Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 155–190 | Cite as

Reconsidering replication: New perspectives on large-scale school improvement

  • Donald J. Peurach
  • Joshua L. Glazer
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis is to reconsider organizational replication as a strategy for large-scale school improvement: a strategy that features a “hub” organization collaborating with “outlet” schools to enact school-wide designs for improvement. To do so, we synthesize a leading line of research on commercial replication to construct a “knowledge-based logic” focused on the production, use, improvement, and retention of effective practices in large numbers of schools. Drawing on findings from a longitudinal case study, we then use the knowledge-based logic to structure an interpretation of Success for All, a leading comprehensive school reform program. In contrast to common assumptions of organizational replication as a strategy that yields rapid results at the expense of local and professional control, we argue that organizational replication can be understood as a long-term enterprise in which program providers and schools collaborate to produce, use, improve, and retain practical knowledge. Capitalizing on this potential, however, is contingent on both proponents and critics re-examining common assumptions about organizational replication and recognizing value in replication enterprises that they would otherwise miss.

Keywords

Best practice Educational reform Innovation Knowledge production Organizational learning Replication Scale School turnaround Sustainability 

Abbreviations

iNet

International networking for educational transformation

i3

Investing in Innovation Fund

SFAF

Success for All Foundation

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research reported here was conducted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education as part of the Study of Instructional Improvement (SII). The authors gratefully acknowledge funding received from the Atlantic Philanthropies, USA; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; the U.S. Department of Education (R308A6003); and the National Science Foundation (9979863).

References

  1. Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, J. D., Halbreich, R., Kozolvsky, J. D., Morgan, R. D., Payton, F. R., & Rolewski, M. T. (1999). Quality leadership for SFA schools: Suggestions for school leaders. Towson, MD: Success for All Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Argote, L., & Darr, E. (2001). Repositories of knowledge in franchise organizations: Individual, structural, and technological. In G. Dosi, R. R. Nelson, & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities (pp. 51–68). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–625). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  6. Bates, T. (1994). Firms started as franchises have lower survival rates than independent small business start-ups. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, Working Papers 94–3.Google Scholar
  7. Baylor International Pediatric AIDS Initiative. (2010). BIPAI children’s clinical centers of excellence network. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://bayloraids.org/programs/.
  8. Bazzoli, G. J., Shortell, S. M., Dubbs, N., Chan, C., & Kralovec, P. (1999). A taxonomy of health networks and systems: Bringing order out of chaos. Health Services Research, 33(6), 1683–1717.Google Scholar
  9. Berends, M., Bodilly, S. J., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  10. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change (Vol. 4): The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  11. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change (Vol. 8). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  12. Blau, P. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bodilly, S. J. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation’s demonstration phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  14. Borman, G. D. (2009). The past, present, and future of comprehensive school reform. Washington, DC: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, Learning Point Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bradach, J. L. (1998). Franchise organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bradach, J. L. (2003). Going to scale: The challenge of replicating social programs. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2003, 19–25.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90–111.Google Scholar
  19. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2010). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  20. Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. T. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on Education Outcomes.Google Scholar
  23. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, D. K. (1985). Origins. In A. G. Powell, E. Farrar, & D. K. Cohen (Eds.), The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace (pp. 223–308). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen, D. K., Gates, K., Glazer, J. L., Goldin, S., & Peurach, D. J. (in press). Improvement by design. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Correnti, R. (2007). An empirical investigation of professional development effects on literacy instruction using daily logs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 262–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Daly, A. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  29. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of whole-school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357–374.Google Scholar
  30. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799.Google Scholar
  31. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Towards the co-construction of educational policy: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In D. Plank, B. Schneider, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Dillon, M. (2010). An introduction to sociological theory. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2001). Introduction: The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. In G. Dosi, R. R. Nelson, & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities (pp. 51–68). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Duncan, A. (2009). Turning around the bottom five percent: Secretary Arne Duncan’s Remarks at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Conference. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/print/news/speeches/2009/06/06222009.htm.
  36. Education Sector. (2009). Growing pains: Scaling up the nation’s best charter schools. Washington, DC: Education Sector.Google Scholar
  37. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  39. Farrell, C., Nayfack, M. B., Smith, J., Wohlstetter, P., & Wong, A. (2009). Scaling up charter management organizations: Eight key lessons for success. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Finn, C. E., Jr. (2001). Foreword. In J. Mirel (Ed.), The evolution of New American Schools: From revolution to mainstream. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.Google Scholar
  42. Firestone, W. A., & Corbett, H. D. (1988). Planned organizational change. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 321–340). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  43. Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gates Foundation. (2010). Nine cities commit to new partnerships between local school districts and public charter schools. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/new-charter-school-partnerships-101207.aspx.
  45. Glazer, J. L. (2009). How external interveners leverage large-scale change: The case of America’s Choice, 1998–2003. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. P. (in press). School improvement networks as a strategy for large-scale improvement: The role of environments. Education Policy.Google Scholar
  47. Glennan, T. K., Jr., Bodilly, S. J., Galegher, J. R., & Kerr, K. A. (2004). Summary: Toward a more systematic approach to expanding the reach of educational interventions. In T. K. Glennan Jr., S. J. Bodilly, J. R. Galegher, & K. A. Kerr (Eds.), Expanding the reach of educational reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions (pp. 647–685). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  48. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Winter Issue), 109–122.Google Scholar
  49. Guthrie, J. W. (1989). Regional educational laboratories: History and prospect. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Development.Google Scholar
  50. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  51. Hatch, T. (2000). What does it take to break the mold? Rhetoric and reality in New American Schools. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 561–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hatch, T., & White, N. (2002). The raw materials of reform: Rethinking the knowledge of school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hedrick, G. (2000). A veteran teacher looks at “Success for All”–SFA. Retrieved June 15, 2009 from http://teachers.net/gazette/NOV00/hedrick.html.
  54. Holmberg, S. R., & Morgan, K. B. (2003). Franchise turnover and failure: New research and perspectives. Journal of Business Venture, 18, 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.Google Scholar
  56. iNet. (2011). About us. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://www.ssat-inet.net/en-gb/aboutus/Pages/about_us.aspx.
  57. Kaufmann, D. I. (2004). The big bang: How franchising became an economic powerhouse the world over—the Franchise 500. Entrepreneur, January 2004, 86–101.Google Scholar
  58. Klugh, E. L., & Borman, K. M. (2006). Comprehensive school reform vs. No Child Left Behind. In D. K. Aladjem & K. M. Borman (Eds.), Examining comprehensive school reform (pp. 143–178). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  59. Lake, R. (2007). Identifying and replicating the “DNA” of successful charter schools. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education.Google Scholar
  60. Lake, R., Dusseault, B., Bowen, M., Demerit, A., & Hill, P. (2010). The national study of Charter Management Organization (CMO) effectiveness: Report on interim findings. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education.Google Scholar
  61. Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  62. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Livingston, M., Cummings, N., & Madden, N. (1996). Facilitator’s manual. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  64. March, J. G. (1996). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 101–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (Reprinted from Organization Science, 2(1), February, 1991).Google Scholar
  65. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. McDonald, J. P., Klein, E. J., & Riordan, M. (2009). Going to scale with new school designs: Reinventing high schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  67. McLaughlin, M. W., & Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper and going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2(4), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mirel, J. (2001). The evolution of New American Schools: From revolution to mainstream. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.Google Scholar
  69. Mirel, J. (2002). Unrequited promise: Tracing the evolution of New American Schools, from feisty upstart to bulwark of the education establishment. Education Next, 2(2), 64–72.Google Scholar
  70. Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). The development of comprehensive school reform. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 3–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  71. National Charter School Research Project. (2007). Quantity counts: The growth of charter school management organizations. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, National Charter School Research Project.Google Scholar
  72. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2008). Collaborative assistance in a highly prescribed whole school reform model: The case of Success for All. The Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 400–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Peurach, D. J. (2007). Large scale improvement via organizational replication: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Paper presented at the 2007 Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL: April 2007.Google Scholar
  75. Peurach, D. J. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and Success for All. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Peurach, D. J., & Glazer, J. L. (2010). Make or buy? Alternative strategies for improving chronically-underperforming schools. Paper presented at the 2010 Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, Colorado: April/May, 2010.Google Scholar
  77. Pogrow, S. (2000). The unsubstantiated “success” of Success for All. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 596–600.Google Scholar
  78. Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  79. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  80. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Barnes, C. (2004). Benefiting from comprehensive school reform: A review of research on CSR implementation. In C. Cross (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research (pp. 1–52). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.Google Scholar
  81. Rowan, B., Correnti, R. J., Miller, R. J., & Camburn, E. M. (2009a). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  82. Rowan, B., Correnti, R. J., Miller, R. J., & Camburn, E. M. (2009b). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), AERA handbook on education policy research (pp. 637–651). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation: The dark side of the All-American meal. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  85. Sherer, J. Z., & Spillane, J. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 611–657.Google Scholar
  86. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  87. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  88. Slavin, R. E., & Fashola, O. S. (1998). Show me the evidence! Proven and promising programs for America’s schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  89. Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Madden, N. A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  90. Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. A. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 84, 409–422.Google Scholar
  91. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1996). Disseminating Success for All: Lessons for policy and practice. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Education for Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  92. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). One million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  93. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Chambers, B., & Haxby, B. (2008). Two million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  94. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Datnow, A. (2007). Research in, research out: The role of research in the development and scale-up of Success for All. In S. H. Fuhrman, D. K. Cohen, & F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy research (pp. 261–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  95. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  96. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1992). Success for All: A relentless approach to prevention and early intervention in elementary schools. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Google Scholar
  97. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stevens, R., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321–351.Google Scholar
  100. Subway. (2010). Subway restaurant news. Retrieved, August 15, 2010, from http://www.subway.com/subwayroot/index.aspx.
  101. Success for All Foundation. (2002). Success for All: Leadership guide. Towson, MD: Success for All Foundation.Google Scholar
  102. Success for All Foundation. (2008). Raising the Bar. Towson, MD: Success for All Foundation.Google Scholar
  103. Szulanksi, G., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Getting it right the second time. Harvard Business Review, 80(3), 62–69.Google Scholar
  104. Szulanski, G., Winter, S. G., Cappetta, R., & Van den Bulte, C. (2002). Opening the black box of knowledge transfer: The role of replication accuracy. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Business.Google Scholar
  105. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  107. U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Tried and true: Tested ideas for teaching and learning from the Regional Educational Laboratories, September, 1997. Retrieved August 20, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/triedandtrue/success.html.
  108. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Statement by Richard W. Riley, Secretary, before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Budget, on fixing our schools from the bottom up: State, local, and private reform initiatives. Retrieved on June 30, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/09-1999/990923.html.
  109. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Guidance on school improvement grants. Retrieved 01/07/2011 from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/guidance-20091218.doc.
  110. U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). All winning i3 applicants secure private match. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/all-winning-i3-applicants-secure-private-match.
  111. U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Education Secretary Arne Duncan announces twelve grants for $50 million to charter school management organizations. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-secretary-arne-duncan-announces-twelve-grants-50-million-charter-schoo.
  112. U.S. Department of Education. (2010c). Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) program: Guidance and frequently asked questions. Retrieved 01/13/2011 from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faqs.pdf.
  113. U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Scale up and evaluation of Success for All in struggling elementary schools. Retrieved 02/09/2011 from http://data.ed.gov/grants/investing-in-innovation/applicant/14357.
  114. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academic of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.Google Scholar
  116. Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Winter, S. G. (2010). The replication perspective on productive knowledge. In H. Itami, K. Kusunoki, T. Numagami, & A. Takeishi (Eds.), Dynamics of knowledge, corporate systems, and innovation (pp. 85–124). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  119. Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6), 730–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2002). Replication of organizational routines: Conceptualizing the exploitation of knowledge assets. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 207–222). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.The Rothschild FoundationJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options