The article by Christine Moorman and Anne S. Miner explores the concepts of organizational improvisation and organizational memory. They define organizational improvisation as the degree to which the composition and execution of an action converge in time. The authors propose that both procedural memory (skill knowledge) and declarative memory (fact knowledge) moderate the impact of improvisation on organizational outcomes in distinct ways. They also suggest that improvisation influences organizational memory by generating experiments and permitting the development of higher-level competency in improvisation. The authors note that improvisation is present and valuable in various fields, including the arts, teaching, therapy, and athletics. They argue that improvisation is not only frequent in organizations but may also have value for them. However, fruitful improvisation may require important resources and skills. The authors draw on work from several disciplines to generate specific propositions about how organizational memory will influence improvisation's impact. They argue that two different types of organizational memory—procedural (skill memory) and declarative (fact memory)—moderate the impact of organizational improvisation in different ways. These memory types enhance different organizational outcomes and can compensate for each other's drawbacks. The authors propose that improvisation affects organizational memory and represents an identifiable organizational competency. They define improvisation as the degree to which composition and execution converge in time. This view of improvisation is primarily temporal, with a focus on the degree of simultaneity of composition and implementation. The authors argue that improvisation is important for more than startup or creative organizations. They also note that technological changes related to the nature of organizational memory intensify the salience of these issues. The authors suggest that firms will need to design systems that enhance access to the right type of memory while undertaking improvisational action. They also imply that organizations could benefit from deliberate efforts to accumulate memory that will permit them to improvise more effectively over time. The authors propose several propositions about how organizational memory and improvisation interact. They argue that procedural memory increases the likelihood that improvisation will produce coherent and rapid action, but it strengthens the danger of automatic behavior. In contrast, declarative memory permits richer, more flexible action. The authors also argue that improvisation may produce slow actions when declarative memory is accessed.The article by Christine Moorman and Anne S. Miner explores the concepts of organizational improvisation and organizational memory. They define organizational improvisation as the degree to which the composition and execution of an action converge in time. The authors propose that both procedural memory (skill knowledge) and declarative memory (fact knowledge) moderate the impact of improvisation on organizational outcomes in distinct ways. They also suggest that improvisation influences organizational memory by generating experiments and permitting the development of higher-level competency in improvisation. The authors note that improvisation is present and valuable in various fields, including the arts, teaching, therapy, and athletics. They argue that improvisation is not only frequent in organizations but may also have value for them. However, fruitful improvisation may require important resources and skills. The authors draw on work from several disciplines to generate specific propositions about how organizational memory will influence improvisation's impact. They argue that two different types of organizational memory—procedural (skill memory) and declarative (fact memory)—moderate the impact of organizational improvisation in different ways. These memory types enhance different organizational outcomes and can compensate for each other's drawbacks. The authors propose that improvisation affects organizational memory and represents an identifiable organizational competency. They define improvisation as the degree to which composition and execution converge in time. This view of improvisation is primarily temporal, with a focus on the degree of simultaneity of composition and implementation. The authors argue that improvisation is important for more than startup or creative organizations. They also note that technological changes related to the nature of organizational memory intensify the salience of these issues. The authors suggest that firms will need to design systems that enhance access to the right type of memory while undertaking improvisational action. They also imply that organizations could benefit from deliberate efforts to accumulate memory that will permit them to improvise more effectively over time. The authors propose several propositions about how organizational memory and improvisation interact. They argue that procedural memory increases the likelihood that improvisation will produce coherent and rapid action, but it strengthens the danger of automatic behavior. In contrast, declarative memory permits richer, more flexible action. The authors also argue that improvisation may produce slow actions when declarative memory is accessed.