l)ewey
HD28
.M414
Time
for Improvement:
Nonroutine Problem Solving
and the Time Management Problem
Marcie
J.
in
Organizations
Tyre and Nancy A. Staudenmayer
M.I.T.
WP
#3761-95
January 1995
Abstract
This paper describes time-related difficulties in undertaking non-routine
problem solving activities in technical organizations.
Using data drawn from
longitudinal studies in two organizations, we examine this issue from two
angles: first, what is the effect of nonroutine problem solving activities on
time management in the rest of the organization, and, second, what is the
effect of temporal issues at the organizational level on groups who
undertake nonroutine problem solving?
We find that nonroutine technical
problem solving does affect time management at the organization level,
because it generates unpredictable interruptions throughout the
organization.
time"
"wait
Furthermore,
and
delay
that
interruptions
become
can jeopardize
other
of a
part
larger
cycle
of
problem solving
needed for the problem
local
when key people or resources
solving effort are not available in a timely manner (due to prior
interruptions or other reasons), problem solving becomes more costly and
more difficult to complete.
Thus, we suggest that the need for nonroutine
technical problem solving introduces important time management issues
efforts.
Specifically,
We
have not been recognized or
mapped adequately in the literature on technical problem solving, and we
outline some methodological requirements of further work in this area.
into
organizations.
argue
that
these
issues
:v.ASSACHUSE'nS
li-JSTlTUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
MAY 2 3 1995
LIBRARIES
In
the
improve
cannot
few
last
be
same time,
research
normal
shows
that
can
activities
represent
Langer,
(e.g.,
According
(March
operations
In
problem
solving
difficulties
find
time
that
Specifically,
we
participants
wait
promptly
on
costs
of problem
for
requests
to
introduce
activities
problem
that
for
solving
problem
experts
or
input.
solving
to
efforts,
efforts
solving
other
nonroutine
for
organizations,
unanticipated
gather
the
and
problem
solving
three
because
often
information
these
at
resources
the
are
that
These waiting times,
time-consuming
and
resources
the
generate
often
stalled
interruptions.
they
need,
while
respond
cannot
impose large
turn,
in
why
organization
we
That
problem
find
also
management
large
we
directly
level.
time
that
First,
level
Second,
a
suggest
project
and are a major reason
activities
it
regular
parts.
organizational
efforts
exacerbates
because
management
time
members abandon problems before resolving them.
that
1992).
We
complete.
serious
the
at
solving
why nonroutine
reason
Our argument has
management problems
find
and
do
than
.
1981).
additional
undertake
to
organization.
the
progress
the
affect
solving
an
problem
difficult
is
outside
everyday
with
thinking
Hedberg,
1958;
investigate
difficult
is
into
Simon,
we
paper,
this
problem
such
and
stepping
perspectives
nonroutine
solving
the
particular,
economic
to
will
At
Nelson and Winter,
problem
of
of
In
associated
1991;
modes
different
basis
1986).
difficulties
and
barrier
Sutton,
nonroutine
fundamentally
for
calls
view,
this
Imai,
improvement.
such
formidable
a
ongoing
(e.g.,
which
organizations
that
an
the
assumptions
Louis and
1983;
to
and
routines
on
organizational,
psychological,
the
processes
some of
undertake
to
clear
disadvantage
revealed
has
activities
from
research
and
competitive
a
at
become
has
it
products
their
increasingly
of
years,
problem
number of
is,
in
solvers
order
often
to
however
in
This
solvers
solving
significant
That
the
efforts,
disruption
to
unless
the
of
and
nonroutine
problem
why
reason
as
interruption
solvers
interruptions
new problems
to
organizational
in
that
may be one
time
cycle
the
of waiting
problem
by
appears
it
in
quickly
severity
the
generated
is,
point
managed,
effect
cases,
interruptions
one
at
that,
carefully
is
of
respond
to
suggests
self-limiting
a
throughout
tasks
problem
specific
many
in
that,
level
unavailable
are
unavailability
have
other
represents
it
organization.
problem
by
develop.
the
to
of the
parts
generated
experts
speeds
this
level
we hypothesize
related
other
level
of
variety
work flow.
Finally,
is
wide
a
organizational
the
at
firm's
times
on
At a local
organization.
the
working
people
interrupt
they
solving
will
efforts
settings.
Background
By
involves
responding
breakdowns,
new
newly-recognized
the
existing
solving
in
in
organizational
involved
everyday
routines
Moreover,
during
problem
the
need
have
everyday
limited
scripts
on
the
they
and
do
thus
not
making
notice
that
it
less
or
Much
Simon,
guide
actors'
of
that
are
signals
of
problem
problem
and
incorporate
machine
interactions,
Given
they
it
as
nonroutine
place.
(March
schemas
such
operations.
resources,
to
because
perceptual
the
fail
repair
or
technical
routine
first
perceptual
often
routines,
in
that
adjustment
activities
recognition
stimuli
events,
undertaking
of
focuses
settings
routines
mental
unforeseen
difficulty
difficult
is
unplanned
improving
for
the
solving
to
requests,
problem
actors
those
on
research
way
timely
opportunities
organization
in
a
customer
unexpected
noticing
problem
nonroutine
definition,
often
so
indicating
that
1958).
attention
problem
scanning
and
that
problems
will
likely
be
and dealt with (Kiesler and Sproull,
noticed
pose
also
barriers
they
noted,
are
and
Argyris
problem
from
solving
existing,
is
can
authority)
Sproull,
1982;
important,
often
is
admit
to
the
time and
organizational
de
theoretical
Some
Some
problem
solving,
in
and
its
is
most
mental
likely
at
on
with
(Kiesler
explanations
a
to
Thus,
have
they
is
be
Polley,
temporal
examine
both
occurrence.
problem
schemas
start
the
of a
new
suggested
that
over
time
this
(Van
of active
work examines
time,
project
1990).
and
Because
over
and
and accompanying
difficulty
some of
develop
group,
management
solving.
through
(Pettigrew,
context
time
into
sequential
studied
1992)
are
take
to
fail
therefore
should
explain
the
and
factors
individual-level
organizations
in
researchers
enabling
for
organizational
flow of events at individual,
within
Signals
managers with
(e.g.
dealt
reasons
affective
because
affective
focus
they
solving
occasional
and
and
explanations.
to
be
gears"
1992).
cognitive
organizations
routines
problem solving
Polley,
begun
have
power of beginnings
organizational
1981;
organizations.
in
others
to
must
Van de Ven and
posed
researchers
pacing
are
cognitive
are
there
solving
or
and
organizations
in
1988;
explanations
temporal
the
static
solving
Ven and Rogers,
problem
themselves
to
problem
levels.
problem
technical
neglected
by the dynamic
affected
is
or
because
limited
that
fact
Finally,
active
perceptual,
are
thinking.
problems exist
that
such
they
(Hedberg,
"switching
requires
it
difficult
trigger
to
and they provide mainly
account
active
to
Van de Ven and
Although
they
because
fail
funding
because
signals
difficult
unwilling
are
frameworks
problem
As Louis and Sutton (1991) argue, organizational
solving
of problems
nonproblematic
as
mental
static
Even when
solving.
limitations
1970).
of mind"
why problem
perceived
often
Schon,
"habits
actors
are
within
interpreted
problem
effective
to
Cognitive
1982).
/
active
or activity
v/
(Weick,
make
especially
it
pressure
time
intense
developed,
can
Tyre and Orlikowski,
1990;
(Cangelosi and Dill,
1965;
some
time
pressure
can
dates
and
deadlines
problem
change
from
1990).
An
turn
In
particular,
(Weick,
solving
Disruptive
order
to
or
an
unexpected
"serve
as
organization
organization
activities
In
solving
(except
this
level
to
paper,
activities
at
affects
say
that
we
the
current
research
Nor have
level.
(whether
has
Hackman,
can
also
for
that
is
solving.
organizational
problem
active
1993).
necessary
they
an
framed
are
solving
as
because
individual's
and
in
programs
of action
execution
help
points
threats
they
a
future."
not
examined
how
problem
nonroutine
management and temporal pacing on an
scholars
members'
time
examine
local,
to
track,
problem
need
action
problem
transform
...
on
As Dutton (1993: 201)
1981).
active
to
that
time
affect
activities
lead
not
Tyre and Orlikowski,
the
from
the
adaptive
jolt
to
milestone
for
1988;
toward
hand,
other
the
of events
help
clear
in
change
to
events
from
existing
"pause
is
(Gersick,
can
1991;
Sutton,
(Hedberg,
points
frame
time
However,
solving
often
make
to
the
disruptive
punctuating
collectivity's
the
provide
opportunities,)
as
and
Louis and
solving"
or
events
solving
solving;
clocks"
and
execution
results
problem
problem
flow
are
produce
to
On
progress
if
temporal
disruptive
organization
problem
genuine
out,
can
events
normal
routine
routines
1990;
allow
to
or
that
or
1992).
alarm
may be necessary
from
surprising
of normal
out
actors
members
of the
away
Policy,
promoting
for
routines
nonroutine
for
"organizational
as
routines
existing
attention
helpful
reminding
interruption
to
be
projects
time
find
Van de Ven and
serve
by
solving,
complete
to
to
difficult
Once such
1994).
examined
ability
pressure
to
how time management
carry
level,
problem
may be an important
interdependencies
project
out
between
at
solving
variable).
problem
and time availability
at
the
level
of the organization or
and
development
questions:
members'
ability
difficulties
solving
the
manufacturing
How
(1)
efforts
firm?
do
we propose
Next,
dynamic
model
that
problem
solving
in
solving
through
propagate
disruptions,
because
these
and
other
suggest
on
the
previous
innovations
the
we
into
resources
not
nonroutine
problem
local
that
solving
available
readily
a
into
that
system-level
problem
stalled
are
of
of
rest
interruptions
These
system.
results
suggest
hard-to-manage
the
in
to
problem
nonroutine
these
difficulty
response
in
local,
integrating
for
of
translate
time
have
findings
important
management of technology and
researchers
be
1988),
available
(or
our
that
[must]
and Rogers,
affect
can
do
Specifically,
series
solving
affect
efforts,
with
help
to
activities.
research
the
turn,
people
We
While
in
accounts
organizational
the
How
empirical
level
and time pressures
means of
organizations.
a
problem
(2)
of time
a
partially
create
activities
level?
organization
software
in
two
address
first
the
at
nonroutine
out
nature
the
affect
issues
project
local,
we
settings,
temporal
carry
to
the
at
Drawing on data from projects
system.
have
and
sequenced
we
find
suggested
that
organizations,
in
be affected
by)
that
also
is
it
the
"variables
through
the
time"
variables
for
problem
of
process
solving.
involved
(Van
important to examine
how
and
technical
that
analyzed
implications
de
in
Ven
nature
the
interest
of
might
quality.
Methods
This
undertaken
both
paper
by
examined
problem
solving
the
is
our
result
research
the
over
of two
group.
relationship
time.
The
separate
Both
between
first
but
studies
normal
study
related
were
studies
longitudinal,
operations
attempted
to
and
identify
and
nonroutine
how time
and
management
time
groups
project
following
from two
capture
the
nonroutine
and
projects
specific
months
temporal
of
effects
spent
management
in
of
several
implemented
examined
the
our
of
problem
new
to
involved
the
develop
in
advantages:
hardware
new
nonroutine
opportunity
It
and
their
undertaken
in
Thus,
same
time,
periods
to
activities
solving
and time
detail
in
on
focused
study
over
the
build
helps
us
software
for
technical
to
to
new
to
settings,
the
software
development
we decided
results,
the
and
it
however,
we
recognize
integrate
to
solving
enables
offers
gap
us
the
separate
our
to
results
in
issues
Beyond
several
research
separating
discuss
conclusions
that
from
organizations.
in
At
projects.
findings
temporal
the
strategy
traditional
that
study
we recognized
juxtaposing
understanding
this
second
were envisioned as
from
sprung
theory,
bridge
whereas
studies
problem
newly
around
solving
compare our
Thus,
theory
in
environments:
different
beyond the boundaries of a given industry or type of technical
the
over
problem
this
activities
very
problem
two
insights
two different environments.
order
required
required
time
of
nature
observed
solving
these
research,
important
potentially
question
of
ability
solving
nonroutine
in
the
technologies,
However, as we began
efforts.
problem
this
organization.
nonroutine
manufacturing
nonroutine
start
and
were
studies
examined
study
first
solvers,
of
involved
affected
of the
parts
This
encountered
ihey
nonroutine
local,
Examination
that
solving
the
The second study was designed
years.
people
a/fected
days.
two
These
the
other
problem
individual
course
and how
time,
their
how
exactly
level
problem
problems
the
two
to
on the larger organization.
understanding
organisation
the
at
out
carry
to
ranging
issues
in
generalizability
project.
from
this
At
effort
will
need
be
to
organizational
The
time
data
which
the
5
imaging
high
shown
as
such
Inc.
involving
projects
16
(a
copiers,
as
manufacturing
into
activities
maintain
to
that
the
The research
implementation
of
"complete"
(the
transferred
to
in
the
new
"owner"
identify
At
each
elaborate
on
the
Orlikowski,
would
issues
was
be
often
difficult
is
involved,
organization
the
of
following
the
monthly
progress
until
such
feel
them
for
to
Thus,
1994).
however
have
level
During
that
included
technology)
all
of the
interview,
made
no progress had been made,
to
in
projects
and
and
not
->
been
project
resolving
explain
least
at
one
responsibility
one
user
In
were
(the
Interviews
problems encountered
each
was
participants
developer.
participants
why).
initial
was considered
project
time,
technical
from
project
the
smoothly
running
Respondents
and track
project.
and
technology
manufacturing).
prospective
(Tyre
longitudinal,
technology
monthly.
it
useful
research.
was
interviewed
participants
that
and
project
project
production
solving
management
time
previous
in
routine
problem
between
interactions
research,
was
environment
manufacturing
a
in
previous
in
we knew
if
Ditto,
at
equipment
office
problem
nonroutine
The research examined
etc.
study
this
nonroutine
to
of
of organizational
issues
The study was undertaken
new process technologies
undertake
used
how do
factories.
pressure
clarified
more controlled
in
undertake
to
manufacturer
a
is
of
Locating
because,
studies
question,
the
ability
level?
equipment,
integration
separate
the
affect
project
the
pseudonym),
examined
study
first
at
multi-level
settings.
management
solving
by
corroborated
were
outstanding
particular,
asked
in
the
to
problem
we
were
noted
(or,
all
comments
problem
relating
solving
when
efforts,
In
efforts
posed
that
attributions
(or,
across
participants
Of
these,
63
were resolved
satisfactory
or
better
by
participants),
Since
investigate
of
level
were
and
inefficiencies
software
a
related
second
specifically
Inc.
The
Two
previous
productivity
interested
in
implications
recording
extent
for
time
software
course of a
(Baumann,
the
subjects
for
features
the
we monitored
length
the
achieved).
or
related
is
the
to
behavior
of
six
one
of
the
and nature of such
interruptions,
solving
to
We
1993).
well
as
for
had
impediments
Caplan,
on-
for
requests
Telecom
primary
and
Kelly
and
new customer
at
for
problem
nonroutine
surveys
software
both
system,
the
for
develop
study
responsible
as
were
their
management.
developer
was observed
for
5
two month period, yielding 30 days of
the
as
resolved
faults
that
daily
this
are
and
"bugs"
1990;
not
was
solving
includes
independent
as
85
pseudonym), a large U.S.
latter
or
"interruptions"
individual
Each
The
breakdowns
(a
of
basis.
observed
Developers
system.
maintenance.
cited
solving
was rated
that
meant
this
ongoing
study
total
solution
how problem
switching
modifications.
satisfactory
catastrophic,
a
26%) were
(or
of
company.
technical
22
question
Telecom,
to
and
an
developers
system
some way
(in
on
the
at
a
new hardware and software
creating
going
not
interruptions,
real-time
ongoing
to
problem
of
identified
tolerated
the
telecommunications
for
before
were
problems
these
To
abandoned
were
they
barriers
failure
the
for
projects
all
problems.
(i.e.,
significant
occurred).
that
total,
factors
the
to
and
nature
in-person
of each
visits,
phone
subject's
calls
and
random over
days
at
total
observation.
principle
daily
electronic
the
Besides
mail
activities,
that
1
developers
The
day.
do
actually
of micro
set
with
of
course
the
level
time
their
each
working
observed
detail
on what
Staudenmayer
(Perry,
and
1994).
A shows
Appendix
indicating
subject,
minute
three
to
over
received
was an impressive
result
developers
software
Votta,
and
initiated
small,
the
example of the raw data collected on one
an
of
level
number of (problem
the
was quite
lending
large,
greater
benchmarking
these
developers
and
population
larger
of
within
software
work
other
related)
our
to
were
activities
propositions.
organization
the
behavior
daily
their
down
(often
number of subjects was
support
empirical
subsequent
observations
the
the
and
solving
addition,
six
although
Thus,
intervals).
of
granularity
In
indicated
of
representative
that
the
developers.
Results
I.
Effect
ne gative
were coded
that
to
its
the
problem
solving.
for
this
conclusion.
issues
histories
wait
for
progress
long
failure.
the
In
The
efforts:
failures
in
that
for
no
in
they
instance
solving
did
intractable.
faced
four
major
and
—
seek
that
to
histories
was not carried
respondents
indicate
respondents'
Rather,
barriers
to
problem
problem solving efforts were often interrupted
because
inputs
Ditto
problem
That
problem solving process.
the
was delayed
why problem
at
--
of these cases,
technically
First,
1.)
each
reasons
were
indicated
periods
problem solving
Interestingly,
involved
(See Table
problem solving
abandoned without being resolved
by significant time lags
solving
focus on
determine
to
flow on
time
times".
we
were
that
reasons
identify
"wait
analysis,
this
problems
out
organization's
of
effect
In
is,
of the
such
project
as
participants
experts'
time,
test
problem
is,
were
forced
results,
or
to
other
1
necessary
cost
and
that
time
do problem
to
with
therefore
loss
problem
solving
could
participants
by
not
regarding
customers'
problems
and
project
sometimes
detailed
sufficiently
requirements,
technical
time
Barriers
abandoned
identify
to
1
Problem Solving
Process Technologies
New
of failed efforts
this
judged
Production
among
Turnover
Insufficient
or
solving
problem
solving
'
Note
that
Table
efforts
single
nonroutine
for
64%
work
50%
information
was
effects
failure
most
the
1,
the
of such
can
have
customer
re.
associated
interviews,
time
lags.
multiple
with
respondents
Further,
contributing
37%
needs
commonly-cited reason
difficulty
During
was
73%
process
time
factor
critical ^
personnel
process.
negative
a
no
leave
project
in
problem
the
solving
inconsistent
As seen
about
problem
pressures
project
information
consistent
%
the
efforts.
because
where
in
made
Successful
to
With
lags
pressures
solutions.
Table
Time
found
and
solving
needed
the
was often
participants,
or
as
by
solving
problem
in
increased
participants
out
problem
among
were
project
squeezed
momentum
and
efforts
measure
Second,
Third,
and
frustration
to
was often
turnover
get
led
solving.
solving
knowledge
of
lags
production.
regular
impossible
or
difficult
time
of problem
difficulty
associated
Fourth,
These
resources.
abandoning
for
time
lags
talked
because
factors.
at
this
in
the
length
research
1
was
we were
longitudinal,
efforts
following
of
effects
the
any
at
time
but
resources
also
point
raised
where
were
not
costs
and
effort
the
available,
was
a Problem
problem
many
(in
experts
Effort
cases)
to
"Wait Time"
with
Recognize a problem with the new technology.
i
Gather needed resources
production
duties;
Assuming
(engineer's
spare
that
time away
assistance;
from
money...)
parts;
resources
promptly:
arrive
I
Begin problem diagnosis.
Discover that
statistics
expert
is
needed
to
help analyze data from
experiments.
Expert
During
is
busy: wait for several days
"wait
time":
and other helpers return
Engineers
attend
new,
to
Production
Spare parts
Project
more "urgent"
pressures
get
regular
assignments
for
members experience
other,
increased
the
product
out;
more "urgent" problem;
frustration;
Managers perceive incompetence ("Why was
this
problem
solved long ago?")
Eventually,
problem solving
or
issues;
must get
mount:
"borrowed"
to
effort
is
abandoned as too
costly.
or
solving,
1
Solving
solving
Figure
in
abandoned.
Figure
Anatomy of
because
slowed
ultimately
--
frustration
wait
to
only
not
this
problem
summarized
are
lags
to
Comments and
stage.
As shown, when problem solving was forced
other
happened
what
track
to
delays
significant
regarding
observations
able
not
the
1.
3
1
One
2.
of non-routine
effect
problem
technical
The generation of
solving:
interruptions
Drawing on
instances
person
unscheduled
of
phone,
visits,
sample
a
We
the
found
by
received
across
study
a
the
the
number of unique
of a
contacts
Figure
interactions.
number of
across
five
days
Sent
and
represent
the
Received
Per
3
Z
or*
Tt}r\ttmA ticintr o
^
per
*
visit
cmi9r* rnnt francfinrmatinn
aii
Day
on
individual.
upper and
2
"5
f^ota
the
boxplot
data
o
phone
Media Type
a
Each box contains
subjects
0.
TV*
as
and
the
of observation
boxes
the
presents
2
o
email
well
table
sent
interruptions
media channels.
Interruptions
audix
as
the
presents
exchange.)
particular
Figure
of
B
(in
amount of a developer's working time was
large
The upper and lower ends of
Number
subject;
all
channels
(Appendix
mail).
daily
extracted
media
major
four
electronic
we
Telecom,
at
we prepared on each
sheet
different
subjects
data
across
and
mail
unplanned
short,
depicting
six
total
that
diagram
all
voice
and time of day
duration
occupied
interaction
summary
of the
contain
entries
raw observational
the
lower
4
1
points
are
indicated
point
within
outliers
lying
beyond
the
in
received
subjects
minutes)
per
medians
median
(a
of
working day
typical
initiated
7
a
of 6
total
(68%
brief
typically
frequent
schedule
ability
to
issues
virtually
observations
took
than
less
were
colleagues
contacted
contacts)
were
activities,
not
MR).
unanticipated
routine
usually
in
software
current
new
with
call
base
These
working on
five
"outlier"
an
days
The
work.
new
solving
specific
"modification
a
the
in
make
the
error.
the
Upon
field.
and analyze
and
form
request"
of
(or
the
necessary
This
took
receiving
source
changes
an
of the
to
the
precedence over
work.
simple
relatively
However, on
to
by customer reports of an
identify
to
problem
nonroutine
termed
technology
the
rectify
development
Some MRs were
developer
motivated
respond
her
number of unique
and
duration
development
to
or
his
a
aJi of the outlier
significantly,
as
or
an
experiences
interactions,
functions,
unplanned,
handling
to
routine
observed
was required
unplanned
the
When
significant.
organization)
the
in
frequency,
feature
solving
problem
existing
locally.
And,
with
associated
with
error
perform
of
sense
the
developer
observed
to
else
long
especially
time,
These were
a
or
problem
nonroutine
someone
or
by
(represented
pattern
particularly
are
outliers
disappeared.
(in
interruption
typical
the
2),
developer
(a
particularly
^
were
distributed
this
to
Figure
in
individual
and
and
a
As
range.
interquartile
during
2,
The detached
median.
day).
Compared
MR,
the
interruptions
16
interruptions
widely
but
of
total
These
interruptions.
5
a
data
the
is
times
1.5
box of Figure
right
far
box
each
bold
the
quartiles;
of the
five^
MR,
the
represent
and
16
could
be
days when
accomplished
we observed
number of unique contacts
approximately
16%
of
all
days
(see
of
quickly
a
Figure
observation.
2),
5
I
as
well
the
the
as
extreme
most
day rose to
interruptions
and
frequency
the
cases,
17
(compared
and
initiated
requests
passwords,
advice
peers
interruptions
throughout
was
contacted
working
10
MRs
(compared
triggered
ripple
illustrate
the
generate
beyond
15
to
effect
the
problem
MR
7
to
17
days,
and
requests
our
not
key
median
the
of
duration
the
for
exchanges
for
were
involved
of
thesis,
limited
throughout
personnel
number of people
the
problem
a
to
most
on days of routine work), while the
nonroutine
immediate
during
contacted
the
relevance
solving
but
contacts
that
In
Most of these contacts
minutes).
particular
group,
On
organization.
the
and
16)
(vs.
documentation,
or
Of
nonroutine
to
immediate
developer's
information
for
colleagues
dramatically.
owned by another developer,
code
and experts.
related
was 45
several
(vs.
rose
interruptions
on a normal day), the number of
7
to
received
change
searches
with
difficult
to
of
number of unique
the
exchange was over one hour
were
duration
These
day.
solving
technical
results
can
project.
Discussion
The
for
what
analyzed
level,
they
results
suggest
problem
this
create
the
two
(or
can
organization
the
reflect)
and
literature.
an
as
highlights
organizational
interdependencies
when considered
solving
paper
above
described
a
system.
between
attention
in
work
which
problem
solving
hard-to-manage
Thus,
in
both
cases,
management
problem
at
solving
at
the
results
the
level
are
and
has
local
can
activities
interruptions
our
that
research
other
ongoing
of
project-level
separately,
of
series
time
both
While
together.
interruption
ways
the
merit
throughout
suggest
of
not
the
recognized
in
6
1
we found
First,
make
indeed
problem
nonroutine
for
more complex
pressures
than
whenever experts
process
These
timely
manner.
teams
disperse,
problem
force
In
"wait
critical
wait
times
lead
dry
abandon
to
the
for
problem solving
can
organization
particular,
normal
time
problem
resources
are
not
available
other
to
release
experts
more
mounts)
pressure
and
likely
suggest
these
solving
the
efforts
often
are
more
needed
resources
other
a
in
that
that
is
solving
(problem
difficulties
This
efforts.
the
relationship
the
their
efforts,
the
time
find
to
into
management
up,
projects
technologies,
do
production
inserted
times"
other
promptly
local
recognized.
or
resources
solvers
new
by
exacerbated
are
everyday
of
manufacturing
in
around
solving
often
is
pressures
the
personnel
for
difficult
it
while
that
to
be
completed.
we found
Second,
which
widely
is
nonroutine
the
regarded
problem
organizational
programmers
they
often
interruptions
problem
wider
of
programmers
frequently
the
they
case.
and
also
of
and
led
much
Thus,
while
information
also
disrupted
non-routine
problem
large
required
interruptions
people
and
number
of
On
with
interact
a
problem-related
helped
interactions
problem
distributed
work flows
throughout
just
as
than
solvers
to
the
widely.
Note that the interruptions "received" were often call-backs from people
been contacted earlier but who had been unavailable.
Thus, the number of
interruptions
reported
here
is
conservative estimate.
a
^
at
solving,
work^.
to
unplanned
were
management
software
Further,
longer
which
time
(development)
routine
were
when
activity,
the
days
to
group
affects
level
colleagues.
to
small
or
unusually
an
days
on
attend
to
initiated
peers
domain of software programming,
project
the
at
the
individual
had
to
days,
expertise
organization,
and
compared
in
Specifically,
study
received
universe
was usually
solving
our
an
as
level.
solving
interruptions
access
in
even
that
who had
initiated
7
1
When
indicates
does
helps
may
be
one
somewhere
flow
experts
Thus,
it
between
the
and
wait
the
such
because
is
earlier
other
resources)
out
of circulation
highly
variable
(and
unpredictable)
for
problem
nonroutine
tendency
even
that
Figure
to
solving
problem
for
interruptions
(and
respond
to
experienced
in
an
such
a
This
efforts.
a
is
activities
resources,
problem,
given
solving
organization
be
to
only
to
suggests
partially
is
the
that,
also
the
serve
of
properly
not
be
time.
quickly
there
self-limiting,
as
by
caused
where
organizations
requirement,
in
staffed
could
be
described
in
3:
Figure
The
^ Nonroutine
Interrupts
People
are
People
or
available
problem
solving
throughout
the
unavailable/not
resources
only
after
needed
3
non-routine
problem
solving
organizations.
in
f—
of
nature
self-limiting
organization
at
for
significant
their
desk/cannot
other
problem
waiting
time.
to
unscheduled
disruption
in
solvers
disrupt
stretches
may
these
due
significant
that
at
problem
but
there
that
problem
by
by
not
it
Our second
initiated
of the organization,
parts
aggregate with experts and other
available
times
first
solving,
we hypothesize
Specifically,
interruptions
our
problem
to
experienced.
various
possible
is
were commonly
barrier
interesting
raise
while
particular,
In
important
results
of work in
and
intervals
This
an
is
question.
this
project,
else.
time
of
sets
answers.
partial
delays
relationship
in
normal
why
answer
to
a
solvers
some
two
these
together,
wait
that
explain
not
study
pull
allow
and
questions,
study
considered
control
solving
their
efforts
time
are
a
8
1
These
from
respondents
modest
software
study
of
throughout
often
for
who
(Allen,
time
their
efforts
problem
solving
bottleneck.
received
a
am
For
priorities
are
key
were
compounded
As one of
to
problems
another
consciously
not
experts,
are
the
software
help
with
demand
highly
by
the
a
sought-after
over
"you
other
expert
at
responsible
for
plague
a
critical
developer
clearly
it,
wait times
the
expert
who was de facto
scheduling
problem
critical
and
live
ongoing
Ditto,
"I
and
setting
problem-driven
that
fact
way),
modification,
priority
of
interruptions
demand immediate
we interviewed
experts
a
managed.
difficulties
that
as
As he described
whose time as a
the
perceived
(or
many of
statistical
but
factories,
these
urgent
comes
was
resource
solving
nearby
several
single
a
to
managed
that
one
help.
for
and
emerge
to
become
they
example,
for
Ditto,
at
likely
may be
organization;
of requests
share
documented could be traced
supporting
the
most
knowledgeable,
times"
"wait
the
At Telecom,
Similarly,
Interrupt'"
of
evenly
solvers
be consciously
to
to
technical
are
individuals
certain
throughout
disproportionate
'Mr.
likely
number and length
solving
Like
the
relatively
not
are
experienced,
individuals
not
is
anecdotal
ability
problem
colleagues.
key
Thus,
problem
interruptions
highly
a
experts'
Instead,
are
such
resource.
technical
disproportionate
"I
who
1977),
and thus
informally,
critical
organization.
those
to
disrupt
First,
viewed as approachable by
are
"gatekeepers"
a
help
an
by
clarified
why even
plain
it
seriously
new problems.
to
distributed
turn
can
interruption
quickly
make
and
solving
comments by some of
particular,
In
and
supported
are
studies.
the
in
level
respond
our
problem
nonroutine
management
time
organizational
evidence
among
relationships
stated,
the
a
modification,"
activities.
try
when
to
be
attention.
request
because
According
available;
field
to
that's
part
9
20
my
of
anything
respond
problem
nonroutine
difficult
get
to
developers
tend
difficult
solving
our
or
effort
proposition
resources
very
found
other
can
bottlenecks
quickly
in
frequently
perpetual
a
This
etc.).
studies
development
product
of
study
in
to
that
to
new,
as
well.
interrupted
(involving
made
only
not
whenever colleagues
needed
she
on
help
for
mode"
"crisis
situation
teams,
it
work done during business hours, but
find
to
lose
to
were
work,
normal
their
solving
supports
also
have been
(1995)
operated
overtime
schedules,
This
one.
developers
they
issues,
problem
that
complete one problem
of disruption
because
that
means
get
can't
I
issues.
Perlow's
in
busy being available that
so
to
efforts
pressing
cycles
example,
found
rush
solving
currently
Similar
busy
next
the
to
am
I
situation
too
experts
quickly
stalled
For
This
done."
with
spiral,
more
But sometimes
job.
on
help
their
made
also
problems.
unusual
Conclusions
In
project
the
throughout
an
given
can
signalled
barrier
This
by
While
interruptions,
to
begin
suggests
to
drive
it
that,
analysis
does
not
has
such
and
disruptions,
solving
have
important
organization,
according
focused
necessary
on
as
the
follow
that
people
negative
that
turn,
they
respond
or
of
parts
at
organizations
create
the
within
effects;
to
technical
impacts
can
impose
system-wide
business
to
in
other
in
solving
work flows
their
beyond any costs
can
the
not
that
problem
effective
interruptions,
this
and
--
problem
nonroutine
that
people
disrupt
interruptions
project,
actually
seriously
organization
the
organization.
a
can
level
important
we have suggested
paper,
this
issues
they
as
priorities.
of
should
strive
to
such
eliminate
and even
useful
interrupt
solving
(obviating
work
enable
Further,
of the
early
(the
for
on
Unplanned
development
made
one
mutual
on
and
of
organizations
related
interruptions
learning
On
attention
problem
and
even
the
if
are
they
solving
an
important
of
peer
and
working
and
Back
(1950)
normal
as
are
hand,
not
an
efforts
in
business"
often
are
have
Others
can
1978).
structuring
seems clear
disrupt
the
rest
mechanism
both
that
(Blau,
a
an
interruptions
be
the
For
encounters
important
suggested
time
Further,
during
classic
that
that
a
studies
problem-
organizational
1955;
operations
of the organization.
important
in
"brief
likewise
for
and
nags
relationships.
that
vital
problems
also
interruptions
routine
and
prods,
component
worked out over
(Gabarro,
important
it
to
noted
time
save
is
minor
more recent ones have shown
organizational
other
1990).
formation.
well
as
(Weick,
also
are
ideas
flag
time)
Such
1989).
Subtle
1977).
technical
meeting)
of
scheduled
levels
hoc encounters"
"ad
exchange
they
as
(Kotter,
are
trust
whole.
The temporal nature of
1990).
one's
friendship
obstacles
(Allen,
routine,
a
as
ability
for
are
more formal
a
the
Nor
insofar
work progress and
interest
about
expectations
succession
up
Schacter
goes
of
Galegher,
maintenance
Festinger,
determinant
process
1992).
efficient
unstructured
interruptions
and
often
minor
advantages
often
are
Clearly,
organization
the
schedule
sustain
and
example,
as
and
interruptions
local
Pentland,
for
despite
break
they
important,
(e.g.,
are
research
and
arousal
raising
plan
help
also
that
fact
to
creative
(Kraut
has
spontaneous,
the
can
questions
functioning.
help
for
progress
to
organization
to
dysfunctional
need
the
Indeed,
interactions"
disjointed
"short,
interactions.
organizations
in
always
interruptions
part
necessary
colleague
a
problem
unplanned
In
Pentland,
need
1992).
further
and further
many
to
2 2
and
interrupted,
gets
unchallengeable
may
this
number
get
social
conventions
or
management of
planning
explicit
be optimal.
not
of
experts
people
organization's
A
ability
very
one
from
workers
during
constant
who
and enabling
them
to
what
carry
full
organizational
need
would need
help
interesting
on
to
schedule
and
have
be
recognized
and
nature
of
help
more
time
urgent
and
than
considerations,
the
in
issues
problem
For
"on
call
them
asking
"On
tasks.
their
call"
"on
Also,
to
and
projects
requests.
for
be
to
local
rewarded
nonroutine
issues
about
the
effectively.
of their time
rather
A
1995).
nonroutine
with
and
prohibited
are
within
experts
with
Japan
in
Perlow,
1994;
hospitals),
methodological
interpersonal
dynamic
their
among
choose
the
in
technical
protect
to
key
to
information
to
practical
on
company
work and administrative
full
key
experiment
to
interactions
(Miller,
fraction
teaching
in
unplanned,
theoretical
temporal
the
to
priorities
Beyond these
given
called
of project
schedule
would
providing
done
is
unplanned
day
of these
bottleneck
critical
an effort
in
identifying
one could designate some
to
of
involve
often
(similar
experts
every
most
example,
experts
that,
approachable)
time
the
one
particular,
In
are
organization
a
would
approach
different
and
small
a
that
that
new problems.
resolve
interruptions,
blocks of time
certain
solving,
interruptions.
have announced
U.S.
the
in
and
Unless
become a
can
they
ensure
to
knowledgeable
both
no
or
little
is
largely
tacit,
Our findings suggest
tend
rules
on
There
1992).
number of organizations has begun
small
ways of managing
social
and
events
process.
this
are
attack
to
(Pentland,
of interruptions.
share
managed,
carefully
is
who
random
on
Informal
(those
disproportionate
a
depends
when,
role
call"
in
activities.
our
research
implications
technology
involved,
also
relating
management.
we
note
that
has
to
the
First,
technical
study
problem
order
solving
capture
to
examine
multiple
examining
Moreover,
problem
of
our
time.
Further,
in
need
studies
to
(individual/group/organizational)
suggests
time,
enter
to
and
solving
over
longitudinal
research
over
solving
studied
interactions,
analysis
of
levels
problem
consideration
dynamic
these
simultaneously.
must be
organizations
in
other
that
time
we
must
a
variable
as
activities
in
beyond
go
in
our
to
the
technical
organizations.
At
a
interruptions
obvious,
suggests
formal
development
unsanctioned
the
theoretical
very
organization's
and
include
product
fielding
questions
from
tend
emphasize
the
to
chaotic
technical
and
to
people
better
help
orderly
component of time
seemingly
need
customers,
more
their
interactions
time
dynamic
efforts.
problem-driven
crisis
in
heroically
demands.
theories
organizations.
of
to
in
these
management,
agendas
research
and to neglect the
In
juggle
fact,
many
unpredictable
Our work suggests
time
support
that
mini-crisis)
over time,
the
to
interruptions,
current
Similarly,
of events
strive
(and
product
enough
and
management
organizations
incompatible
and
support
in
as
actions
etc.
flow
(such
not
expediting,
project
attention
and
Besides
functioning.
much
too
etc.),
launches,
informal
real
solving-driven
organizations
technical
in
product
projects,
problem
of
study
we may be paying
that
activities
but
our
level,
technology
that
we
management
References
,
(1977),
Allen, T.J.
Managing
Flow of Techonologv. Cambridge, MA, MIT
the
Press.
Argyris,
and D. Schon (1970), Organizational
C.
Learning.
Reading,
MA,
Addison-Wesley.
Baumann,
Sources
Memorandum
Blau,
of
"Results
(1990),
J.L.
Information
Survey,"
55412-900124-OlTM,
P.M. (1955), The
5ESS Switch Software Development
the
AT&T
Bell
Laboratories
January
1990.
24,
Dynamics of Bureacracy.
Technical
London,
England,
University
of Chicago Press.
and W.R. Dill (1965), "Organizational Learning: Observations
Toward a Theory", Administration Science Ouarterly 10, September, pp.
V.E.
Cangelosi,
175-203.
"The Making of Organizational Opportunities: An
Interpretive Pathway to Organizational Change," in B.M. Staw and L.L.
Cummings, (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior. 15, Greenwich, CT:
Dutton,
JAI
(1993)
J.
Press.
Festinger,
L.,
S.
Schachter and K.
Groups.
California,
Gabarro,
J.J.
in
Prentice
University
Francisco,
Hedberg,
J.R.
CA:
B.
Development of Trust, Influence and Expectations,"
Behavior. A.G. Athos and J.J. Gabarro (eds), Englewood Hills,
(1988),
(1990),
1,
(1981),
Oxford,
Work Teams: Toward a New
Management Journal. 31, 1, pp.
in
Groups That Work (and Those That
Don'tl.
San
Jossey-Bass.
"How
Nystrom and William
Vol.
Informal
Hall.
C.J.G.
Hackman,
in
Press.
"Time and Transition
Model of Group Development," Academy of
9-31.
Gersick,
Pressures
"The
(1978),
Interpersonal
NJ,
Stanford
Back (1950), Social
Organizations
Starbuck,
England:
(eds.)
Learn and Unlearn," in Paul C.
Handbook of Organizational Desig n.
Oxford University
Press,
pp.
3-26.
25
The Key
Company.
M. (1986) Kaizen:
McGraw-Hill Publishing
Imai,
Kelly,
and
R.
Harvard
to
Japan's Competitive
Success
.
New
York:
Caplan (1993), "How Bell Labs Creates Star Performers,"
Review. July-August, pp. 128-139.
J.
Business
Kiesler,
Response to Changing
Perspectives on Problem Sensing from Social Cognition,"
Science Quarterly. 27, December, pp. 548-570.
and
S.
Sproull
L.
Environments:
Administrative
(1982),
"Managerial
"What Effective General Managers Really Do," in Readings
in
Managerial Psychology. H.J. Leavitt, L.R. Pondy and D.M. Boje (eds.),
Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Kotter,
Kraut,
in
(1989),
J.
Galegher (1990), "Patterns of Contact and Communication
Research Collaborations," in Intellectual Teamwork, J. Galegher,
and
R.E.
Scientific
R.E.
J.
Kraut and C.
Langer,
Ellen
Egido
(1983)
J.
(eds),
Erlbaum Publishing Company, NJ.
The Psychology of Control
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Press.
Louis,
of
M.R. and Sutton, R.L (1991)
Mind
to
Active Thinking,"
"Switching
Human
Cognitive Gears:
Relations. 44,
March, J.G. and Simon, H. (1958) Organizations.
Sons.
Miller,
A
Minute?",
New York
New
York: John Wiley and
Times, April 24.
Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic
Cambridge, MA:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nelson, R.R. and
Chang e.
"Got
(1994)
B.,
1,
From Habits
55-76.
Pentland,
B.T.
Administrative
S.
(1992),
"Organizing
Sciences
Quarterly.
Moves
37,
-
pp.
Software
Support
Hotlines,"
527-548.
"The Time Famine: The Unintended Consequences of
Seeking Success at Work." Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of
Management, Cambridge, MA.
Perlow,
Perry,
Process
L.
(1995)
N. Staudenmayer and L. Votta (1994).
"People, Organizations, and
Improvement," IEEE Software. July, pp. 36-45.
D.,
26
A.M.
Pettigrew,
Practice,"
Science,
Vol.
M. and Orlikowski, W. (1994)
Tyre,
of
Patterns
5,
"Longitudinal
(1990),
Organization
1,
Technological
Adaptation
Field
1,
No.
Research
3,
on
Change:
Theory
and
pp. 267-292.
"Wiindows of Opportunity:
in
Organizations,"
Temporal
Organization Science,
98-118.
and
(1993)
Organizations,"
Slaon
"Exploiting
Opportunities
Management Review,
Fall,
for
Technological
Change
in
13-26.
Van de Ven, A. and D. Policy (1992), "Learning While Innovating,"
Or ganization Science. 3, 1, pp. 92-116.
Van de Ven, A. and E.M. Rogers (1988), "Innovations and Organizations:
Research. 15, 5, pp. 632-651.
Perspectives," Communication
Critical
"Technology as Equivoque," in Goodman, P.S., Sproull, L.S.,
1Associates, Technology and Organizations San Francisco: Jossey-Bass:
Weick,
and
44.
K.
(1990)
Appendix
Raw
Observational Data on
Subject:
2C
Date:
930629
0830:
IN
0833:
Read Email
One Software Developer
7 new messages (3 process change
1
A
alerts,
2 executive project reports,
1
MITS
reminder,
celebration notice)
0836:
Receives phone
0900:
Group meeting
1022:
Receives
call
from
lab; requesting
a build product to
test
new
circuit
visit
Visitor needs algorithm to test
1025:
Makes phone
1026:
Works on
1032:
Break
1035:
Works on
call to lab; still
build product
build product
RAM
on new hardware
working on build product requested earlier
board
5>
a:
CO
>
>
PJ
O
Oh
U
W
>
1—1
I
53
D
00
1
_0J
e
X
&
G
E
3
c
'^-^
o
3
e
s
o
'c
U
J
Date Due
MIT LIBRARIES
"
"Illltll
3 9080 00927 7580