Doctoral Seminar

Organizing for Innovation

MGPO 706: Perspectives on Innovation [CRN: 18824]

Winter 2019

Instructor: Professor Samer Faraj

Bronfman Building, Room 323 514-398-1531 email: samer.faraj@mcgill.ca

Class Coordinator: Wadih Renno

email: wadih.renno@mail.mcgill.ca

Class Meets: Wednesday, 2:35pm – 5:35pm Armstrong, Room 250

Office Hours: By appointment

Secretary: Rola Zoayter,

514-398-4000 x09295 email: rola.zoayter@mail.mcgill.ca

Course Overview

This course provides doctoral students from different disciplines with a theoretical introduction to key research on innovation, collaborating and organizing. Innovations have been a key driver in transforming not only products and services, but also organization, markets, and the broader ecosystems surrounding them. Innovations are both product and processes. They transform work practices, alter knowledge flows and facilitate collaboration across time and space, enabling novel forms of organizing to emerge.

This doctoral seminar focuses on exploring the modern perspectives on innovation and innovating. The need to study innovation is especially acute today when innovative forms of organizing are emerging, organizational boundaries for collaboration are increasingly porous, when innovation activities are migrating to online innovation communities, where open source collaborations are becoming a new normal, and where AI and algorithms are forcing a rethink of both innovation and organizing.

This seminar examines the assumptions, theories and methodologies used in the study of innovations as products, processes, and outcomes for organizations and organizing. The objective is to sensitize students to the importance of in-depth theoretical development as a pathway to meaningful academic contribution.

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

2

Readings

The students are responsible for accessing the readings from electronic journals using their university library. Some material may only be available in paper form and will be distributed by the instructor during the course of the semester. Some other material may only be available in digital form and will be distributed using electronic services (Email, Dropbox or Google Drive). Supplemental handouts may also be distributed throughout the semester.

Detailed Requirements

This is a seminar not a lecture course, which means that active class interaction is essential. Students are expected to come to class fully prepared to discuss all the readings on a particular topic. The course involves extensive reading and discussion of the research literature. Class participation grades will be allocated on the basis of both the quality and the quantity of contribution.

1) Participation (20%)

A primary aspect of a doctoral level course is the emphasis on discussing and making sense of the readings. Research articles can be understood in different ways and evaluated on a variety of dimensions. The most important part of a doctoral course is the collective sensemaking and social construction of meaning that takes place during class discussion. Thus, class discussion time is probably the most valuable part of a doctoral course and must be taken extremely seriously. Students are expected to come to class having adequately prepared the readings.

As opposed to a lecture course, a seminar builds on active class interaction and participation. Students are expected to contribute intellectually to the discussion of the assigned readings, to reflect upon the development of knowledge in an area, and to engage each other in a dialogic way in order to generate a deeper understanding of the topics. Effective participation cannot be achieved without a deep preparation of the readings. Students are expected to attend class fully prepared to discuss all the readings. The participation grade will be based on the quality of the in-class contribution.

2) Reaction Papers (10%)

Each student is required to prepare 4 reaction papers for specific sessions. During the first session, students we will use a signup sheet to select the weeks of interest. The papers (not to exceed 2 single spaced pages) are due 2 hours prior to class time. The goal is not to summarize individual readings but to frame the topic, provide a thoughtful evaluation of the material read, raise some theoretical or empirical questions, compare and contrast methodologies, approaches or findings across the readings. One approach is to start with the papers and compare and contrast their viewpoints, framings, methods, and findings before reflecting on the state of research on this topic. A second approach is to pick one (or more) essential theme or issue and examine the papers based on that focus. In either case, a significant emphasis is on your own reflection regarding empirical questions, theoretical developments, and research themes.

Dates and Deliverables:

• Maximum length: 2 single spaced pages, font size 12, regular margins • Upload your reaction paper to DropBox via: https://www.dropbox.com/request/cRD698sjs0KcQcDIRcDZ • The papers are due at least 2 hours ahead of class time.

3) Assignments (10%)

Students will prepare two paper development assignments that focus on how to frame an introduction, how to develop research questions, and how to frame a theoretical argument. Specific assignments will be distributed at the first session.

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

3

Dates and Deliverables: (Dates to be finalized at the beginning of the term)

• Upload your assignment to DropBox via: https://www.dropbox.com/request/xauiRRoHUaP7zaWFsAwV • Assignments are due by dates to be agreed upon at the beginning of term. Late submissions will be noted.

4) Class Facilitation (10%)

A key aspect of preparing for an academic career is the ability to generate and direct an academic discussion. Students will be responsible for leading one or two class sessions, for which they will sign up during the first session.

Leading a discussion involves preparing the topic beforehand, managing the interaction during class, and preparing a summary after the class session. The discussion leader should become deeply familiar with all the readings and prepare short summaries, syntheses, themes, representations, and questions for class discussion. The responsibilities of the session facilitator include: 1) decide the order of article discussion, 2) manage the time, 3) guide class interaction, and 4) provide a generative framing of the articles, pointing to differences and similarities in theoretical angles, methods, findings, etc. During class, the facilitator will provide an introductory (10-15 minutes) overview of the important themes and issues raised by the readings. S/he will then facilitate the class discussion for the remainder of the session, including reaching closure to the session in the end of the class (last 5 minutes).

Grades for leading a discussion will depend on the level of preparation, the framing of questions, the quality of the documents produced, and how well the discussion was managed.

The class discussion leader needs to meet with the professor a week prior to the session for joint sensemaking, preparation, and support.

Dates and Deliverables:

• A short handout for framing/guiding/facilitating in-class discussion and sensemaking. Please bring hard copies for in-class distribution. The handout can include any sort of visual mapping/categorization of the readings. They will also provide a comprehensive synthesis of the readings for the session. This synthesis should focus on the deepened theoretical understanding generated by the session. Total document length should not exceed 1,200 words.

• The Facilitation report is to be shared to the “Facilitation Reports” folder on DropBox.

5) Journal Submission Reviews (15%)

Reviewing peer research is a fundamental aspect of being an academic. Students will be asked to develop a review of a journal submission. They will receive an initial submission and review it. They will then receive the actual reviews for benchmarking. The following week we will discuss in class the resubmission and the accompanying reviews. The goal is to benchmark against the reviews done by reviewers and to understand how editors and reviewers make decisions on manuscripts.

A helpful guide for how to review a paper is: Lee, A. S. (1995) “Reviewing a Manuscript for Publication,” Journal of Operations Management, Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 87-92, July. Available at people.vcu.edu/~aslee/referee.htm. Other helpful review guides and advice are available on the shared DropBox folder as well.

Dates and Deliverables: (Dates to be finalized at the beginning of the term)

• Distribution of manuscript for review: February 6 • Review due: March 5 or 12 • Distribution of actual reviews and revised manuscript: March 6 or 13 • Final discussion of manuscript: March 13 or 20 • Submit your review to Dropbox via: https://www.dropbox.com/request/c6RclNdUeAetYJCQSqLN

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

4

6) Research Paper and Presentation (35%)

Each student is required to develop either an empirically based paper (preferred) or a “standpoint” review paper by the end of the semester. The goal is to generate a draft paper that can be submitted to a conference or a journal following the end of the course.

If the paper is empirical it should be structured as any journal submission. The empirical paper should adapt a theoretical approach to a specific research issue associated with technology and organizations. It should apply an appropriate methodology and research design for examining it empirically and offer a set of research question or hypotheses. It would develop a research model or a framework. For quantitative papers, you would need something like: a) a review of the literature (maybe using a funnel approach or any theory presentation style that works at journals, b) a research model/framework followed by hypotheses to be tested, c) a methodology section describing approach, data and constructs, d) an analysis section detailing how you applied your method and describing your results, e) an all-important discussion section that allows you to reflect on the meaningfulness of your results and their implication to the existing literature, finally, a conclusion.

If the paper is primarily a theoretical review (i.e., no primary data), it should take the form of a critical review of literature on a specific topic. For example, in a nascent subfield, what are the key debates? Often emergent areas of research struggle with definitional and conceptual clarity: your paper will help deepen our understanding. What are the boundaries of the field, and how is the field struggling to reach agreement on basic definitions, propositions, and agreeing on a set of relevant and meaningful research questions? Are there paradigmatic assumptions/differences that are at the core of the debate? Your paper should examine the promise of a theory/theoretical turn/approach/method package as a domain of inquiry and elaborate essential research areas and research questions for future study. An exemplar of how to structure the paper is found here: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620

An initial 5-page proposal detailing the topic, research issues and relevant literatures, proposed data source, and analysis approach is due by February 5. The draft paper is due three days before the final presentation workshop (i.e. due on April 14). This version of the paper should expand the proposal by refining the literature review and theoretical model, report data analysis results, and discuss the importance of the findings. It is important that the students make their paper available to their colleagues on time, so that they can read and comment the paper before the workshop sessions.

Students will present their papers in class during the workshop session on April 17. In addition to presentations, papers will be discussed in small groups so that the students benefit maximally from the scholarly feedback of their colleagues. The members of each group are required to read and review the papers of all group members and provide relevant and informed feedback to their colleagues. Written feedback of one page is strongly encouraged. This is an opportunity to learn from one another, so, make sure you spend enough time reviewing one another’s work. Your reviewing efforts will be reciprocated by your group members when it comes to your presentation. After the workshop session, students will have a week to revise their papers by integrating the peer feedback, polishing the arguments and developing further their initial ideas. The revised papers (not to exceed 9,000 words) are due on April 24 by midnight.

Students are encouraged to conceive their paper as a draft for submission to a conference/journal. The instructor will help with access to or the collection of data and by helping figure out analysis strategies. In previous years, students have routinely transformed their work from this seminar into conference papers (e.g., AOM, EGOS, ICIS, ASAC) or later, into journal publications.

Dates and Deliverables: (Dates to be finalized at the beginning of the term)

• Research proposal: February 5 • Draft paper due: April 7 or 14

• Presentations and written feedback: April 10 or 17 • Revised paper due: April 17 or 24 • Upload files to the appropriate subfolder in the “Final Paper” folder on DropBox.

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

5

Grading Recap

Grades will be assigned with weights on the following course requirements:

• Participation: 20%

• Reaction papers: 10%

• Assignments: 10%

• Class facilitation: 10%

• Journal submission reviews: 15%

• Research paper & presentation: 35%

Logistics Coursework and papers are only accepted in Microsoft Word. You will have to convert your document to Microsoft Word format before submitting if you have produced them in any other format. Submitting your coursework consists of uploading the file to the appropriate DropBox link or folder.

In order to avoid any confusion kindly use the following naming schemes when submitting your file:

Reaction Papers and Facilitation Reports Assignments, Reviews, and Papers

Session Number – Last Name – Title.extension

e.g.: 06 – Faraj – Sociomateriality as hobby.docx

Last Name – Type – Title.extension

e.g.: Faraj – Review – Innovating Ontology.docx

Your coursework is collected automatically at the deadline from the specified folders. For any late submission, you will have to inform the course coordinators by email so that they can collect your work manually.

University Policies

McGill University values academic integrity. Therefore, all students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures (see www.mcgill.ca/students/srr/honest/ for more information).

In accord with McGill University’s Charter of Students’ Rights, students in this course have the right to submit in English or in French any written work that is to be graded.

In the event of extraordinary circumstances beyond the University’s control, the content and/or evaluation scheme in this course is subject to change.

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

6

Due Dates (Dates to be finalized at the beginning of the term)

Paper [Share files to the appropriate subfolder in the “Final Paper” folder on DropBox.]

Proposal: February 5 Draft paper due: April 7 or 14 Presentations and feedback: April 10 or 17 Revised paper due: April 17 or 24

Assignments [Upload files to https://www.dropbox.com/request/xauiRRoHUaP7zaWFsAwV]

As agreed at the beginning of the term.

Reaction Papers [Upload files to https://www.dropbox.com/request/cRD698sjs0KcQcDIRcDZ]

The four times you signed up for.

Class Facilitation Reports [Share file to “Facilitation Reports” folder on DropBox]

Week(s) you signed up for

Journal submission review [Upload file to https://www.dropbox.com/request/c6RclNdUeAetYJCQSqLN]

Distribution of manuscript for review: February 6 Review due: March 5 or 12 Distribution of revised manuscript: March 6 or 13 Final discussion of manuscript: March 13 or 20

Schedule Summary

Week Date Topic

1 January 9 The onto-epistemology turn 2 January 16 The practice turn 3 January 23 The knowledge turn 4 January 30 The coordination turn 5 February 6 The occupations turn 6 February 13 The performativity turn 7 February 20 Conceptualizing innovation 8 February 27 Process innovation

March 6 Break week 9 March 13 Theorizing technology [+ Article Review]

10 March 20 Embeddedness and innovation 11 March 27 Open Innovation 12 April 3 Ecosystems and platforms 13 April 10 Algorithmic organizing

April 17 Paper presentations and feedback workshop

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

7

Weekly Topics and Reading Assignments

It is recommended to start with the first reading and continue with the assigned readings. Recommended readings are additional interesting articles that are included for reference, but that students are not required to read.

Week 01, JAN 09 The onto-epistemology turn

Al-Amoudi, I. & O’Mahoney, J. 2015. Ontology: Philosophical discussions and implications for organization studies. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M. Greenwood (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies, 1st ed.: 15-32. London: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781134466016

Grix, J. 2002. Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social Research. Politics, 22(3): 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00173

Kofman, A. 2018. Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science, The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html

Scherer, A. G., Does, E., & Marti, E. 2015. Epistemology: Philosophical foundations and organizational controversies. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M. Greenwood (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies, 1st ed.: 33-50. London: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781134466016

Week 02, JAN 16 The practice turn

First Readings

Nicolini, D. 2017. Practice Theory as a Package of Theory, Method and Vocabulary: Affordances and Limitations. In M. Jonas, B. Littig, & A. Wroblewski (Eds.), Methodological Reflections on Practice Oriented Theories: 19-34. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52897-7_2

Schatzki, T. R. 2012. A Primer on Practices. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings, & F. Trede (Eds.), Practice-Based Education: Perspectives and Strategies: 13-26. Rotterdam: SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-128-3_2

Assigned Readings

Lok, J. & de Rond, M. 2013. On the Plasticity of Institutions: Containing and Restoring Practice Breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 185-207. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0688

Nicolini, D. 2011. Practice as the site of knowing: Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22(3): 602-620. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0556

Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4): 404-428. https://doi.org/10.2307/2640412

Schakel, J.-K., van Fenema, P. C., & Faraj, S. 2016. Shots Fired! Switching Between Practices in Police Work. Organization Science, 27(2): 391-410. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1048

Wiedner, R., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. 2017. The Emergence of Change in Unexpected Places: Resourcing across Organizational Practices in Strategic Change. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3): 823-854. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0474

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

8

Recommended Readings

Feldman, M. S. & Orlikowski, W. J. 2011. Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1240-1253. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0612

Nicolini, D. 2012. Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mcgill/detail.action?docID=1076093

Week 03, JAN 23 The knowledge turn

First Readings

Gherardi, S. & Miele, F. 2018. Knowledge Management from a Social Perspective: The Contribution of Practice-Based Studies. In J. Syed, P. A. Murray, D. Hislop, & Y. Mouzughi (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Knowledge Management: 151-176. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71434-9_7

Østerlund, C. & Carlile, P. R. 2005. Relations in Practice: Sorting Through Practice Theories on Knowledge Sharing in Complex Organizations. Information Society, 21(2): 91-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240590925294

Assigned Readings

Beane, M. 2018. Shadow Learning: Building Robotic Surgical Skill When Approved Means Fail. Administrative Science Quarterly: 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217751692

Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5): 555-568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094

Dougherty, D. & Dunne, D. D. 2011. Digital Science and Knowledge Boundaries in Complex Innovation. Organization Science, 23(5): 1467-1484. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0700

Faraj, S., von Krogh, G., Monteiro, E., & Lakhani, K. R. 2016. Online Community as Space for Knowledge Flows. Information Systems Research, 27(4): 668-684. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0682

Nonaka, I. & von Krogh, G. 2009. Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization Science, 20(3): 635-652. https://doi.org/10.2307/25614679

Recommended Readings

Duguid, P. 2005. “The Art of Knowing”: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice. Information Society, 21(2): 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240590925311

Tsoukas, H. 2009. A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations. Organization Science, 20(6): 941-957. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0435

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

9

Week 04, JAN 30 The coordination turn

Assigned Readings

Barrett, M., Oborn, E., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 2012. Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work. Organization Science, 23(5): 1448-1466. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0639

Beane, M. & Orlikowski, W. J. 2015. What Difference Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of Distributed Coordination. Organization Science, 26(6): 1553-1573. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1004

Ben-Menahem, S. M., von Krogh, G., Erden, Z., & Schneider, A. 2016. Coordinating Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Teams: Evidence from Early-Stage Drug Discovery. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4): 1308-1338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1214

Faraj, S. & Xiao, Y. 2006. Coordination in Fast-Response Organizations. Management Science, 52(8): 1155-1169. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0526

Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Feldman, M. S. 2012. Toward a Theory of Coordinating: Creating Coordinating Mechanisms in Practice. Organization Science, 23(4): 907-927. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0693

Pine, K. H. & Mazmanian, M. 2016. Artful and Contorted Coordinating: The Ramifications of Imposing Formal Logics of Task Jurisdiction on Situated Practice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2): 720-742. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0315

Recommended Readings

Isabelle, B., Cécile, G., Carole, D.-G., Pascal, L., Jean, N., & François, P. 2012. Coordination practices in extreme situations. European Management Journal, 30(6): 475-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.03.015

Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 2006. Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations. Organization Science, 17(1): 22-44. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0157

Okhuysen, G. A. & Bechky, B. A. 2009. Coordination in Organizations: An Integrative Perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1): 463-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520903047533

Srikanth, K. & Puranam, P. 2014. The Firm as a Coordination System: Evidence from Software Services Offshoring. Organization Science, 25(4): 1253-1271. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0886

Valentine, M. A. & Edmondson, A. C. 2015. Team Scaffolds: How Mesolevel Structures Enable Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Groups. Organization Science, 26(2): 405-422. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0947

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

10

Week 05, FEB 06 The occupations turn

Assigned Readings

Fayard, A.-L., Stigliani, I., & Bechky, B. A. 2016. How Nascent Occupations Construct a Mandate: The Case of Service Designers’ Ethos. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2): 270-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665805

Howard-Grenville, J., Nelson, A. J., Earle, A. G., Haack, J. A., & Young, D. M. 2017. “If Chemists Don’t Do It, Who Is Going To?” Peer-driven Occupational Change and the Emergence of Green Chemistry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3): 524-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217690530

Kaplan, S., Milde, J., & Cowan, R. S. 2017. Symbiont Practices in Boundary Spanning: Bridging the Cognitive and Political Divides in Interdisciplinary Research. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4): 1387-1414. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0809

Nelson, A. J. & Irwin, J. 2014. “Defining What We Do—All Over Again”: Occupational Identity, Technological Change, And The Librarian/Internet-Search Relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3): 892-928. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0201

Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. 2012. Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3): 612-629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664

Truelove, E. & Kellogg, K. C. 2016. The Radical Flank Effect and Cross-occupational Collaboration for Technology Development during a Power Shift. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4): 662-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216647679

Recommended Readings

Abbott, A. D. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo5965590.html

Anteby, M., Chan, C. K., & DiBenigno, J. 2016. Three Lenses on Occupations and Professions in Organizations: Becoming, Doing, and Relating. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 183-244. http://annals.aom.org/content/10/1/183.abstract [Excellent review article]

Kellogg, K. C. 2011. Hot Lights and Cold Steel: Cultural and Political Toolkits for Practice Change in Surgery. Organization Science, 22(2): 482-502. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0539

Week 06, FEB 13 The performativity turn

First Readings

Gond, J.-P. & Cabantous, L. 2015. Performativity: Towards a Performative Turn in Organizational Studies. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M. Greenwood (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies, 1st ed.: 508-516. London: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781134466016

Spicer, A., Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2016. Extending critical performativity. Human Relations, 69(2): 225-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715614073

Assigned Readings

Barley, W. C. 2015. Anticipatory Work: How the Need to Represent Knowledge Across Boundaries Shapes Work Practices Within Them. Organization Science, 26(6): 1612-1628. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1012

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

11

Glaser, V. L. 2017. Design Performances: How Organizations Inscribe Artifacts to Change Routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6): 2126-2154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0842

MacKenzie, D. & Millo, Y. 2003. Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: The Historical Sociology of a Financial Derivatives Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1): 107-145. https://doi.org/10.1086/374404

Marti, E. & Gond, J.-P. 2018. When Do Theories Become Self-Fulfilling? Exploring the Boundary Conditions of Performativity. Academy of Management Review, 43(3): 487-508. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0071

Orlikowski, W. J. & Scott, S. V. 2014. What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector. Organization Science, 25(3): 868-891. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0877

Recommended Readings

Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs, 28(3): 801-831. https://doi.org/10.1086/345321

Butler, J. 2010. Performative Agency. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(2): 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2010.494117

Callon, M. 2010. Performativity, Misfires and Politics. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(2): 163-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2010.494119

Gond, J.-P., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. 2016. What Do We Mean by Performativity in Organizational and Management Theory? The Uses and Abuses of Performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(4): 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12074

Healy, K. 2015. The Performativity of Networks. European Journal of Sociology, 56(2): 175-205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975615000107

Week 07, FEB 20 Conceptualizing innovation

First Readings

Dodgson, M. 2017a. Foundational studies. In M. Dodgson (Ed.), Innovation Management: A Research Overview, First edition. ed.: 9-21. London: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351240178

Dodgson, M. 2017b. Concepts and frameworks. In M. Dodgson (Ed.), Innovation Management: A Research Overview, First edition. ed.: 23-35. London: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351240178

Assigned Readings

Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Tandon, V. 2008. Moving Beyond Schumpeter: Management Research on the Determinants of Technological Innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 1-98. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211446

Nonaka, I. 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1): 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14

Schilling, M. A. 2015. Technology Shocks, Technological Collaboration, and Innovation Outcomes. Organization Science, 26(3): 668-686. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0970

Vuori, T. O. & Huy, Q. N. 2016. Distributed Attention and Shared Emotions in the Innovation Process: How Nokia Lost the Smartphone Battle. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(1): 9-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839215606951

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

12

Recommended Readings

Rogers, E. M. 1995. Attributes of innovations and their rate of adoption. In E. M. Rogers (Ed.), Diffusion of Innovations, 4 ed.: 204-251. New York: The Free Press. http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Diffusion-of-Innovations-4th-Edition/Everett-M-Rogers/9781451602470

Utterback, J. M. 1994. The Dynamics of Innovation in Industry, Mastering the dynamics of innovation: how companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change: 1-21. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/2437BC-PDF-ENG

Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science, 32(5): 590-607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590

Week 08, FEB 27 Process innovation

First Reading

Langley, A. 2007. Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3): 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127007079965

Assigned Readings

Cohendet, P. S. & Simon, L. O. 2016. Always Playable: Recombining Routines for Creative Efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s Video Game Studio. Organization Science, 27(3): 614-632. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1062

Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H., & Lauche, K. 2016. Generating Novelty Through Interdependent Routines: A Process Model of Routine Work. Organization Science, 27(3): 659-677. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1051

Denis, J.-L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. 2011. Escalating Indecision: Between Reification and Strategic Ambiguity. Organization Science, 22(1): 225-244. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0501

Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Perspectives on Innovation Processes. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 775-819. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.791066

Oliver, N., Calvard, T., & Potočnik, K. 2017. Cognition, Technology, and Organizational Limits: Lessons from the Air France 447 Disaster. Organization Science, 28(4): 729-743. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1138

Tuertscher, P., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2014. Justification and Interlaced Knowledge at ATLAS, CERN. Organization Science, 25(6): 1579-1608. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0894

Recommended Readings

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van De Ven, A. H. 2013. Process Studies Of Change In Organization And Management: Unveiling Temporality, Activity, And Flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001

Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. 2002. On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change. Organization Science, 13(5): 567-582. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810

Utterback, J. M. & Abernathy, W. J. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6): 639-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

13

March 06 Break week

Week 09, MAR 13 Theorizing technology [+ Article Review]

Part 1: Discussion of assigned paper review

Part 2: Readings

Assigned Readings

Bijker, W. E. 2010. How is technology made?—That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1): 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep068

Dosi, G. & Grazzi, M. 2010. On the nature of technologies: knowledge, procedures, artifacts and production inputs. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1): 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep041

Law, J. 2017. STS as Method. In U. Felt, S. Beck, R. Fouché, C. A. Miller, L. Smith-Doerr, M. Alac, S. Amir, M. Arribas-Ayllon, B. Balmer, & J. Barandiarán (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th ed.: 31-57. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mcgill/detail.action?docID=5052910

Mol, A. 2010. Actor-Network Theory: sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft, 50: 253-269. https://doi.org/11245/1.330874

Verbeek, P.-P. 2015. Beyond interaction: a short introduction to mediation theory. Interactions, 22(3): 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2751314

Recommended Readings

de Laet, M. & Mol, A. 2000. The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2): 225-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030002002

Latour, B. 1990. Technology is Society Made Durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl): 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03350.x

Vertesi, J. 2012. Seeing like a Rover: Visualization, embodiment, and interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission. Social Studies of Science, 42(3): 393-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712444645

Week 10, MAR 20 Embeddedness and innovation

First Readings

Granovetter, M. 2018. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. In M. Granovetter & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The Sociology of Economic Life: 22-45. New York, USA: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780429962882

Assigned Readings

Cattani, G. & Ferriani, S. 2008. A Core/Periphery Perspective on Individual Creative Performance: Social Networks and Cinematic Achievements in the Hollywood Film Industry. Organization Science, 19(6): 824-844. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0350

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

14

Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., & Lanza, A. 2017. Deconstructing the Outsider Puzzle: The Legitimation Journey of Novelty. Organization Science, 28(6): 965-992. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1161

Dahlander, L. & Frederiksen, L. 2012. The Core and Cosmopolitans: A Relational View of Innovation in User Communities. Organization Science, 23(4): 988-1007. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0673

Hargadon, A. B. & Douglas, Y. 2001. When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 476-501. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094872

Sgourev, S. V. 2013. How Paris Gave Rise to Cubism (and Picasso): Ambiguity and Fragmentation in Radical Innovation. Organization Science, 24(6): 1601-1617. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0819

Week 11, MAR 27 Open Innovation

Assigned Readings

Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E. C., Lakhani, K. R., & Riedl, C. 2016. Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science. Management Science, 62(10): 2765-2783. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285

Fayard, A.-L., Gkeredakis, E., & Levina, N. 2016. Framing Innovation Opportunities While Staying Committed to an Organizational Epistemic Stance. Information Systems Research, 27(2): 302-323. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0623

Lifshitz-Assaf, H. 2017. Dismantling Knowledge Boundaries at NASA: The Critical Role of Professional Identity in Open Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4): 746–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217747876

Majchrzak, A. & Malhotra, A. 2016. Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds. Information Systems Research, 27(4): 685-703. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0669

Piezunka, H. & Dahlander, L. 2018. Idea Rejected, Tie Formed: Organizations’ Feedback on Crowdsourced Ideas. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0703

Recommended Readings

Baldwin, C. & von Hippel, E. 2011. Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization Science, 22(6): 1399-1417. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618

Boudreau, K. J., Lacetera, N., & Lakhani, K. R. 2011. Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis. Management Science, 57(5): 843-863. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1322

Jeppesen, L. B. & Lakhani, K. R. 2010. Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search. Organization Science, 21(5): 1016-1033. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0491

Venters, W., Oborn, E., & Barrett, M. 2014. A Trichordal Temporal Approach to Digital Coordination: The Sociomaterial Mangling of the CERN Grid. MIS Quarterly, 38(3): 927-A918. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol38/iss3/16/

West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. 2014. Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, 43(5): 805-811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.001

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

15

Week 12, APR 03 Ecosystems and platforms

First Readings

Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8): 2255-2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904

Assigned Readings

Adner, R. & Kapoor, R. 2016. Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re‐examining technology S‐curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4): 625-648. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2363

Barrett, M., Oborn, E., & Orlikowski, W. 2016. Creating Value in Online Communities: The Sociomaterial Configuring of Strategy, Platform, and Stakeholder Engagement. Information Systems Research, 27(4): 704-723. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0648

Bauer, J., Franke, N., & Tuertscher, P. 2016. Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation. Information Systems Research, 27(4): 724-750. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0649

Hannah, D. P. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2017. How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12): 3163-3192. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2750

Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R., & Lyytinen, K. 2018. Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks. Information Systems Research, 29(2): 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0786

Recommended Readings

Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O., & Parker, G. G. 2018. Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age. Information Systems Research, 29(2): 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0794

Gawer, A. 2009. Platforms, Markets, and Innovation. Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

Gawer, A. & Cusumano, M. A. 2014. Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3): 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105

Saxenian, A. 2018. Inside-Out: Regional Networks and Industrial Adaptation in Silicon Valley and Route 128. In M. Granovetter & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The Sociology of Economic Life: 357-374. New York, USA: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324_9780429494338-20

Week 13, APR 10 Algorithmic organizing

First Readings

Zuboff, S. 2015. Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1): 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5

Assigned Readings

Brayne, S. 2017. Big Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5): 977-1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417725865

Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. 2018. Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28(1): 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005

Organizing for Innovation [DRAFT] Samer Faraj MGPO706, Perspectives on Innovation [Winter 2019] Last Revised: December 4, 2018

16

Levin, N. & Leonelli, S. 2016. How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(2): 280-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916672071

Pachidi, S., Faraj, S., & Huysman, M. Forthcoming. Symbolic Actions During the Introduction of a New Technology: The Ironic Change of a Regime of Knowing. Organization Science.

Orlikowski, W. J. & Scott, S. V. 2015. The Algorithm And The Crowd: Considering The Materiality Of Service Innovation. MIS Quarterly, 39(1): 201-216. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol39/iss1/12/

Recommended Readings

Felin, T., Lakhani, K. R., & Tushman, M. L. 2017. Firms, crowds, and innovation. Strategic Organization, 15(2): 119-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017706610

Introna, L. D. 2015. Algorithms, Governance, and Governmentality: On Governing Academic Writing. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(1): 17-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915587360

Zammuto, R. F., Griffith, T. L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D. J., & Faraj, S. 2007. Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization. Organization Science, 18(5): 749-762. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0307

April 17 Paper presentations and feedback workshop