & Finne, Max & Holmström, Jan, 2015. "Measuring service outcomes for adaptive preventive maintenance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 457-467.
    9. Marlo Raveendran & Phanish Puranam & Massimo Warglien, 2016. "Object Salience in the Division of Labor: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2110-2128, July.
    10. Ryan, Paul & Giblin, Majella & Andersson, Ulf & Clancy, Johanna, 2018. "Subsidiary knowledge creation in co-evolving contexts," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 915-932.
    11. Bill McKelvey & Benyamin B. Lichtenstein & Pierpaolo Andriani, 2012. "When organisations and ecosystems interact: toward a law of requisite fractality in firms," International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 104-136.
    12. Basu, Sandip & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2011. "Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 153-171, March.
    13. Walter, Sascha & Heinrichs, Simon & Walter, Achim, 2013. "Hostile Parent Firms and Child Firm Performance," EconStor Preprints 68592, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    14. J. Michael Haynie & Dean A. Shepherd & Jeffery S. McMullen, 2009. "An Opportunity for Me? The Role of Resources in Opportunity Evaluation Decisions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 337-361, May.
    15. Ryan Krause & Michael C. Withers, 2022. "Propulsions Toward What Capes? Testing Normative Theory Through a Panorama of Consequences," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 317-333, November.
    16. Thomas A. Kochan & Saul A. Rubinstein, 2000. "Toward a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Partnership," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 367-386, August.
    17. Lommelen, Tinne & Hertog, Friso den & Beck, Lien & Sluismans, Raf, 2009. "Designing plans for organizational development, lessons from three large-scale SME-initiatives," MERIT Working Papers 2009-027, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Ravi Patnayakuni & Cynthia P. Ruppel, 2010. "A socio-technical approach to improving the systems development process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 219-234, April.
    19. Peter W. Liesch & Lawrence S. Welch & Peter J. Buckley, 2011. "Risk and Uncertainty in Internationalisation and International Entrepreneurship Studies," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 851-873, December.
    20. Haizhi Wang & Robert Wuebker & Shu Han & Michael Ensley, 2012. "Strategic alliances by venture capital backed firms: an empirical examination," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 179-196, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:14:y:2003:i:5:p:558-573. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.