DOI: 10.3303/CET25116016 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paper Received: 5 November 2024; Revised: 20 January 2025; Accepted: 3 May 2025 
Please cite this article as: Rannene Y., Olivier-Maget N., Lim S., Bouty I., Adrot A., 2025, When Plans Meet Reality: the Tangle of 
Improvisation and Planning in Crisis Situations, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 116, 91-96  DOI:10.3303/CET25116016 
  

 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS  
 

VOL. 116, 2025 

A publication of 

 

The Italian Association 

of Chemical Engineering 

Online at www.cetjournal.it 

Guest Editors: Bruno Fabiano, Valerio Cozzani 

Copyright © 2025, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. 

ISBN 979-12-81206-18-2; ISSN 2283-9216 

When Plans Meet Reality: the Tangle of Improvisation and 

Planning in Crisis Situations  

Yassmine Rannenea*, Nelly Olivier-Magetb, Samantha Limc, Isabelle Boutya, Anouck 

Adrota 

aUniversité Paris-Dauphine, Université PSL, CNRS, DRM, M-LAB, 75016 PARIS 
bLaboratoire de Génie Chimique, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INPT, UPS, Toulouse, France 
c INERIS, France  

 yassmine.rannene@dauphine.eu 

Planning is crucial in crisis preparedness. Yet well-prepared plans often fail to provide an adequate response 

due to the unpredictability of crises. Consequently, responses often require improvisation, shaped by 

contingencies and time constraints. However, research on risks frequently puts planning and improvisation at 

odds. In this paper, we overcome the seemingly contradictory nature of planning and improvisation and explore 

how they intertwine in complex technological emergencies.  

Although organizations develop a wide range of plans, complete prediction of crises is out of reach. That's why 

we propose that improvisation and planning are complementary to strengthen the resilience of organizations in 

crisis management. To better understand improvisation, researchers have studied it at individual, group and 

organizational levels, focusing on its characteristics and dimensions. However, gaps remain in our 

understanding of the full impact of improvisation, how it interacts with existing crisis plans, and how it unfolds 

during crises. This article aims to fill these gaps by exploring the influence of improvised actions on the execution 

of existing crisis management plans. 

1. Introduction 

In contemporary society, the propensity of failures in critical infrastructure, technological accidents, and 

pandemics has increased (Boin & Mcconnell, 2007). Furthermore, as critical infrastructures grow increasingly 

complex, compounded crises are emerging, which challenge existing procedures and plans designed to address 

these situations. While, examining the research, it becomes apparent that most studies addressing the interplay 

between "improvisation" and "plan implementation" has centred on fields like new product development 

(Moorman & Miner, 1998a), fire management (Weick, 2024), and responses to natural disasters. However, there 

is a significant gap in studies focusing on technological accidents at high-threshold Seveso sites. Investigating 

improvisation in chemical plants is particularly important, especially in the light of the risk of a "domino effect," 

where a major industrial incident could trigger a chain reaction of damages. Such accidents could endanger not 

only adjacent industrial facilities but also nearby residential communities, resulting in severe environmental 

consequences, such as soil and marine contamination. These scenarios would require the collaboration of 

various organizations, each needing to improvise to manage an unexpected and unlikely event. Rapid and 

effective coordination would be crucial to mitigate risks and minimize harm. Despite the complexity and 

potentially extensive ramifications of these situations, they remain insufficiently addressed in existing literature. 
To address this gap, this research is conducted within the ANR RESCUE project, which unites academic 

institutions, industry stakeholders, and crisis management partners to strengthen territorial and business 

resilience through the development of effective operational tools for crisis management. 

91



 

2. Planning 

Planning is a crucial element of crisis management, involving the definition of roles and allocation of resources. 

The next section discusses its role in crisis preparedness and the challenges posed by the unpredictability of 

crises. 

2.1 Planning : a key to crisis preparedness 

Organizations recognized planning as a fundamental aspect of crisis preparedness, allowing them to effectively 

tackle unforeseen challenges. In their planning processes, they rely on projections and predictions to create 

multiple scenarios that aim to prevent or reduce the likelihood of disastrous occurrences (Cordova-Pozo & 

Rouwette, 2023). They analyze the occurrence rates of events, generate possible scenarios, and explore human 

behaviour to understand how socio-physical systems respond to perturbations (Cook & Lourdes Melo Zurita, 

2016). Through this planning process, organizations create detailed plans that outline specific actions and 

strategies to effectively deal with potential crises (Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2003). These plans may take the form 

of community plans, contingency plans, and household emergency plans (Cook & Lourdes Melo Zurita, 2016). 

Whether from a theoretical or practical standpoint, it is evident that planning is crucial; the absence of 

planning opens the door to chaos, confusion, uncertainty, and ineffective crisis handling. 

2.2 Confronting uncertainty: the planning dilemma  

The planning dilemma in crisis management highlights an inherent contradiction: “ planning is such an important 

activity that plans must be written for situations in which the event will almost certainly differ from what is 

anticipated” (Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2003). This contradiction becomes particularly evident when we reflect on 

the question posed by Boin and McConnell (2007): How can we plan for a phenomenon that, by its very nature, 

defies the predictable patterns that planners usually depend on? (Boin & Mcconnell, 2007). Many crises such 

as natural crises, technological failures, and public health emergencies, manifest unpredictably, challenging the 

efficacy of traditional planning approaches. As a result, even a well-thought-out plan can falter when faced with 

a quickly unfolding crisis that presents uncertain implications (Eriksson & McConnell, 2011). In situations of high 

uncertainty, plans and planning are often viewed as rhetorical and symbolic (Cook & Lourdes Melo Zurita, 2016). 

They serve only as navigational instruments in these contexts, contributing to the process of dealing with 

uncontrollable events (Cook & Lourdes Melo Zurita, 2016). Consequently, significant aspects of crisis responses 

need to be improvised, based on immediate circumstances and time constraints (McConnell & Drennan, 2006). 

3. From planning to action: the role of improvisation in crisis response 

This section examines improvisation in crisis response by defining the concept, analyzing its relationship with 

planning, exploring its contribution to resilience, and considering its integration into plan-driven sectors. 

3.1 Improvisation: what it means 

From firefighting and crisis management to studies on error prevention in Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical 

Operations (Cowley et al., 2021), accidents such as Fukushima Disaster (Guarnieri, 2017), sociology, and 

anthropology, improvisation is considered as an essential practice across disciplines (Moorman & Miner, 

1998a). Each field offers its own perspective on improvisation, yet they collectively emphasize that it is “the 

deliberate fusion of the design and execution of a novel production” (Miner et al., 2001). In other words, this 

form of action happens when organizations design activity patterns during their execution rather than 

beforehand (Cunha et al., 2022). According to Moorman and Miner (1998a), improvisation is defined by the 

degree of overlap between planning and execution, implying that as these two elements occur closer in time, 

the activity becomes increasingly improvisational. . Researchers identify both effective and ineffective instances 

of improvisation in critical contexts (Adrot, 2023). Illustrative cases such as the Mann Gulch disaster (Weick, 

2024) highlight the value of adaptive and creative responses, whereas events like the Pedrógão Grande fire 

(Cunha et al., 2022) expose inherent limitations. These contrasting perspectives point to the need for a more 

nuanced analysis of the relationship between improvisation and formal planning. 

3.2 The interplay of improvisation and planning  

Improvisation has been explored through two primary and distinct research streams (Cunha et al., 2022). The 

first research stream examines the crucial role of improvisation in crisis situations, where strictly adhering to 

predefined plans can be impractical, counterproductive, and even dangerous for individuals (Crossan, 1998). In 

these scenarios, defined by uncertainty, complexity, and time pressure, improvisation plays a critical role in 

tackling unforeseen challenges, where an immediate response is imperative. Nevertheless, this does not negate 

the importance of planning. In fact, research has shown that improvisation resulting from poor planning and 

92



 

insufficient crisis preparedness introduces significant risks (Cunha et al., 2022). The idea here is to consider 

improvisation not as a deviation from plans but as a valuable solution particularly in unpredictable and rapidly 

evolving environments. In other terms, while effective planning provides a necessary framework for operations, 

the importance of improvisation lies in its ability to offer flexibility and responsiveness, essential for tackling 

unexpected situations that may arise (Moorman & Miner, 1998b).The second stream of research approaches 

improvisation as a phenomenon that does not strictly manifest in critical settings, but that is inherent to 

organizational life.This perspective argues that organizations constantly deal with some level of uncertainty, 

even with established plans (Cunha et al., 2022). 

3.3 Improvisation as a key to resilience 

In the context of crisis management, improvisation refers to the ability to respond to unexpected events without 

prior preparation (Wiedner et al., 2020).This requires the integration of concurrent thought, planning, and 

action, allowing individuals to respond dynamically while utilizing available resources. This process enables 

organizations to effectively address singular events and enhances their resilience in the face of unforeseen 

challenges (Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2003). Considering resilience as the ability to quickly understand what is 

happening, both operationally and relationally, and to formulate effective responses that can be adapted as 

conditions evolve (Barton et al., 2020), it becomes clear that improvisation is a fundamental engine of resilience 

(Grøtan et al., 2008). For example, in large-scale emergencies, frontline operators rely on improvisation by 

dynamically solving problems and rearranging available resources. Their capacity to improvise and showcase 

creativity can be decisive and potentially avert disaster (Meshkati & Khashe, 2015). Scholars have demonstrated 

that systems can enhance their resilience through the creativity and initiative of their actors (Cunha et al., 2022). 
Furthermore, anticipation, attention, and response are crucial principles for resilience (Grøtan et al., 2008). 

Improvisation aligns with these principles when understood as a means of confronting uncertainty, integrating 

doubt into on-the-spot attempts to create order. Consequently, this leads to a continuous process of balancing 

confidence with caution, knowledge with doubt, and wariness with understanding (Weick, 2024). This process 

of balancing is basically applied wisdom (Weick, 2024). 

3.4 Improvisation: can it fit into sectors that embrace plans and procedures? 

Improvisation represents a contentious issue in sectors that emphasize strict rule adherence, such as in the 

context of process safety incidents (Cowley et al., 2021). These sectors stress the importance of planning, 

arguing that improvisation can lead to chaos due to a lack of structure and loss of control (Flach, 2014). In these 

fields, the dominant belief that better planning leads to more effective crisis management might explain why 

'improvisation' is not a term commonly found in the literature. However, recent studies, such as those by 

Ghasemi et al. (2024), show that developing an effective Incident Action Plan (IAP) has become more 

challenging, as emergencies are increasingly unique and unpredictable. They highlight the role of improvisation 

in managing crises, asserting that organizations should work to enhance their improvisational capacities. On 

industrial sites, an uncontrolled fire, chemical leak, or technical failure can lead to dangerous situations and 

even crises that cause serious damage, not only to the site's infrastructure but also to the environment and 

nearby populations. In such scenarios, responses must be immediate. Improvisation can take the form of a 

decision made at the managerial level, but its details need to be worked out by the operational staff (Rankin et 

al., 2013). Another form of improvisation occurs when coordination between multiple organizations is required,  

and all actors must improvise together to navigate the extreme complexities of an emergency (Roud, 2021). 

In these complex environments, improvisation emerges as a crucial tool for handling emergencies and situations 

requiring immediate response. Therefore, it seems increasingly relevant to integrate improvisational actions into 

formal emergency training programs or emergency operations plans to help bridge the gap between emergency 

operating procedures and their real-world implementation (Ghasemi et al., 2024). 

4. Practice a relevant lens to explore improvisation and planning complementarities  

Given the difficulty in fully capturing the interaction between planning and improvisation, this section advocates 

for the use of a practice lens to better examine their complementary roles in industrial environments. 

4.1 What is practice ?  

Dissatisfaction with traditional management and organizational theories has contributed to a growing interest in 

practice-based approaches, which offer a more refined perspective for examining organizational phenomena 

and addressing existing theoretical gaps. At the core of this approach is the assertion that practices, rather than 

individual practitioners, are the primary unit of analysis (Nicolini, 2013).This shift transcends a reductionist view 

of practices as mere descriptions of actions; instead, practices are understood as dynamic, mediated forms of 

conduct, encompassing sayings and doings that both shape and are shaped by their context (Nicolini, 2009).Far 

93



 

from being isolated actions, practices serve as meaning-making, order-creating, and reality-shaping activities, 

which provide the foundation for new ways of exploring, understanding, and explaining social and organizational 

phenomena (Nicolini & Monteiro, 2016). 

4.2 Exploring practices in critical settings 

Critical infrastructures in sectors such as the chemical industry are marked by considerable complexity, 

sensitivity and interconnectivity, making them more prone to operational failure (Boin & Mcconnell, 2007). These 

failures can trigger serious emergency situations, requiring intervention at both internal and external levels of 

the organization. The study of these situations requires a more dynamic approach, focusing on the people 

involved, the materiality and the interconnections between these elements. This is where the practice-based 

approach comes into its own. Practice theorists argue that understanding and re-presenting practice requires 

an appreciation of the interconnectedness of practices, recognizing that activities never occur in isolation and 

are always embedded in a dense network of interconnections (Nicolini, 2009). According to this perspective, 

practices are always materially mediated and take place through and in the midst of a variety of artifacts and 

objects (Nicolini, 2007). This approach, which sees practices as inseparable from materiality, offers a new, 

dynamic analytical framework for understanding complex, dynamic situations. 

4.3 Exploring improvisation and planning through practices 

Understanding the interplay between plan implementation and improvisation remains a challenge, as the current 

state of knowledge does not fully capture this interaction. To remedy this, the practice-based approach proposes 

rethinking organizational concepts as part of a complex network of socio-material activities and their effects 

(Nicolini, 2009). Theorists of this approach argue that organizational phenomena, such as improvisation and 

planning, emerge from and are shaped by a network of interconnected practices (Nicolini, 2009), where 

organizational boundaries become blurred and everything depends on the sequence of daily practices (Nicolini, 

2013).By adopting this approach, we can better understand the complexity of the interaction between these two 

concepts, which encourages us to look beyond the moment when the organization improvises and consider the 

upstream phases as well. The aim is to build a representation of the relationship between the improvised and 

planned components of responses, while determining when improvisation begins and ends. 

5. A research agenda to explore the practical side of planning and improvisation 

The previous section introduced the practice-based approach as a valuable framework for exploring the 

relationship between improvisation and planning, though it remains underutilized in current literature. Significant 

gaps persist regarding the practical aspects of improvisation and its connection to planning. This article 

proposes three research avenues to advance the practical understanding of their interaction. 

5.1 The need for enxtended scope of investigation: going beyond response to preparation 

In contexts of high uncertainty and imminent threats, the literature consistently highlights the complementary 

nature of improvisation and planning. Planning provides a structured framework, while improvisation enables 

rapid, creative adaptation to formulate an appropriate response and build resilience. This complementarity has 

been widely studied in the response phase. For example, (Milagres et al., 2024) point out that organizational 

actors demonstrate a great capacity to improvise and make sense of their actions in the moment. However, the 

resources and practices do organizations cultivate prior to a crisis can influence the integration of improvisation 

and planning during the emergency. Studying their interaction through integrative mapping could provide a 

better understanding of how these seemingly opposing elements interact to foster organizational resilience in 

industrial crises.  

5.2 The need for a more in-depth investigation: exploring the integration of improvisation in plans 

Several studies highlight different approaches to designing flexible plans and procedures, emphasizing the 

integration of both planning and improvisation. Additionally, research has explored how improvisation can be 

incorporated into plan development (Nesse et al., 2024), advocating for less top-down and bureaucratic 

structures. However, how improvisation is actually integrated into crisis response plans remains poorly 

understood. This gap leads us to ask the following questions: What is the formal integration of improvisation into 

industrial crisis response plans? To what extent can improvisation be explicitly mentioned in crisis 

preparedness? And what is the level of acceptance of improvisation within organizations and among their 

members? Furthermore, from a practical perspective, the limited understanding of how individuals responsible 

for planning systematically integrate improvisational practices into their processes highlights the need for further 

research in this area. 

94



 

5.3 The need to go beyond complementarity: Discovering the boundaries of improvisation 

Recent research suggests that prior knowledge of tasks and objectives enables managers and staff to engage 

in improvisation (Oscarsson & Danielsson, 2018). This underlines the importance of plans as tools that guide 

individuals in improvisation. However, the literature lacks clarity regarding the distinction between planned and 

improvised actions. Determining when improvisation begins and ends remains ambiguous, and understanding 

how actors operate beyond predefined plans while maintaining alignment with organizational goals presents an 

ongoing challenge. To address this gap, we pose the following questions: What are the boundaries of 

improvisation? How can limits be established to ensure that organizational members remain attentive to 

predefined plans? Investigating these questions will contribute to a deeper understanding of improvisation in 

crisis management, demonstrating how it can not only complement but also enhance the overall effectiveness 

of response efforts and strengthen organizational resilience.  

5.4 Contributions  

The contribution of this research is twofold, encompassing both theoretical and practical dimensions.  

From a theoretical point of view, it improves our understanding of the interconnection between improvisation 

and planning in the context of industrial risk management. It offers new insights into how these two elements, 

often seen as opposites, can complement each other to strengthen organizational resilience, while shedding 

light on the mechanisms by which organizations adapt to unforeseen events. From a practical point of view, this 

research contributes to the development of new training programs that highlight the central role of improvisation 

in crisis management. These programs will enable organizations to prepare more effectively for emergencies 

by integrating improvisation into their response strategies, giving them the tools to react more flexibly and 

efficiently when pre-established plans become unworkable. 

6. Conclusions 

This study addresses the importance of improvisation in crisis management, particularly when real-time 

responses are required. It aims to examine the impact of improvised actions on the execution of existing crisis 

management plans. The literature review reveals a dichotomy: while many scholars contend that improvisation 

and planning are at odds, others argue that improvisation plays a significant role in bridging the gap between 

pre-established plans and the realities of a crisis. In this paper, we propose that planning and improvisation are 

two complementary activities that cannot be studied separately. Furthermore, we argue that by combining 

improvisation and planning, organizations can enhance their resilience. In other words, the integration of these 

two activities can be considered a catalyst for improving organizational resilience and effectiveness. Finally, we 

propose three potential avenues of research aimed at deepening our understanding of the interplay between 

planning and improvisation. By exploring these research directions, we seek to provide new insights into how 

organizations can effectively integrate both elements to navigate crises more efficiently. 

Acknowledgments  

I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who contributed to this research. This thesis is part of the 

RESCUE project, which is funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). 

References 

Adrot, A. (2023). ‘Not Too Good to be True’ : A Proposal to Further Benefit from Emergence in Management 

Research. M@n@gement, 85‑94. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2023.9390 

Barton, M. A., Christianson, M., Myers, C. G., & Sutcliffe, K. (2020). Resilience in action : Leading for resilience 

in response to COVID-19. BMJ Leader, 4(3), 117‑119. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-00026 

Boin, A., & Mcconnell, A. (2007). Preparing for Critical Infrastructure Breakdowns : The Limits of Crisis 

Management and the Need for Resilience. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15, 50‑59. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2007.00504.x 

Cook, B. R., & Lourdes Melo Zurita, M. D. (2016). Planning to learn : An insurgency for disaster risk reduction 

(DRR). International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19, 265‑272. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.022 

Cordova-Pozo, K., & Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2023). Types of scenario planning and their effectiveness : A review 

of reviews. Futures, 149, 103153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103153 

Cowley, C., Denyer, D., Kutsch, E., & Turnbull James, K. (2021). Constructing Safety : Reconciling Error 

Prevention and Error Management in Oil and Gas and Petrochemical Operations. Academy of Management 

Discoveries, 7(4), 554‑580. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0190 

95



 

Crossan, M. M. (1998). Improvisation in Action. Organization Science, 9(5), 593‑599. 

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.593 

Cunha, M. P., Clegg, S., Rego, A., Giustiniano, L., Abrantes, A. C. M., Miner, A. S., & Simpson, A. V. (2022). 

Myopia during emergency improvisation : Lessons from a catastrophic wildfire. Management Decision, 60(7), 

2019‑2041. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2021-0378 

Cunha, M. P. E. (2005). Bricolage in Organizations. SSRN Electronic Journal. 

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.882784 

Cunha, M. P. E., Gomes, E., Kamoche, K., Mair, J., Miner, A., & Tarba, S. (2022). Improvisation, strategy, and 

strategic improvisation in emerging markets. European Management Review, 19(3), 349‑356. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12543 

Eriksson, K., & McConnell, A. (2011). Contingency planning for crisis management : Recipe for success or 

political fantasy? Policy and Society, 30(2), 89‑99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2011.03.004 

Flach, L. (2014). Use or Abuse of Improvisation in Organizations? Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(4), 

374‑385. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12087 

Ghasemi, F., Kalatpour, O., Salehi, V., & Omidi, L. (2024). Why are emergency responses ineffective and 

inefficient? Lessons learnt from past events. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 90, 

105335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2024.105335 

Grøtan, T. O., Størseth, F., Rø, M. H., & Skjerve, A. B. (2008). Resilience, Adaptation and Improvisation. 

Guarnieri, F. (2017). The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident : Entering into Resilience Faced with an Extreme 

Situation. In J. Ahn, F. Guarnieri, & K. Furuta (Éds.), Resilience : A New Paradigm of Nuclear Safety (p. 

1‑17). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58768-4_1 

Kendra, J., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Creativity in Emergency Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. 

McConnell, A., & Drennan, L. (2006). Mission Impossible? Planning and Preparing for Crisis1. Journal of 

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(2), 59‑70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2006.00482.x 

Meshkati, N., & Khashe, Y. (2015). Operators’ Improvisation in Complex Technological Systems : Successfully 

Tackling Ambiguity, Enhancing Resiliency and the Last Resort to Averting Disaster. Journal of Contingencies 

and Crisis Management, 23(2), 90‑96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12078 

Milagres, R., Bernardes, M. E. B., & de Carvalho, R. B. (2024). Sense and Action : Organizational Reactions in 

Extreme Crisis: A Survey With Brazilian Executives. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 

32(4), e70010. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.70010 

Miner, A. S., Bassof, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational Improvisation and Learning : A Field Study. 

Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304‑337. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667089 

Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998a). Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory. The Academy 

of Management Review, 698‑723. 

Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998b). The Convergence of Planning and Execution : Improvisation in New 

Product Development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 1‑20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251740 

Nesse, S., Schei, V., & Mitroff, I. (2024). Collective response capacity : Developing crisis leadership in 

organisations. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32(3), e12612. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12612 

Nicolini, D. (2007). Stretching out and expanding work practices in time and space : The case of telemedicine. 

Human Relations, 60(6), 889‑920. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707080080 

Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming In and Out : Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical Lenses and Trailing 

Connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391‑1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875 

Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization : An Introduction (First Edition). Oxford University 

Press. 

Nicolini, D., & Monteiro, P. (2016). The Practice Approach : For a Praxeology of Organisational and Management 

Studies. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas, The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies (p. 110‑126). 

SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957954.n7 

Oscarsson, O., & Danielsson, E. (2018). Unrecognized crisis management—Normalizing everyday work. 

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(2), 225‑236. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12176 

Rankin, A., Dahlbäck, N., & Lundberg, J. (2013). A case study of factor influencing role improvisation in crisis 

response teams. Cognition, Technology & Work, 15(1), 79‑93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0186 

Roud, E. (2021). Collective improvisation in emergency response. Safety Science, 135, 105104.  

Weick, K. E. (2024). Mann Gulch Revisited : Improvisation as a Surface of Apprehension. Academy of 

Management Discoveries, 10(1), 7‑10. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2024.0006 

Wiedner, R., Croft, C., & McGivern, G. (2020). Improvisation during a crisis : Hidden innovation in healthcare 

systems. BMJ Leader, 4(4), 185‑188. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000259 

 

96


	71rannene.pdf
	When Plans Meet Reality: the Tangle of Improvisation and Planning in Crisis Situations