Special Issue: Organizational Design: Mitigating Hazards Through Continuing Design: The Birth and Evolution of a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Often, researchers study organizations in which design is largely in place and the design process is shrouded in the distant past. However, the design process can have dramatic implications for how organizations function. This paper reports a specific attempt to design one organizational subunit, a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), to function under difficult circumstances. The founders aimed to create a highly reliable and safe unit, but implementing their vision required continuous effort. The unit needed constant buffering from external pressures and a dissimilar parent organization, and these forces shaped the units ultimate design. Through the presentation of this case, we discuss the impact of design on the organization, its members, and the larger hospital organization to which the unit belonged. The study reveals that the PICUs design was an ongoing effort and its most stable component was a vision of distributed knowledge and decentralized intensive care. We conclude by discussing implications of the case for organizational design theory and practice.

[1]  S. Stout,et al.  Decision Dynamics in Two High Reliability Military Organizations , 1994 .

[2]  Diane Vaughan,et al.  The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA , 1996 .

[3]  J. March,et al.  Learning from Samples of One or Fewer , 1991 .

[4]  K. Roberts Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization , 1990 .

[5]  M. Pollack,et al.  Pediatric intensive care units: Results of a national survey , 1993, Critical care medicine.

[6]  K. Roberts,et al.  Must accidents happen? Lessons from high-reliability organizations , 2001 .

[7]  T. Laporte,et al.  Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations” , 1991 .

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

[9]  Pamela R. Haunschild,et al.  Learning from Complexity: Effects of Prior Accidents and Incidents on Airlines' Learning , 2002 .

[10]  K. Weick,et al.  Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. , 1993 .

[11]  Dana Alexander Nolfe THE SPACE BETWEEN , 2004 .

[12]  Matthew S. Kraatz,et al.  Executive Migration and Institutional Change , 2002 .

[13]  K. Weick,et al.  Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. , 1999 .

[14]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[15]  C. Johnston,et al.  Critical care interhospital transports: Predictability of the need for a pediatrician , 1990, Pediatric emergency care.

[16]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[17]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

[18]  Karlene H. Roberts,et al.  The Self-Designing High-Reliability Organization: Aircraft Carrier Flight Operations at Sea , 1987 .