Marlot Kuiper

270 Connective Routines understandings, the more this unified abstract patterned moved away from ‘checking’ into ‘informal coordination’. While shared understandings are often depicted as a requisite for routine performances, this study shows that in case of a checking routine, shared understanding might ultimately hamper the routine. Routine interactions From a dominant focus on routine dynamics, scholarly interest seems to shift to routine interactions. Recent studies have illustrated how interacting routines can be complementary (Danner-Schröder & Geiger, 2016; Spee et al., 2016b). Spee Jarzabkowski and Smets (2016) for instance observed how professionals capably acknowledged pressures from intersecting routines, oriented toward one ostensive pattern and then reoriented the performance of the routine. The empirics of this dissertation however mostly pointed towards conflicting routines and unravelled the strategies professionals developed to cope with conflicting routine demands. This study and herewith answers to D’Adderio’s call to study “the micro-level dynamics by which goals confront one another” (D’Adderio, 2014, p. 1348). In this study, conflicts not so much presented in the goals of routines, but rather in their demands regarding timing. The multiplicity of routine demands make prioritization difficult, especially since these routines often require action ‘at the same time’. It shows that there are no fixed routines for prioritization. Professionals have to be responsive. This is also where ‘games’ for prioritization occur, for example concerning the social construction of emergency. With intersecting routines also come intersecting responsibilities. The matter of responsibility became a more vital and complex issue throughout the chapters. In the literature, routines are claimed to reduce conflict about how work gets done and who has responsibility for what (Cohen & Bacdayan, 1996; Feldman, 2000; Feldman & Pentland, 2003). In practice, although routines indeed aim to do so, it is not always clear or shared where responsibilities lay. First of all, throughout the chapters, the observation notes demonstrate that different individuals (take the lead in) perform(ing) the routine. Sometimes it is the anaesthesiologist, sometimes the surgeon, and sometimes the surgeon in training. It remained rather unclear who is responsible for the performance and/or registration of the checklist. An widely shared understanding was that the responsibility for the patient lays with the surgeon, often referred to as “my