A Process Model of Effective Improvisation: Lessons from Tencent's Product Development

Research on organizational improvisation has gained much momentum in information systems development literature. Although recent studies have started to explore how to conduct improvisation effectively and generated rich findings on the antecedents, the process of effective improvisation remains unknown and the lack of knowledge in this area may account for the difficulties faced by many IS practitioners in engaging in effective improvisation. Based on a case study on Tencent’s software product development, we derive a four-phase process model of effective improvisation, which is a continuous iteration between improvisational search and build. The former consists of simultaneous grounded observation and situated reflection. The latter consists of simultaneous grounded design and situated execution. The findings contribute to both the IS and improvisation literature, and transform into practical implications for IS managers, who are increasing relying on real-time planning and spontaneous execution.

[1]  Irwin Brown,et al.  Conceptualising improvisation in information systems security , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Dusya Vera,et al.  Theatrical Improvisation: Lessons for Organizations , 2004 .

[3]  Ramiro Montealegre,et al.  A Process Model of Capability Development: Lessons from the Electronic Commerce Strategy at Bolsa de Valores de Guayaquil , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[4]  Shan Ling Pan,et al.  Crisis Response Information Networks , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Anthony W. Ulwick.  Turn customer input into innovation. , 2002, Harvard business review.

[6]  R. Katila,et al.  Effects of Search Timing on Innovation: The Value of Not Being in Sync with Rivals , 2008 .

[7]  R. Keith Sawyer,et al.  Improvisation and the creative process : Dewey, collingwood, and the aesthetics of spontaneity , 2000 .

[8]  Jeff Sutherland,et al.  Manifesto for Agile Software Development , 2013 .

[9]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[10]  Karlene H. Roberts,et al.  The Incident Command System : High Reliability Organizing for Complex and Volatile Task , 2007 .

[11]  Riitta Katila,et al.  Effects of Search Timing on Product Innovation: The Value of Not Being in Sync , 2009 .

[12]  Christine Moorman,et al.  The Convergence of Planning and Execution: Improvisation in New Product Development , 1998 .

[13]  G. Zaltman,et al.  Innovations and organizations , 2020, Organizational Innovation.

[14]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[15]  Nilmini Wickramasinghe,et al.  A bricolage perspective on healthcare information systems design: an improvisation model , 2012, DATB.

[16]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[17]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Developing Products on "Internet Time": The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[18]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , 2001, MIS Q..

[19]  F. Barrett.  Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Organizations: Implications for Organizational Learning , 1998 .

[20]  Dusya Vera,et al.  Improvisation and Innovative Performance in Teams , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[21]  Ken Kamoche,et al.  Minimal Structures: From Jazz Improvisation to Product Innovation , 2001 .

[22]  K. Weick.  The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster , 1993 .

[23]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory , 2017 .

[24]  Adrian Cho,et al.  The Jazz Process: Collaboration, Innovation, and Agility , 2010 .

[25]  Kieran Conboy,et al.  Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[26]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos , 1998 .

[27]  C. Gersick.  REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE THEORIES: A MULTILEVEL EXPLORATION OF THE PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM PARADIGM , 1991 .

[28]  Dusya Vera,et al.  Time and Organizational Improvisation , 2002 .

[29]  Jyotsna Bhatnagar,et al.  Grounded theory research , 2014 .

[30]  P. Adler,et al.  Flexibility Versus Efficiency? a Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[31]  I. L. Mangham.  Power and performance in organizations: An exploration of executive process , 1986 .

[32]  KA Thleen,et al.  Building Theories from Case Study , 2007 .

[33]  James Noble,et al.  Self-Organizing Roles on Agile Software Development Teams , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[34]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[35]  Ellen Christiaanse,et al.  Exploring users' appropriation and post‐implementation managerial intervention in the context of industry IOIS , 2011, Inf. Syst. J..

[36]  Rajdeep Grewal,et al.  Strategic Responses to New Technologies and Their Impact on Firm Performance , 2004, Journal of Marketing.

[37]  Barney Tan,et al.  Enabling Agility through Routinized Improvisation in IT Deployment: The Case of Chang Chun Petrochemicals , 2010, ICIS.

[38]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[39]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  The 'Third Hand': IT-Enabled Competitive Advantage in Turbulence Through Improvisational Capabilities , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[41]  Anil Gaba,et al.  Coda : Creativity and Improvisation in Jazzand Organizations: Implications Fororganizational Learning , 1998 .

[42]  M. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test , 1994 .

[43]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[44]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study , 2001 .

[45]  M. Iansiti,et al.  Developing products on Internet time. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[46]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry , 1995 .

[47]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Alliances in Biotechnology: A System of New Product Development , 2004 .

[48]  P. Berliner.  Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation , 1995 .

[49]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[50]  Iris Vessey,et al.  The Dynamics of Sustainable IS Alignment: The Case for IS Adaptivity , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[51]  Robert A. Baron,et al.  Entrepreneurs’ Improvisational Behavior and Firm Performance: A Study of Dispositional and Environmental Moderators , 2013 .

[52]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory , 1998 .

[53]  Barney Tan,et al.  Demystifying case research: A structured-pragmatic-situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies , 2011, Inf. Organ..