Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory

We define organizational improvisation as the degree to which the composition and execution of an action converge in time, and we examine the theoretical potential of this definition.We then propose that both organizational procedural memory (skill knowledge) and declarative memory (fact knowledge) moderate improvisation's impact on organizational outcomes in distinct ways.We also suggest that improvisation influences organizational memory by (1) generating experiments and (2) permitting the development of higher-level competency in improvisation.Contemporary technological changes related to the nature of organizational memory intensify the salience of these issues.Observers long have noted the presence and promise of improvisation in the arts, teaching, therapy, and athletics.For example, one can find detailed data on differences between improvisational performance by expert and novice mathematics teachers (Borko Gardner Weick, 1979Weick, , 1987 Weick, , 1993a Weick, ,b,c, 1996)).Researchers have also observed, however, that fruitful improvisation may require important resources and skills (Crossan Eisenhardt Hatch, 1997b; Weick, 1993b,c).In this article we draw on work from several disciplines to generate specific propositions about how organizational memory will influence improvisation's impact.We argue that two different types of organizational memory-( 1) procedural (skill memory) and ( 2) declarative (fact memory)-moderate the impact of organizational improvisation in different ways.In particular, we suggest these memory types enhance different organizational outcomes and can compensate for each other's drawbacks.We also formalize the insight that improvisation, in turn, affects organizational memory and represents an identifiable organizational competency (Eisenhardt Weick, 1993b).To support these testable propositions, we draw on prior work to define improvisation as the degree to which composition and execution converge in time.Therefore, the more proximate the design and implementation of an activity in time, the more that activity is improvisational.This view of improvisation is primarily temporal, with a focus on the degree of simultaneity of composition and implementation.It is consistent with prior work (Crossan Weick, 1993a) but focuses on one key dimension: the temporal order of two specific activities.This enhances theory development by encouraging distinctions between the improvisation process itself and important potential correlates or outcomes, such as intuition, adaptation, innovation, and learning.