From CFIR Wiki
The social architecture, age, maturity, and size of an organization.
The social architecture, age, maturity, and size of an organization. Social architecture describes how large numbers of people are clustered into smaller groups and differentiated, and how the independent actions of these differentiated groups are coordinated to produce a holistic product or service. Structural characteristics are, byand- large, quantitative measures and, in most cases, measurement instruments and approaches have been developed for them. Damenpour conducted a meta-analysis of many structural determinants based on 23 studies conducted outside the healthcare sector. Functional differentiation is the internal division of labor where coalitions of professionals are formed into differentiated units. The number of units or departments represents diversity of knowledge in an organization. The more stable teams are (members are able to remain with the team for an adequate period of time; low turnover), the more likely implementation will be successful. Administrative intensity (the ratio of managers to total employees) is positively associated with innovation. Centralization (the concentration of decision-making autonomy) has been shown to be negatively associated with innovation, but has also been found to be positive or negatively associated, depending on the stage of intervention (initiative stage versus implementation stage). Size, age, maturity, and degree of specialization (the uniqueness of the niche or market for the organization's products or services) also influence implementation.
Rationale for inclusion
the social architecture that describes how large numbers of people are clustered into smaller groups and differentiated and how the independent actions of these differentiated groups are coordinated to produce a holistic product or service. This construct also includes characteristics of organizations such as age and size. Much support for the role of structural characteristics comes out of Damanpour’s seminal research into organizational innovation. Organizational innovation includes implementation of innovations along with generating and developing innovations. We extend findings into implementation as one key component of organizational innovation. Several dimensions of structural characteristics have been found to have significant associations with implementation. Many of these characteristics, however, have shown mixed effects most likely because they interact with other features of the organization. Functional differentiation is the internal division of labor where coalitions of professionals are formed into differentiated units. The number of units/departments represents diversity of knowledge in an organization. The degree of specialization (the number of different occupational types or specialties in an organization) can have a positive relationship with implementing change when the knowledge base is increased. The number of departments that participate in decision-making is positively associated with effective implementation. Centralization (the dispersion or concentration of decision-making autonomy) has mixed effects depending on the study and the stage of intervention (initiative stage v. implementation stage). The degree of vertical integration (the number of hierarchical levels in departments or units) has a mixed relationship with implementation. Administrative intensity (the ratio of managers to total employees) has a positive relationship with implementation. Organization size is sometimes used as a proxy for other structural determinants. Size and age of an organization are both negatively associated with implementation when bureaucratic structure is increased as a result.
Qualitative codebook guidelines
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Thompson J, Scott W, Zald M: Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2003.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Damanpour F: Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. The Academy of Management Journal 1991, 34:555-590.
- ↑ Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisana GP: Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Adm Sci Q 2001, 46:685-716.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Dewar RD, Dutton JE: The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis. Management Science 1986, 32:1422-1433.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
- ↑ Pugh DS, Hickson DJ, Hinings CR, C.Turner: Dimensions of Organization Structure. Adm Sci Q 1968, 13:65-105.
- ↑ Frambach RT, Schillewaert N: Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research 2001, 55:163-176.
- ↑ Kimberly JR, Evanisko MJ: Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Acad Manage J 1981, 24:689-713.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Aiken M, S.B. Bacharach and J.L. French. : Organizational Structure, Work Process, and Proposal making in Administrative Bureaucracies. The Academy of Management Journal 1980, 23:631-652.
- ↑ Baldridge JV, Burnham RA: Organizational Innovation: Individual, organizational and environment impacts. Adm Sci Q 1975, 20:165-176.
- ↑ Hull FM, Hage J: Organizing for innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker's organic type. Sociology 1982, 16:564-577.
- ↑ Walston SL, Kimberly JR, Burns LR: Institutional and economic influences on the adoption and extensiveness of managerial innovation in hospitals: The case of reengineering. Med Care Res Rev 2001, 58:194-228; discussion 229-133.
- ↑ Van de Ven AH: Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science 1986, 32:590-607.