1

Fig. 1. The structure of “unstructured” decision processes according to Mintzberg et al. (1976).

Table 1. The criteria for selection of respondents and a brief presentation of respondents’ data. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by the main author, face-to-face.
Category Description
Criteria for selecting respondents 1) Experience of R&D at a forest company or FOA at staff level or similar
2) Experience from working in the Harwarder Collaboration Group
Number of respondents 6 from forest companies*, 1 from a FOA
Current roles of respondents Staff manager, project leader or specialist
Education of respondents University degree in forestry, engineering, or similar
Experience in the forest sector, years 10–30 years, 27 on average, in operational, tactical, and/or strategic activities
* Two respondents undergoing a role transition were chosen from one user.
2

Fig. 2. The coding tree for the analysis of the interview transcripts, was based on two theoretical frameworks.

Table 2. The relative frequencies at which interviewees mentioned the use of different decision-making routines, arranged by the routines’ order of occurrence in the model of Mintzberg et al. (1976). Frequency is categorized using a scale where 1 and 7 represent the lowest and highest frequencies, respectively. Descriptions covers a synthesis of the respondents’ replies for each routine.
Routine Relative frequency Description
Recognition 5 Problems, stemming from motives for participating in development and reducing costs while maintaining acceptable social and environmental performance
Diagnosis 2 Have we gathered relevant information to start? Are we doing relevant things?
Search 4 Searching for new technology
Design 6 Redesign of technology similar to what we want to develop
Screening 1
Judgment/Analysis/ Bargaining 7 Analysis by researchers, tests within the respondents’ organization and those of other users, decisions within the own organization’s development group
Authorization 3 Anchoring with the board of directors, and sometimes also by contractors
Table 3. Characteristics of development decisions as described by the respondents, interpreted through the framework of Kangas et al. (2015).
Decision characteristic Description
Certainties or uncertainties 2–10 per respondent. Examples included stand conditions (7), operators’ impact on productivity (4), and other users’ decisions (3).
One or several criteria 4–14 per respondent. Examples included costs (27), operator environment (9), and machine availability (4)
Discrete or continuous alternatives Discrete; machines/machine systems
One or several decision-makers One or few, frequently with input from influential executers/experts (contractors, wood value specialists etc.)
Spatial scale In which kinds of stands and how many stands will the new technology perform better than current alternatives?
Temporal scale Strategic, tactical, and operational impact
Type of product Machine systems/machines and operation services (logging and logistics)