Articles
Minimal and Adaptive Coordination: How Hackathons’ Projects Accelerate Innovation without Killing it
Published Online:15 Jun 2021https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0712
Abstract
The innovation journey of new product development processes often spans weeks or months. Recently, though, hackathons have turned the journey into an ad hoc sprint of only a couple of days using new tools and technologies. Existing research predicts that such conditions will result in a failure to produce new working products, yet hackathons often lead to functioning innovative products. To investigate this puzzle, we closely studied the product development process of 13 comparable projects in assistive technology hackathons. We found that accelerating innovation created temporal ambiguity, as it was unclear how to coordinate the challenging work within such an extremely limited and ad hoc time frame. Multiple projects worked to reduce this ambiguity, importing temporal structures from organizational innovation processes and compressing them to fit the extremely limited and ad hoc time frame. They worked in full coordination to build a new product. They all failed. Only projects that sustained the temporal ambiguity—by working with a minimal basis for coordination and allowing new temporal structures to emerge—were able to produce functioning new products under the intense time pressure. This study contributes to theories on innovation processes, coordination, and temporality.
REFERENCES
- 1995. Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6: 147–167. Google Scholar
- 2017. Examining crowd work and gig work through the historical lens of piecework. In ACM Special Interest Group on Computer–Human Interaction (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems: 4599–4616. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Google Scholar
- 1977. Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the research and development organization. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
- 2002. Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80: 52–61. Google Scholar
- 2001. Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26: 645–663.Link , Google Scholar
- 2001. Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 512–529.Abstract , Google Scholar
- 2012. Makers: The new industrial revolution. New York, NY: Crown Business. Google Scholar
- 2016. Turbulent stability of emergent roles: The dualistic nature of self-organizing knowledge coproduction. Information Systems Research, 27: 792–812. Google Scholar
- 2015. Using a hackathon for interprofessional health education opportunities. Journal of Medical Systems, 39. Published online. doi: 10.1007/s10916-015-0247-x Google Scholar
- 2011. Accidental innovation: Supporting valuable unpredictability in the creative process. Organization Science, 23: 1505–1522. Google Scholar
- 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Technically induced change in the temporal organization of radiological work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 78–108. Google Scholar
- 1990. The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 61–103. Google Scholar
- 2015. What difference does a robot make? The material enactment of distributed coordination. Organization Science, 26: 1553–1573. Google Scholar
- 2003a. Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109: 720–752. Google Scholar
- 2003b. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14: 312–330. Google Scholar
- 2006. Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17: 3–21. Google Scholar
- 2018. Latitude or latent control? How occupational embeddedness and control shape emergent coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 607–636. Google Scholar
- 2011. Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 239–261.Link , Google Scholar
- 2015.
Leveraging comparative field data for theory generation . In K. D. ElsbachR. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research: Innovative pathways and methods: 168–176. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar - 2020. Complexity and information systems research in the emerging digital world. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 44: 1–17. Google Scholar
- 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
- 2015. Coordinating knowledge creation in multidisciplinary teams: Evidence from early-stage drug discovery. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1308–1338. Google Scholar
- 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28: 238–256.Link , Google Scholar
- 2018, August 23. Note on Hackathons (Harvard Business School background note 419-021). Retrieved from www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=54947 Google Scholar
- 2017, September 11. What your innovation process should look like. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/09/what-your-innovation-process-should-look-like Google Scholar
- 2007. Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18: 631–647. Google Scholar
- 2008. A more rational approach to new-product development. Harvard Business Review, 86: 96–102. Google Scholar
- (Eds.) 2019. Makerspaces and entrepreneurship: Colocation and collaboration in the digital era. Symposium conducted at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. Published online. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2019.11093symposium Google Scholar
- 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20: 343–378.Link , Google Scholar
- 2009. Managing ambiguity in new product development projects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18: 24–34. Google Scholar
- 2017. Synchronicity: Time, technicians, instruments, and invisible repair. Science, Technology & Human Values, 42: 822–847. Google Scholar
- 1969. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. General Systems: Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, 16: 69–85. Google Scholar
- 2012. Idea work: Lessons of the extraordinary in everyday creativity. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm. Google Scholar
- 1993. The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
- 2014. Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
- 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Company. Google Scholar
- 2004. Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of Personality, 18: 265–278. Google Scholar
- 1991. Product development performance: Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar
- 2020. What makes a process theoretical contribution? Organization Theory, 1. Published online ahead of print. doi: 10.1177/2631787720902473 Google Scholar
- 2009. Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20: 329–354. Google Scholar
- 2011. Seven steps to better brainstorming. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/seven-steps-to-better-brainstorming Google Scholar
- 1997. A coordination theory approach to organizational process design. Organization Science, 8: 157–175. Google Scholar
- 1992.
The flow experience and its significance for human psychology . In I. S. CsikszentmihalyiM. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness: 15–36. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar - 2011. Progressing to the center: Coordinating project work. Organization Science, 22: 961–979. Google Scholar
- 2016. One foot in, one foot out: How does individuals’ external search breadth affect innovation outcomes? Strategic Management Journal, 37: 280–302. Google Scholar
- 2014. Reflections: On time, temporality and change in organizations. Journal of Change Management, 14: 285–308. Google Scholar
- 2013. Innovation lessons from 3-D printing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54: 43–52. Google Scholar
- 2004. From T-mazes to labyrinths: Learning from model-based feedback. Management Science, 50: 1366–1378. Google Scholar
- 2016, May 17. When to trust robots with decisions, and when not to. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/05/when-to-trust-robots-with-decisions-and-when-not-to Google Scholar
- 2019. The relational dynamics of field-configuring events in field emergence: The case of digital health. In S. LebovitzH. Lifshitz-AssafE. S. BernsteinP. R. CarlileK.-E. DionneW. SineC. L. Tucci (Eds.), Hacking hackathons: What can we learn from the burgeoning phenomenon? Symposium conducted at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. Published online. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2019.13255symposium Google Scholar
- 2005. Organizational roles and transition to entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 433–449.Link , Google Scholar
- 2019. Grasping the future of the digital society. Futures, 107: 17–28. Google Scholar
- 2012. Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
- 2001. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 685–716. Google Scholar
- 2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1246–1264.Link , Google Scholar
- 1989a. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.Link , Google Scholar
- 1989b. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 543–576.Link , Google Scholar
- 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962–1023. Google Scholar
- 2011. Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organization Science, 22: 1224–1239. Google Scholar
- 2018. Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28: 62–70. Google Scholar
- 2006. Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management Science, 52: 1155–1169. Google Scholar
- 2016. Framing innovation opportunities while staying committed to an organizational epistemic stance. Information Systems Research, 27: 302–323. Google Scholar
- 2020. Signs of our time: Time-use as dedication, performance, identity, and power in contemporary workplaces. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 598–626.Link , Google Scholar
- 1990. Electronic groups at work. Organization Science, 1: 41–64. Google Scholar
- 2019. Speeding-up innovation with business hackathons. In E. BohemiaG. GemserN. FainC. de BontR. Assoreira Almendra (Eds.), Conference proceedings of the Academy for Design Innovation Management: Research perspectives in the era of transformations: 656–677. London, U.K.: Academy for Design Innovation Management. Google Scholar
- 2016. Thank you for being late: An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations (1st ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Google Scholar
- 2011. Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies, 32: 737–767. Google Scholar
- 2016.
From the process of innovation to innovation as process . In A. LangleyH. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies: 451–465. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar - 2001. Path dependence and creation. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
- 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Google Scholar
- 2012. The psychological experience of prototyping. Design Studies, 33: 64–84. Google Scholar
- 1978. Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Google Scholar
- 2007. Composing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
- 2003. How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies innovate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Google Scholar
- 2006. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem-solving at work. Organization Science, 17: 484–500. Google Scholar
- 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716–749. Google Scholar
- 2003. Time matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56: 633–669. Google Scholar
- 1990. The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the conditions of cultural change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar
- 1991. Aspects of time in organization. Human Relations, 44: 105–125. Google Scholar
- 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 569–598. Google Scholar
- 2014. A process theory of organization. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- 2020. Translating the distant into the present: How actors address distant past and future events through situated activity. Organization Theory, 1. Published online ahead of print. doi: 10.1177/2631787719900999 Google Scholar
- 1995. Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization Science, 6: 373–393. Google Scholar
- 2017. Systematic literature reviews in agile software development: A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 85: 60–70. Google Scholar
- 2017. Developing makerspaces as sites of entrepreneurship. In C. P. LeeS. Poltrock (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing: 2023–2038. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2998181.2998264 Google Scholar
- 2012. Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23: 907–927. Google Scholar
- 2013. Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24: 965–995. Google Scholar
- 1983. A longitudinal study of the effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnover and promotion in research and development. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 437–456.Link , Google Scholar
- 2001. The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday. Google Scholar
- 2009. Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115: 657–711. Google Scholar
- 2006. Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17: 22–44. Google Scholar
- 1993. Entrainment of creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 24: 179–198. Google Scholar
- 2002. Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development. R & D Management, 32: 269–279. Google Scholar
- 2020. What is a pivot? Explaining when and how entrepreneurial firms decide to make strategic change and pivot. Strategic Management Journal. Published online ahead of print. doi: 10.1002/smj.3131 Google Scholar
- 2013. The future of crowd work. In A. BruckmanS. Counts (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work: 1301–1318. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2441776.2441923 Google Scholar
- 2019. Scaling up analogical innovation with crowds and AI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116: 1870–1877. Google Scholar
- 2006. Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 590–621. Google Scholar
- 2016. Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Google Scholar
- 1992. Task requirements and media choice in collaborative writing. Human–Computer Interaction, 7: 375–407. Google Scholar
- 1983. The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19: 448–468. Google Scholar
- 1996. Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103: 263–283. Google Scholar
- 2007. The principles of distributed innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2: 97–112. Google Scholar
- 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.Link , Google Scholar
- 2013. Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1–13.Link , Google Scholar
- 2019. Entrepreneurial team formation. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 29–59. Google Scholar
- 2017. Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37: 35–58. Google Scholar
- 2011.
The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation . In D.Leonard-Barton (Ed.), Managing knowledge assets, creativity and innovation: 301–323. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific. Google Scholar - 2011, December 1. Early prototypes can hurt a team’s creativity. Harvard Business Review, 89: 28. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/12/early-prototypes-can-hurt-a-teams-creativity Google Scholar
- 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 29: 335–363. Google Scholar
- 2018. Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 746–782. Google Scholar
- 2018. The art of balancing autonomy and control. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60: 1–6. Google Scholar
- 2018. Catalyst organizations as a new organization design for innovation: The case of Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4: 472–496.Link , Google Scholar
- 2007. Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18: 147–161. Google Scholar
- 2020. Unleashing the crowd: Collaborative solutions to wicked business and societal problems. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar
- 1994. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26: 87–119. Google Scholar
- 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71–87. Google Scholar
- 2002. A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26: 179–212. Google Scholar
- 1991. A global sense of place. Marxism Today, 38: 24–29. Retrieved from http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/91_06_24.pdf Google Scholar
- 2019. More effective Agile: A roadmap for software leaders. Bellevue, WA: Construx Press. Google Scholar
- 1992. Temporal context and temporal patterning: Toward a time-centered perspective for social psychology. Time & Society, 1: 399–420. Google Scholar
- 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
- 1963. Man, time and society. New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
- 2016, September 6. Use ongoing hackathons to accelerate digital transformations (Gartner Research G00302409). Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/3433417/use-ongoing-hackathons-accelerate-digital Google Scholar
- 2018. Maker cultures and the prospects for technological action. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24: 927–946. Google Scholar
- 2009. Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 463–502.Link , Google Scholar
- 2002. It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13: 684–700. Google Scholar
- 2019, January 4. Hackathons: They’re not just for computer programmers anymore [Blog post]. Forbes Technology Council. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/01/04/hackathons-theyre-not-just-for-computer-programmers-anymore/#3d89247f5b57 Google Scholar
- 1999. The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 57–81. Google Scholar
- 2002. The speed trap: Exploring the relationship between decision making and temporal context. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 931–955.Link , Google Scholar
- 2019. Designing corporate hackathons with a purpose: The future of software development. IEEE Software, 36: 15–22. Google Scholar
- 2014. What’s “new” about new forms of organizing? Academy of Management Review, 39: 162–180.Link , Google Scholar
- 2021. Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46: 192–210.Link , Google Scholar
- 2015. When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 618–648.Link , Google Scholar
- 2014. Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams. In H. Benko (Chair), Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology: 75–85. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2642918.2647409 Google Scholar
- 2016, May 1. Embracing Agile. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/05/embracing-agile Google Scholar
- 2003. Social acceleration: Ethical and political consequences of a desynchronized high-speed society. Constellations, 10: 3–33. Google Scholar
- 2013. Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
- 2016.
De-synchronization, dynamic stabilization, dispositional squeeze: The problem of temporal mismatch . In J. WajcmanN. Dodd (Eds.), The sociology of speed: 25–41. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar - 2019, September 25. Hackathons simplified [Blog post]. Hackerearth. Retrieved from www.hackerearth.com/blog/developers/hackathons-simplified Google Scholar
- 1996. Twenty-first century jet: The making and marketing of the Boeing 777. New York, NY: Scribner. Google Scholar
- 2012. A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24: 1–21. Google Scholar
- 2019. AI and the economy. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 19: 161–191. Google Scholar
- 2014. Managing the repertoire: Stories, metaphors, prototypes, and concept coherence in product innovation. Organization Science, 25: 691–712. Google Scholar
- 1999. Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- 2012. A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses to climate change. Organization Studies, 33: 1537–1563. Google Scholar
- 2015. Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26: 531–549. Google Scholar
- 1999. Organizational behavior implications of the congruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unit polychronicity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 75–99. Google Scholar
- 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522–536. Google Scholar
- 1979. The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
- 2014. Reconciling rhythms: Plans and temporal alignment in collaborative scientific work. In S. FussellW. Lutters (Chairs), Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing: 134–145. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531736 Google Scholar
- 2013. Emergence of 3D printed fashion: Navigating the ambiguity of materiality through collective design. In R. L. BaskervilleM. Chau (Eds.), Thirty-fourth international conference on information systems. Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2013/proceedings/ResearchInProgress/97 Google Scholar
- 2016. The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
- 2013. Coordinating futures: Toward a theory of anticipation. American Journal of Sociology, 118: 908–942. Google Scholar
- 2018. Everybody’s hacking: Participation and the mainstreaming of hackathons (Paper 172). In R. MandrykM. Hancock (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems: 1–12. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3173574.3173746 Google Scholar
- 2019, March 12. 50 startups that came from hackathons [Blog post]. Valuer. Retrieved from https://valuer.ai/blog/50-startups-that-came-from-hackathons Google Scholar
- (Eds.), 2001. Timespace: Geographies of temporality. London, U.K.: Routledge. Google Scholar
- 2012. Open innovation and organization design. Journal of Organization Design, 1: 24–27. Google Scholar
- 2014. Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organization Science, 26: 405–422. Google Scholar
- 2017. Flash organizations: Crowdsourcing complex work by structuring crowds as organizations. In G. MarkS. Fussell (Chairs), Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems: 3523–3537. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025811 Google Scholar
- 1999. The innovation journey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- 1998. Qualitative studies of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
- 1994. The retractable airplane landing gear and the Northrop “anomaly”: Variation-selection and the shaping of technology. Technology and Culture, 35: 1–33. Google Scholar
- 2005. Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal Für Betriebswirtschaft, 55: 63–78. Google Scholar
- 2017. Free innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
- 2014. Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
- 1999. The effects of individual time urgency on group polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14: 244–257. Google Scholar
- 2015. What grounded theory is… A critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 18: 581–599. Google Scholar
- 2017.
Appreciating emergence and serendipity in qualitative research: Resisting the urge to follow set plans . In R. MirS. Jain (Eds.), The Routledge companion to qualitative research in organization studies: 343–357. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar - 2017, September 10. As Amazon pushes forward with robots, workers find new roles. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/technology/amazon-robots-workers.html Google Scholar
-
World Health Organization. 2019. Mental health in the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/mental_health/in_the_workplace/en Google Scholar - 2002. Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 956–970.Link , Google Scholar
- 2005. A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcomes. Design Studies, 26: 649–669. Google Scholar
- 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
- 2012. Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23: 1398–1408. Google Scholar
- 2019. Digital organizing for social impact: Current insights and future research avenues on collective action, social movements, and digital technologies. Information and Organization, 29. Published online ahead of print. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100257 Google Scholar
- 2020, January 3. Are you pushing yourself too hard at work? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2020/01/are-you-pushing-yourself-too-hard-at-work Google Scholar
