How Understanding-Based Redesign Influences the Pattern of Actions and Effectiveness of Routines
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a novel, mixed-methods research design, we examine how understanding-based redesign of a routine influences its effectiveness. By understanding-based redesign, we refer to an intentional change in routine design such that it aligns more closely with the understandings of participants regarding how to perform their roles in the routine. We argue that this type of redesign improves the effectiveness of a routine by facilitating the actions and interactions of routine participants. Our empirical examination focused on manipulating the procedure and physical artifacts available for performing the towel-changing routine at a hotel. Through a field experiment, we found that understanding-based redesign results in greater effectiveness of the routine, and based on a qualitative, interviews-based inquiry with key participants in the routine, we propose six processes by which understanding-based redesign influences participant actions that support routine effectiveness. Our study offers important implications for strategy and organizations research on routines, as well as useful implications for management practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it