Understanding Platform Transformations Through Routine Interactions

  • Lauri PaavolaEmail author
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 11)


The purpose of this chapter is to discuss and consider routines that operate on interfaces enabling transformation of and within platforms. We view these transformations through specific routine interactions, which enable modules and platforms to either bring about transformations or to respond to them. We do this by introducing the concept of transformational routines and justify that it provides micro-level insight into different cause-and-effect relationships. Moreover, while traditional theories of platform entity transformations tend to focus on general evolutionary outlines and continuous processes, transformational routines provide temporally and spatially limited settings in which to observe their critical turning points. Finally, with the help of an illustration on a case study of Tesco, a UK grocery retailer, we argue that all these properties enable efficient collection of rich data with applications to both routine and module- and platform-level analyses.


Transformational routines Platforms Modules Interfaces Ecosystems 


  1. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules, Volume 1: The power of modularity. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, C., & Woodard, J. (2009). The architecture of platforms: A unified view. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation (pp. 19–44). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, M. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 643–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, M., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2005). Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 775–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, M. C., & Zirpoli, F. (2008). Applying organizational routines in analysing the behaviour of organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66, 128–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, M. D. (1991). Individual learning and organizational routines. Organization Science, 2, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, M. D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M., & Winter, S. (1996). Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: Contemporary research issues. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 653–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, I. R., & Harel, D. (2007). Explaining a complex living system: Dynamics, multi-scaling and emergence. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4, 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, M. D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M., & Winter, S. (1996). Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: Contemporary research issues. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 653–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Dacin, T. M. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 46–81.Google Scholar
  14. Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. (2013, September 4). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16, 618–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA/London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Paavola, L., & Cuthbertson, R. (2016). Redefining metaroutines as drivers of transformation: Use of customer data in food supply management. Academy of Management Proceedings 2016.Google Scholar
  28. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 793–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product organization and design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schilling, M. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousands Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1990). Information and organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Ashley, A. A. (2010). Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24, 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Winter, S. G. (2000). The satisficing principle in capability learning. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 981–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management StudiesAalto University School of BusinessHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations