The role of experimentation and reflection in changing organizational routines: via Learning Communities

To keep up with the energy transition, the installation sector is required to adopt innovative solutions, leading to significant changes in the work practices of installation professionals (Van Rees et al., 2020). In this study we focus on the learning process during Learning Communities (LCs), wherein learning, working, and innovating is smartly combined around such an innovation. We examine LCs through the lens of organizational routines because it gives insight into standard ways of doing things and how, if at all, these change in response to the LC (Wolthuis et al., 2021; Spillane, 2012). The experiential learning process within the LC gives rise to a learning cycle going back and forth between reflection (during ten weekly meetings) and action (in-between meetings) (Schön, 1983; Kolb, 1984), which is expected to reconstruct professionals’ understanding of the routine under investigation and, in turn, their performances (Fiol & O’Connor, 2017). We aim to further identify enablers in the experiential learning process of LCs for intentional routine change.
To do so, a qualitative case study was conducted in two installation companies, each hosting its own LC. One consisted of ten professionals, including financial-, managing-, planning-, and engineering roles, whereas the other included seven professionals, including planning-, engineering-, and maintenance roles. Both LCs were focused on redesigning their project management routine by integrating the innovative Building Information Modeling (BIM) system. All ten meetings were recorded on video, and all members of the LC were interviewed before and after the LC. Existing coding schemes were integrated with each other (Hubers et al., 2017) to code reflective practice (Schön, 1983) and organizational routines (Feldman & Pentland, 2003), and applied to both the interviews and the transcripted meetings. The interrater reliability of the scheme was satisfactory.
Findings show that LC X mostly spends its time reflecting on their problems with the current routine and articulating the potential impact of a future BIM project management routine. Case Y also starts off reflecting on their problems, but also commences problem solving by experimenting with BIM solutions. During the last meeting, these experiments are evaluated by their managers and more experiments
are identified. Additionally, we find that LC X invoked a change in professionals’ understanding of the project management routine, whereas LC Y invoked a change in both professionals’ understanding and performances. Previous research started to point out that combining action and reflection can help to reorient the understandings and performances of organizational routines (e.g. Feldman et al., 2016; Dittrich et al., 2016). The present study deepens those insights by showing how such combinations can take place and what effect that can have on the LC outcome. This can help enhance the effectiveness of the design of LCs. Additionally, our insights and recommendations can support professionals in changing work practices bottom-up, which is crucial considering the innovations that keep following up and continue to demand organizational change.