@article{BuechnerDosdall2021,
  author    = {B{\"u}chner, Stefanie and Dosdall, Henrik},
  title     = {Organisation und Algorithmus},
  series = {K{\"o}lner Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie : KZfSS},
  volume    = {73},
  journal   = {K{\"o}lner Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie : KZfSS},
  number    = {Suppl. 1},
  publisher = {Springer VS},
  address   = {Wiesbaden},
  issn      = {0023-2653},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11577-021-00752-0},
  pages     = {333 -- 357},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {This article analyzes how organizations endow algorithms, which we understand as digital formats of observation, with agency, thus rendering them actionable. Our main argument is that the relevance of digital observation formats results from how organizations embed them in their decision architectures. We demonstrate this using the example of the Austrian Public Employment Service (AMS), which introduced an algorithm in 2018 to evaluate the chances of unemployed persons being reintegrated in the labor market. In this regard, the AMS algorithm serves as an exemplary case for the current trend among public organizations to harness algorithms for distributing limited resources in a purportedly more efficient way. To reconstruct how this is achieved, we delineate how the AMS algorithm categorizes, compares, and evaluates persons. Building on this, we demonstrate how the algorithmic model is integrated into the organizational decision architecture and thereby made actionable. In conclusion, algorithmic models like the AMS algorithm also pose a challenge for organizations because they mute chances for realizing organizational learning. We substantiate this argument with regard to the role of coproduction and the absence of clear causality in the field of (re)integrating unemployed persons in the labor market.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Wenzel2016,
  author    = {Wenzel, Bertolt},
  title     = {Organizing coordination in a public marine research and management advice organization: The case of the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research},
  series = {Marine policy},
  volume    = {64},
  journal   = {Marine policy},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0308-597X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.017},
  pages     = {159 -- 167},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Public organizations involved in marine management are increasingly confronted with coordination challenges in marine governance. This study examines why and how the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR) reorganized its formal coordination structures between the areas of fisheries management and marine environmental management The findings indicate that organizing efficient and, at the same time, legitimate coordination structures between different areas of marine governance is a "wicked" organizational problem with no ultimate and single optimal solution. In contrast to the assumptions of classical organization and management theory, the study finds that the reorganization of formal coordination structures is not necessarily driven for reasons of efficiency and perceived coordination problems. Instead, public marine management organizations also change their organizational structures to live up to external expectations to adopt modern management concepts, such as the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). However, the study indicates that the adoption of the EAM has stimulated coordination and integration efforts in the research and advisory activities of the IMR. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Wenzel2016,
  author    = {Wenzel, Bertolt},
  title     = {Organizing coordination in fisheries and marine environmental management: Patterns of organizational change in Europe},
  series = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America},
  volume    = {134},
  journal   = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0964-5691},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.10.012},
  pages     = {194 -- 206},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Over the past decade, an increasing number of public organizations involved in marine governance in Europe have adapted their formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management. This study examines why the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), DG FISH of the European Commission, the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR), and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) have changed their sectoral structures into organizations with a geographical focus on marine ecosystems. The study finds that the gradual convergence of formal coordination structures for fisheries and marine environmental management is driven by coercive, normative and mimetic processes of isomorphism. The structural changes reflect an organizational adaptation to a changing institutional environment and an Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) focusing on regional marine areas, cross-sector integration and coordination. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}