【正文】 construction of something new in which it can be difficult to discern any regular pattern 1 [20]. . From evolutionary theory to coevolution The evolutionary theory was developed in the theory of organizations based on a biological metaphor. A basic evolutionary model of an organisation envisions it as a collection of routines or stable bundles of activities. With time, variation occurs within these routines with the result that any given set of routines evolves, whether intentionally or not. A certain number of new routines are then adopted as temporarily permanent practices. This simple variation–selection–retention repeats continuously [21, p. 76]. Evolutionary theories are made up of two major groups: contingency theories and social theories. Contingency theories consider technological change as an exogenous phenomenon which triggers organisational evolution [8,22]. This deterministic approach makes structural 4 arrangements predictable from variables such as plexity, uncertainty and interdependency, which can be integrated into a single dimension – the ability to treat information [23]. Social theories view organisations as technological social constructions in which the munity of organisations determines the nature of technological evolution [22]. In this approach, organisational structures are seen as processes in action which are continuously built and rebuilt [23]. Scott argues that these approaches are two sides of the same coin [23]. On the one hand, technology can be considered the causal agent which shapes the structure of organisations。 while on the other hand, to reverse this causal effect, organisations influence the innovation process with either the creation of a new technology or its early adoption [23]. This plementarity is recognized in the coevolution theory in which technological innovations are believed to give the impetus that initiates new cycles of variation–selection–retention and in which a dynamic process of evolution with innovation constantly feeds organisation [22,24]. Massini et al. [19] confirm that evolutionary theory is capable of explaining changes in organisational structures and routines. They conclude that organisational adaptation is a consequence of changes related to the adoption of technological innovations. Looking at large Western and Japanese firms at two different periods in time (1992, 1996), their research confirms both the progressive adaptation over time and the tendency to adopt organisational routines associated with a higher capacity for flexibility. This also confirms the selection and emergence of dominant routines suggested by the evolutionary theory. They also confirm that these changes are contextdependant: the institutional context in which organisations are embedded defines patterns of organisational structures and strategies. . Coevolution In biology, coevolution is defined as evolution involving successive changes in two or more ecologically interdependent species (as of a plant and its pollinators) that affect their interactions. (MerriamWebster, 11th Collegiate Dictionary) The relation could be of a predatorprey nature or of a symbiotic nature. Coevolution is also used in a narrower context when it refers to a specific form of relation (inside or outside of a pany) adopted for short term results. Eisenhardt and Galunic [25] refer to coevolution (of a symbiotic nature) when they argue that multibusiness corporations are coevolving ecosystems. From that viewpoint, 5 collaboration occurs only when it gives a positive performance result in terms of growth, shares and profits. Coevolution helps us understand the evolution of plex systems. At a macrolevel2, Rosenkopf and Tushman [22] propose a framework to examine various stages of coevolution of organisational and technological forms. These authors argue that there are two different interlinked processes – the evolution of munity organization and the evolution of technology within one cycle of variation–selection–retention. Organisations are part of their munity and they contribute to the evolutionary process of munity organisation which simultaneously drives and is driven by cyclical technological progress through eras of ferment followed by eras of incremental change. At a micro level, there are numerous technological (variation) events, rulemaking (selection) events, and institutional rulefollowing (retention) events that occurred and coevolved over time to facilitate and to constrain the development and mercialization of an innovation. Van de Ven and Garud [24] analyzed the case of cochlear implant development within this perspective. They scrutinized this innovation for a period of 35 years to identify events and found that they can be grouped in three time periods: initiation, expansion and stabilization. The initiation period was marked by technological events originating in basic research, while both rulemaking and rulefollowing events were important in the expansion period. Not surprisingly, during the stabilization period, rulefollowing events were dominant. It is also worthwhile noting that the evolutionary theory suggests a progression towards some more evolved state. Evolution provides regularity and a certain form of predictability. In plexity theory, this could be associated with random time series of longitudinal data in which there is no pattern such as life cycle, but rather a tendency to ‘‘follow itself”, to repeat a movement towards the same direction, for example. This randomness is associated with brown noise [20] and is different from a periodic pattern. In conclusion, technology and organisation are parts of a mon social system in which innovation breaks a temporary eq uilibrium and launches an unpredictable journey through a process of variation–selection–re