Understanding Boundary-Spanning in Knowledge Work:
Implications for IT Use*
by
Natalia Levina
New York University
Stern School of Business
Information Systems Group/ IOMS
44 West Fourth St, Suite 8-78 (KMC)
New York, NY 10012
Office Phone: 212-998-0850
Fax: 212-995-4228
Email: nlevina@stern.nyu.edu
Emmanuelle Vaast
Long Island University
School of Business, Public Administration and Information Sciences
1 University Plaza - H700
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Office Phone: 718-488-1070
Fax: 718-488-1125
E-mail: emmanuelle.vaast@liu.edu
* The authors have contributed equally to the paper
Manuscript under review -- please do not distribute without author’s permission
1
Understanding Boundary-Spanning in Knowledge Work:
Implications for IT Use
This work was sponsored in part by MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research,
Cambridge, MA, and by the CRG, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, France.
Natalia Levina is an Assistant Professor in the Information, Operations, and Management
Sciences Department at the New York University Stern School of Business. Her current research
interests include understanding collaboration practices on multi-party systems development
projects, knowledge management in IT service delivery organizations, IT outsourcing strategy
and implementation, and technology design principles in heterogeneous environments. Her
works have appeared in MIS Quarterly, Applied Intelligence Journal and Reflections: The
Society for Organizational Learning Journal. Dr. Levina has a Ph.D. in Information Technology
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Master’s in Mathematics from Boston
University.
Emmanuelle Vaast is an Assistant Professor in Management of Information Systems at the
School of Business, Public Administration and Information Sciences, Long Island University. Her
research interests concern the construction of intra-organizational boundaries with practices of IS
and the transformation of the relationships between CoPs and formal organization with agents’ use
of ITs. She has presented her work at the Academy of Management Conference and has published
in Information Research. She earned her Ph.D. in Information Systems from the Ecole
Polytechnique, Paris, France and is a former student of the Ecole Normale Supérieure and
Sciences Po.
2
Understanding Boundary-Spanning in Knowledge Work:
Implications for IT Use
ABSTRACT
Knowledge work requires the spanning of inter- and intra- organizational boundaries to integrate
diverse competencies and foster innovation. Information Technology (IT) is often viewed as a
critical tool for boundary-spanning. Yet many experiences with IT implementations for
spanning boundaries have been disappointing. We explore this issue by asking: How is IT used
to span the boundaries in knowledge work? The organizational literature has distinguished two
boundary-spanning devices: boundary spanners and objects. Currently, the main perspective
concentrates on boundary spanners’ roles and on boundary objects’ properties and considers
boundaries as fixed. We propose a complementary perspective on boundary-spanning that
focuses on boundaries themselves. Bourdieu’s practice theory helps us conceptualize the
dynamics of boundaries and boundary-spanning practices. Following Bourdieu’s principles for
conducting empirical work, which emphasize comparative methods, we apply this
conceptualization to two in-depth case studies. We find that only boundary spanners-in-practice
(as opposed to boundary spanners-in-role) actually span the boundaries in knowledge work.
Moreover, only boundary spanners-in-practice create and use boundary objects-in-use. We also
note that, in the presence of boundary spanners-in-practice, IT-based artifacts can be used as
boundary objects. As IT-based artifacts become boundary objects-in-use, their structural
properties change. Furthermore, agents who use IT-based artifacts to span the boundaries in
knowledge work become spanners-in-practice, leading to the emergence of a new boundary -between spanners and non-spanners. We draw implications of these results for IS and
management research and practice.
Keywords: Boundary objects, boundary spanners, boundaries, practice theory, knowledge work,
organizational
learning,
IS
development,
IS
implementation,
client-consultant
relationship.
ISRL Categories: AJ; DD06; DD02; DD0301; DD01; CA; HA08; AI0112; AI0803; FD;
FD0802; FD07; FB; FB01; AA1202; AF09.
1
Understanding Boundary-Spanning in Knowledge Work:
Implications for IT Use
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge workers who use and produce information to accomplish knowledgeable
action have increasingly become strategic builders of competitiveness (Drucker 1969). The
knowledge-based view of the firm has emphasized that a firm’s competitive advantage comes
from its capability to integrate disparate sources of expertise. Because such integration requires
overcoming significant obstacles, organizations that are able to do so have a greater potential for
producing innovative products and services (Kogut and Zander 1992; Grant 1996; Tsoukas
1996; Dyer and Singh 1998; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). Therefore, knowledge work involves
defining and spanning multiple functional, occupational, hierarchical, and inter-organizational
boundaries.
The IS literature on Knowledge Management (KM) has emphasized the importance of
managing knowledge across boundaries through the creation of KM Systems (KMS) (Alavi and
Leidner 2001; Schultze and Leidner 2002). Knowledge work has increasingly become
empowered by flexible and user-friendly technologies that enable information storage, retrieval,
and exchange at lower costs (Brown and Duguid 1998). However, expectations regarding the
spanning of boundaries attributed to the use of IT often remain unmet. When organizational
practice does not support boundary-spanning activities, agents may not use new and highly
sophisticated systems designed to span boundaries (Vandenbosch and Ginsberg 1996; Schultze
and Boland 2000; Newell et al. 2001). Researchers have suggested that the implementation of IT
should take into account this contextualized and bounded nature of producing knowledgeable
performance (Orlikowski 2002). More generally, the disappointment with IT-based KM
initiatives across boundaries points to the need to better understand how boundaries evolve and
2
are spanned in practice. Thus, in this paper, we examine the following question: How is IT used
to span the boundaries in knowledge work?
We draw on recent developments in the organizational literature and on two in-depth
qualitative field studies of knowledge work to understand the dynamics of how boundaries are
actually spanned and how IT is used in boundary-spanning practice. Researchers have
traditionally addressed them by analyzing the roles of boundary spanners (Friedman and
Poldony, 1992) or the properties of boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989). In this paper
we focus on boundaries themselves. In doing so, we highlight that knowledge work involves not
only making sense of multiple boundaries in practice, but also defining and redefining
boundaries to accomplish knowledgeable performance. This paper offers a practice-based view
of boundaries in knowledge work. It examines the practices of knowledge workers and
illuminates the difficulty of spanning boundaries given the embedded nature of
knowledgeability in practice (Carlile 1997; Carlile 2002; Orlikowski 2002; Bechky 2003).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we show that the
literature on boundary spanners and objects considers boundaries as fixed, drawing on practice
theory to understand the dynamics of boundaries. Then we present our empirical approach to
theorizing based on the practice perspective and on two in-depth case studies. We subsequently
describe our two cases by focusing on how the key boundary-spanning practices were
transformed. We then introduce the new concepts of the boundary spanner-in-practice and the
boundary object-in-use to theorize the relationship between boundaries, spanners, and objects.
This re-conceptualization allows us to draw implications for the use of IT in boundary-spanning.
We conclude by drawing implications for IS and management research and practice.
3
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: BOUNDARY SPANNERS AND
OBJECTS
The organizational literature has distinguished two main concepts that help us
understand boundary-spanning: boundary spanners and objects. Specific agents may be
designated to interface with other agents across boundaries – boundary spanners (Tushman
1977; Friedman and Podolny 1992). Artifacts called boundary objects can also be created to
establish common ground and enable cross-boundary work (Star 1989; Carlile 2002). Previous
works on boundary spanners and objects have brought valuable insights into the roles and
characteristics of these devices, but have mainly remained static. They have seriously
considered neither the relationships between the concepts, nor the transformation of boundaries
that may emerge through boundary-spanning. We thus propose a practice-based perspective on
boundaries and boundary-spanning, which helps us conceptualize the dynamics of boundaryspanning in knowledge work in the context of IT use.
Boundary spanners and objects: The static perspective
Boundary spanners
Malinowski’s (1922) early ethnographic works introduced the idea of a person who
communicates across different groups and establishes links among them. In the last 30 years or
so, the organizational literature has used the concept of “boundary spanners” to refer to specific
agents who appear key to the relationships between distinct groups, at the intra- and interorganizational levels (Allen and Cohen 1969; Tushman 1977).
Numerous research works have been devoted to the understanding of the multiple roles
of boundary spanners (Allen 1971; Tushman and Scanlan 1981a; Tushman and Scanlan 1981b;
Lysonski 1985; At-Twaijri and Montanari 1987; Friedman and Podolny 1992; Walter 1999).
4
From an information processing perspective, boundary spanners improve information
processing among groups through better communication and uncertainty reduction (e.g., Aldrich
and Herker 1977; Leifer and Huber 1977; Leifer and Delbecq 1978; Tushman and Scanlan
1981a; At-Twaijri and Montanari 1987). Using social network analysis and negotiation
literature, Friedman and Podolny (1992) later distinguished four roles of boundary spanners
which can be used to synthesize a good part of research in this area. Boundary spanners may
perform the roles of a “representative” of a group and of a “gatekeeper” vis-à-vis other groups.
At the same time, they may be advice brokers and trust brokers. It is noteworthy that these roles
are varied and, depending on the context, may be incompatible. For instance, a good gatekeeper
for one group may have trouble brokering trust in another group. To prevent conflicts among
these roles, Friedman and Podolny (1992) suggested that different people be assigned to them.
This recommendation, however, is problematic when it comes to spanning boundaries in
knowledge work, where brokering trust, providing advice, gatekeeping, and representing are
intertwined in the everyday practice.
Researchers have also investigated the pressures and rewards of the agents who have to
assume these multiple and conflicting roles (Lysonski and Johnson 1983; Baroudi 1985; Singh
and Rhoads 1991). Boundary spanners endure negative psychological outcomes such as role
conflict and role ambiguity that lead to stress and reduce their job satisfaction and performance
(Lysonski 1985; Dubinsky et al. 1992; Singh et al. 1996). Nevertheless, boundary spanners’
roles also come with rewards. Boundary spanners may use information and accumulated social
capital to obtain career advantages such as better pay, opportunities for promotions and
favorable relations with co-workers (e.g., Keller and Holland 1975; Baroudi 1985; Katz et al.
1995).
5
Most works on boundary spanners have thus concentrated on boundary-spanning
persons. They have implicitly assumed that the context in which spanners act remains stable.
While much has been said about boundary spanners’ roles and rewards, the nature of the
boundaries that these agents help to span or potentially reshape has been overlooked.
Boundary objects
Star and Griesemer (1989) introduced the concept of the boundary object as an
alternative to boundary-spanning agents whose self-interest, psychological discomfort, and
temporal and physical limits constrain collaborative efforts. Artifacts may be used to foster
collaboration among groups. Examples of boundary objects include physical product prototypes
(Carlile 2002; Bechky 2003), design drawings (Bødker 1998), use scenarios (Bødker 2000),
various types of shared IS (Ackerman and Halverson 1999; Pawlowski et al. 2000; Briers and
Chua 2001), engineering sketches (Henderson 1991; Bechky 1999), accounting ledgers (Briers
and Chua 2001), and standardized reporting forms (Star and Griesemer 1989; Bowker and Star
1994; Bowker et al. 1996; Carlile 1997; Briers and Chua 2001; Carlile 2002). The term
“boundary object” thus refers to a broad range of artifacts. Over time, research dedicated to this
concept has shifted from cataloguing objects to understanding their properties. The founding
dual characteristic of boundary objects is their flexibility and robustness. Boundary objects are
“both adaptable to different standpoints and robust enough to maintain identity across them”
(Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 387). Groups with distinct interests, habits and need appropriate
and adapt them. Simultaneously, boundary objects help accomplish a common mission. To be
both flexible and robust, boundary objects should be tangible (Carlile 1997), concrete
(Henderson 1991; Bechky 2003), accessible and up-to-date (Carlile, 1997).
6
These characteristics nevertheless remain general as most objects used in a work context
could be described as possessing these features. Moreover, in some cases, objects that possessed
these characteristics and had been implemented to foster collaboration among distinct groups
were not used effectively in boundary-spanning (Levina 2001; Metiu 2001). What, then, makes
for an effective boundary object? Carlile argued that an effective boundary object, first,
“established a shared syntax or language for individuals to represent their knowledge” (2002:
451). Second, when there are differences in interpretations of the problem at hand, an effective
boundary object “provides concrete means for individuals to learn about their differences and
dependencies across a given boundary’’ (Carlile 2002: 452). Third, when negative
consequences are identified for the individuals involved and negotiation needs to take place, an
effective boundary object “facilitates a process where individuals can jointly transform their
knowledge” (Carlile 2002: 452). These recent works have been inspired by practice theory and
have shown that boundary objects’ characteristics and performance emerge from the practices of
situated agents. Nevertheless, these works have concentrated on how an artifact becomes a
boundary object, and they have not investigated the transformation of the boundary that may
occur when an object becomes a boundary object. Like research on boundary spanners, these
works have not focused on the relationship between boundary-spanning devices and the
dynamics of boundaries themselves.
Despite an obvious common ground, research focused on boundary-spanning devices
has mostly focused on either boundary objects or spanners, or argued for their substitutability
(Star and Griesemer 1989). One notable exception in this regard is Wenger, who argued that
boundary spanners and objects can be complementary (1998: 111-112). Wenger’s work, while
insightful, nevertheless concentrated on communities of practice and did not propose a
7
conceptual way of exploring this complementarity. This prevalent distinct consideration of
boundary-spanning devices does not correspond to the realities of knowledge work. Knowledge
workers deal with complex issues associated with applying context-dependent expertise to new
domains and to the need for cooperation. Their work environment is filled with artifacts and
with people engaged simultaneously in bridging the gaps of understanding and aligning
multiple, often competing, interests.
Many of the artifacts knowledge workers use are IT-based. IT is also often positioned as
a knowledge sharing tool that connects different groups (Alavi and Leidner 2001). Researchers
have viewed technology artifacts as potentially powerful boundary objects (Star 1989; Boland
and Tenkasi 1995), while boundary one issue is that despite designers’ intentions, as
technologies are employed by an increasingly diverse set of users, they may lose their common
identities and become unsuitable as boundary objects spanners were seen as key actors engaged
in developing artifacts that would subsequently replace the need for human mediation (Zmud
1980; Star and Griesemer 1989). If boundary objects and spanners are seen as separate static
devices, then a lot of the problems associated with human mediation may be relieved through
the use of IT-enabled boundary objects. However, (Star 1989; Von Krogh 2002). Empirical
investigations also suggested an interesting dynamics between IT-based boundary objects and
agents who put them to use. For example, Metiu (2002) showed that in the context of
geographically dispersed teams the use of IT to create and share boundary objects did not
replace the need for a human intermediary – a boundary spanner.
These empirical accounts suggest an interesting interplay between boundary objects and
spanners. When knowledge workers interact across boundaries and / or when they start using an
8
object produced by others, their own expertise and authority may be transformed and the limits
that separate them from others may shift.
Boundaries and boundary-spanning: A practice perspective
Shifting the focus from boundary-spanning means (objects or spanners) to the dynamics
of boundaries and boundary-spanning helps us better understand the nature of boundaryspanning in knowledge work. Knowledge workers are directly engaged in the production of
representations of work and its environment. Thus, their work involves not only spanning
existing boundaries, but also redefining them in the context of work. For example, a project
manager may decide to merge two sub-teams, thereby redefining the boundaries in knowledge
work. We next propose a perspective that focuses on the practices of knowledge workers and
illuminates how boundaries, boundary spanners, and objects are constituted and reconstituted
through agents’ practices.
Conceptualizing boundaries in a practice perspective
Sociologists use the concept of practice to understand of the dynamics of societies based
on what people do (Bourdieu 1977; Certeau 1984; Giddens 1984). Practice is a “recurrent,
materially bounded and situated action engaged in by members of the community” (Orlikowski
2002: 256). Through practice, agents produce and reproduce social structural properties which,
in turn, enable and constraint their actions (Giddens 1984). Practice is circumscribed in a
specific material, historical and social context that shapes what agents do and gives meaning to
habitual actions (Suchman 1987; Lave 1988). Reflexive and interactive agents engage in
practice according to their situation, their position in the context, and their interests and
constraints (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984). This political aspect emphasizes that, with their
practice, agents struggle, compete, and make alliances with other agents. Agents draw on rules
9
and resources in context not only to produce and reproduce practices, but also to transform
them. Through these political games, agents gain new positions in social settings (Bourdieu and
Wacquant 1992; Bourdieu 1996). Changes in routinized practice contribute to the emergence of
new social structural properties (Giddens 1984). Finally, members of bounded communities
produce specific practices, which are different from those produced in other communities.
Through practice, agents unite in their belonging to a given group and, at the same time,
they separate themselves from other groups. Boundaries emerge and get transformed out of the
practical dialectic between agents’ need to differentiate themselves and their practices from
others, and the need to engage in shared practice and develop shared identities to produce
collective knowledgeability (Bourdieu 1977). Thus a practice perspective allows us to consider
the construction, reproduction, and transformation of the boundaries that separate agents
according to what they do and who they are. We define boundaries as enacted relational limits
that distinguish (divide and unite) agents based on differences in their practices [Reference
suppressed]. In this definition, boundaries and boundary-spanning practices are two sides of the
same coin: if the relationships among actors change because their respective practices change,
the limits that separate them get transformed as well. Boundary-spanning practice may thus be
defined as the recurrent, materially bounded and situated social action of agents engaged in
defining, reproducing, or transforming boundaries. The definitions of the notions of “boundary”
and “boundary-spanning practice” are recursive and mutually constitutive. The development of
relational definitions is a key part of practice-based theorizing (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992).
Agents who are engaged in a shared practice define their community, whereas practice is
defined through the actions of the members of the community (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger
1998; Orlikowski 2002). This relational view helps open the “black box” of boundaries and
10
considers them as produced, reproduced and transformed through recurrent and changing
actions. Such boundaries no longer appear fixed or given, but rather are seen as socially defined,
historically and materially situated as well as political in nature.
This practice perspective sheds interesting light on how IT may be used to span the
boundaries in knowledge work. First, it suggests that agents may draw on IT to shape
boundaries in practice. For instance, when a distribution list is created and intense e-mail
exchanges take place in the newly defined group, it may become relatively less convenient for
its members to start exchanging e-mails with ‘strangers’ (i.e. people who are not on the list).
These actions may designate a new boundary or be used to transform an existing boundary (e.g.,
if a group member is left out of the distribution list). In virtual collaboration environments, we
witness new groups emerging around the use of technology including new scientific
collaborations (Star and Ruhdeler 1996), open source development communities, and virtual
work teams (Hinds and Kiesler 2002).
Second, the practice perspective suggests that the IT artifact itself may be changed as a
result of its engagement in a boundary-spanning practice. Indeed, the IS literature has
emphasized the flexibility of technology and the ways in which its features and uses have been
shaped and reshaped by agents (e.g. Orlikowski 1992; Walsham 2002). For example, Schultze
and Boland (2000) showed how IT features were adapted by IT contractors to aid in the
reproduction of the boundary between them and their client.
A practice perspective also suggests that the dynamics of boundary-spanning deserve
closer investigation, especially in the context of IT use for knowledge work. It suggests a need
to examine situated agents’ creation of specific objects and their use in transforming the
boundaries and changing the relative power and competences of agents involved. Analyzing two
11
in-depth case studies helped us examine such dynamic relationships between boundaries,
boundary objects, and spanners when IT is used to span the boundaries in knowledge work.
METHODOLOGY
Empirical research within the practice theory tradition aims at systematically
constructing a particular case of practice to illuminate the invariants that are characteristic of the
phenomenon beyond the specificity of each case:
My entire scientific enterprise is indeed based on the belief that the deepest logic
of the social world can be grasped only if one plunges into the particularity of an
empirical reality, historically located and dated, but with objective of
constructing it as a “special case of what is possible.” (Bourdieu 1998 p. 2)
While practice theorists do rely on grounded theory techniques (Glaser and Strauss 1967;
Strauss and Corbin 1998) to develop theories from data, they also acknowledge that practice
theory guides their understanding and interpretation of empirical cases (e.g., Barley 1986;
Orlikowski 1992; Orlikowski 2000; Schultze and Boland 2000). This research draws on data
from two in-depth longitudinal qualitative case studies. Each case focused on identifying critical
boundaries in practice and on understanding how boundary-spanning practices were produced,
reproduced, and transformed. The goal was to understand the “modus operandi” – the way in
which practices were generated. It was also critical to understand how practice evolved as
enacted structures were reshaped over time (Pettigrew 1990).
Conducting comparative analysis is at the heart of reflexive sociology – the theory
guiding empirical investigators following Bourdieu’s work. The conclusions presented in this
paper were based on the comparative analysis of practices within and across cases. Comparative
analysis “allows you to think relationally” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992 p. 234). Comparisons
are crucial to reflexive sociologists who make sense of the world by relating practices to each
other (within and/or across settings) and to their own positions in practice (ibid).
12
In this research project, the two researchers independently conducted the two cases. The
first case focused on the boundary-spanning practices surrounding the implementation of an
Intranet application at an insurance company – Insura. This case was chosen because the stated
objective behind the Intranet implementation at Insura was to transform the relationship between
Insura’s headquarters and sales agents in the field. This field setting was very attractive because
of its focus on the use of technology to reshape the boundary between two parties. The second
case focused on the boundary-spanning practices in an inter-organizational IS development
project conducted by a consulting firm, Eserve, and its client, Pubco. This case was chosen
because Eserve managers insisted that the strength of their organization was in integrating
strategy, technology, and graphic design expertise along with the client’s business expertise on
project teams. Pubco was chosen as a client because Pubco managers expressed an interest in
improving learning across organizational boundaries. Both cases presented wide access to the
field settings and offered researchers an opportunity to conduct sustained on-site observations,
interviews, and archival data analysis.
The integration of ideas based on data from two field studies conducted by different
researchers is somewhat unusual in the IS literature. It has, however, proven very fruitful for
grounded theory researchers in the organizational literature (Tyre and Orlikowski 1994). For
example, a recent publication by Staudenmayer, Tyre, and Perlow (2002) integrated findings
from three completed field studies initially focused on three different research questions and
conducted by each researcher separately. The insights gained from contrasting these studies
highlights the power of such an approach in improving theory development. Indeed, different
researchers often make different use of similar constructs and are able to provide a deeper
understanding of the phenomenon by contrasting their accounts – a key advantage of developing
13
theories in research teams (Glaser and Strauss 1967; O'Connor et al. 2003). In the case of this
paper, both authors worked within the same sociological tradition. Yet each emerged from the
field with a different understanding of key concepts. For example, one author concluded that the
designation of boundary-spanning roles was not useful and created only obstacles in practice.
By contrast, the other author saw how a boundary spanner was crucial in establishing an
effective boundary-spanning practice. By going back to our field notes, interview transcripts,
and archival documents as well as by reconstructing our accounts of boundary-spanning
practices, we were able to develop new constructs that explained observations in both settings.
Although the researchers did not collaborate in study design and data collection, the
cases are comparable nonetheless. In this research, in contrast to Staudenmayer and colleagues
(2002), for instance, both authors referred to the same theoretical tradition and empirical
guidelines (Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology) in conducting their data collection and analyses.
This made the combination of cases easier. The unit of analysis – boundary-spanning practice –
was also the same. Table 1 outlines how data were collected independently by each researcher.
In our joint work, we began with a broad research question -- how do agents use IT in spanning
boundaries in knowledge work? Each researcher went through her qualitative data to write an
individual case history that addressed this question. Conclusions were drawn from interlinked
stages of data reduction and interpretation (Agar 1980; Becker 1998). A series of gradually
refined monographs was written that finally constituted each researcher’s interpretation of the
field (Pettigrew 1990). In this process, each researcher independently found the concepts of
boundary objects and spanners useful in conceptualizing the genesis of the boundary-spanning
practices. An independent analysis of the two accounts using the same constructs, however,
revealed different answers to the research question. We thus performed a second round of
14
analyses. At that time, we focused on the concept of “boundary” and wrote “boundary stories”
identifying significant boundaries in each setting (two at Insura and two at Eserve-Pubco).
Using a constant comparative method we confronted our “boundary stories” first within and
then across sites (Yin 1984). The cross-case comparison method, which is often seen as a tool
for positivist researchers, is consistent with practice theory, which recommends a “systematic
interrogation of the particular case … in order to extract general or invariant properties”
(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992 p. 233). The confrontation of the two cases helped each of us
practice the “radical doubt” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992 p. 235) or “suspicion” (Klein and
Myers 1999) so crucial for theorizing from field data. Our analysis was highly interactive as we
challenged each other’s conclusions and had to look for confirming and discomforting evidence
to support or reject new constructs and relationships.
Table 1: Cross-Study Comparison of Methods
Methods
Field Observation
Access to the field
Semi-structured
interviews
Informal contacts
Follow ups visits and
conversations
Documents
and
Archives
Unit of Analysis
Key Boundaries
Key Technologies
Other
Insura
4 months, 3 days a week. Insura’s
headquarters as well as local
teams.
Negotiated
access
through
Headquarters.
31 – recorded and transcribed.
Eserve-Pubco
9 months, 4-5 days a week. Most
observations at Eserve and some at
Pubco.
Negotiated access through Eserve.
Yes
Yes
41 (23 – Pubco, 19 – Eserve) –
recorded and transcribed.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Boundary-spanning Practice
1) Headquarters -- Sales Reps
2)
Among
Geographically
Distributed Sales Teams
Intranet
- 3 focus groups of 5 sales reps
- Statistics of use of the intranet
Boundary-spanning Practice
1) Consulting Firm – Business Clients
2) Requirements Team – Graphic
Designers
Internet/Email, Telephone, Intranet
Coding of email archives and records in
Eserve’s
Human
Resource
Management System
The following section describes our two cases. Each case depicts the key boundaries as
they were produced, reproduced and transformed in practice over time. We focus on what we
15
saw happening in each case rather than on our own presence in the field and witnessing of the
events (similar to Newman and Robey 1992; Tyre and Orlikowski 1994). While we fully
acknowledge the importance of our own position in each setting in shaping our understandings,
we believe that the rhetorical strategy we adopted below helped us focus on the comparison of
the cases and highlight them as “particular cases of possible” within practice theory.
EMPIRICAL CASES
Insura case: How the use of an intranet fostered inter-groups communication
What is Insura?
Insura was an autonomous arm of a French insurance company that sold financial
services (such as collective bonds, saving plans, retirement plans) to households through a
network of local teams. Insura’s 4,000 employees worked in the headquarters, in local teams or
in small offices as marketing managers
The 300 members of headquarters defined Insura’s commercial strategy. They created
new services, such as new life insurance policies dedicated to specific niches, and designed their
associated marketing policy. They also continuously adapted the composition of mutual funds
according to the state of financial markets. They provided local teams with information
regarding changes in trade-offs among various financial products.
Insura’s commercial network was composed of 3,600 employees organized in local
teams of about twenty sales agents and one manager, who coordinated their work. Local teams’
activities were structured by weekly meetings. Every Monday morning, team members met to
discuss current sales in the geographical area, specific issues with clients, or ways to improve
the sales of a particular service.
16
Save for this weekly meeting, agents did not meet on a regular basis. They visited
prospects and clients to conduct new deals. A substantial part of their work consisted of
scheduling and preparing new meetings using clients’ files, documentation on services, and
teams’ specifications for commercial initiatives. When a new sale had been contracted, agents
keyed their sale information into their reporting system to validate the deal. Agents used laptops
to connect to the reporting system. As their tasks were geographically delimited, local agents
from different teams did not have an opportunity to interact directly. Regional marketing
managers spread across 100 regional offices were in charge of fostering exchanges among local
teams.
Local teams / headquarters: From personified to mediated relationships
Traditionally, local team members had resented headquarters’ actions. They felt that
headquarters’ policies and recommendations were not suited to the realities of their relationships
with clients. For instance, according to agents, national advertising campaigns that headquarters
designed failed to address clients’ specific needs. Also, local teams typically had limited access
to the tools and information that headquarters had. Local teams also considered that
headquarters did not sufficiently acknowledge the value of the work they did for Insura when
dealing with clients.
Christian, local agent-, talking about headquarters: “From local teams, our feeling is that
they are being too Parisian. There is such a gap between those who trade the portfolios
and those who do the work for everyone. We are the professionals -- we are the ones who
bring in the money.”
Phase 1: Implementation and first six months of the intranet: increased distance: In 1999,
in order to respond to local teams’ resentment and to improve the communication between
teams and headquarters, Insura’s head manager decided to implement an intranet site. He named
17
a former agent with 25 years of company experience, Dominique, to lead the project and to
become the future webmaster. The reasoning behind this choice was that Dominique had
worked for a long time as a sales agent and thus knew what it took to sell Insura’s products.
Moreover, as he had changed location several times, he had also developed a wide network of
acquaintances among diverse teams. In the early 1990’s, through internal training, he became an
IS specialist. Since then, he had been working at headquarters and had experienced
headquarters’ realities first-hand. Initially, Dominique and an ad hoc team designed the intranet
without consulting local teams.
Dominique: “While the intranet was being implemented, I stayed in the ‘Tour Aurore’
[name of the building where Insura’s Parisian headquarters are located]. I did not ask
local teams what they thought about the future intranet, because I knew they would not
think anything about it. So I designed the intranet in-house.”
Implemented in December 1999, Insura’s intranet included applications such as a
personnel directory, professional information, region-specific news, documentation on available
financial services, updates on financial markets and a regular newsletter that analyzed changes
in the markets. Members of Insura’s headquarters provided the content. In addition, through a
folder entitled “commercial initiatives”, the intranet allowed agents to share stories about
successful experiences and best practices with clients. After it was launched, agents could access
the intranet from their laptops or at local offices.
During the first six months of the intranet, however, agents hardly used it for anything
but as an interface to a sales reporting system. Agents’ lack of competence with the technology
and the new applications partly accounted for their limited use. For instance, not all agents were
familiar with hyperlinked navigation.
Jean-François, sales agent, pointing at the intranet screen, talking seriously: “Look at
that, this is the first screen [home page]. I do not know why so many things are
underlined. And look, when you move the mouse, it becomes a little hand. It’s like Mario
Bros [the video game hero]”.
18
More important, agents seldom used the intranet, for they resented it as “yet another tool
from Paris” (the headquarters):
Hervé, sales rep: “Why use the intranet? There is nothing much in it that is of real use
for what is truly important to me, that is to say, dealing with clients on a daily basis. It’s
incredible, we [local teams] are working for all of Insura, but they [at headquarters] do
not seem aware of it.”
Phase 2: Dominique’s “tour de France”: personification of relationships
As Dominique had access to web logs, he was aware that agents seldom used the
intranet. He also received informal feedbacks on the perceptions of the intranet from his former
colleagues in local teams and discovered that the implementation of the intranet had exacerbated
the tensions between local teams and headquarters.
Dominique decided to take action to change this situation by going on what he called his
“tour de France”, visiting about 40 local teams. During these visits, he presented the project,
explained how to use the intranet and received direct feedback from agents. These visits were
well received and stories about them were gradually shared with other teams by word of mouth.
As Dominique came from Paris to visit these local teams, agents started feeling that members of
headquarters were willing to listen to them and to provide tools that could concretely help them
in their work. They also consequently used the intranet more often.
François, sales rep in Strasbourg (East of France): “I would not claim to be an intranet
expert, but I use it pretty often. …. It is pretty good -- the intranet. It was launched by
Paris and it really shows that Paris cares for how we deal with clients. The intranet
could always be better, of course, but it provides us with instruments that we mobilize
when we are in front of clients.”
Moreover, as Dominique discussed the intranet with agents, he learned ways to improve
its functionality and applications. For instance, since agents felt that the intranet did not provide
them with specific answers to their daily concerns, Dominique introduced a new “Frequently
19
Asked Questions” (FAQ) application that agents could use to ask questions (related to new
services, HR and legal matters in particular) and to get focused answers from members of
headquarters. Dominique’s “tour de France” had thus helped convince agents that headquarters
were taking their concerns into consideration and wanted to help them do their job. These visits
had also prompted changes in the intranet.
Phase 3: Emergent use of the intranet -- newly mediated relationships: In late fall 2000,
Dominique had returned to headquarters and stopped “personifying” the intranet. Most agents
had learned to use the intranet to help them do their work. They also made substantial use of the
intranet to communicate with headquarters through the FAQ application. Use of the FAQ
established a direct dialog between agents and headquarters. Agents especially appreciated this
application because they felt they had initiated it and because the answers they received were of
direct interest to them.
Pierre, local sales agent: “The intranet works well because I find answers to questions
that I ask myself. Our job has changed a lot recently. We have lots of questions. Most of
the time, we lack answers to [either from our local management or from headquarters].
With the FAQ, answers come almost immediately.”
From late fall 2000, Dominique had scaled down his direct involvement in the
relationships between local teams and headquarters as agents actively used the intranet to
communicate with headquarters directly.
Increased use of the intranet also contributed to changes in communication among
different local teams.
Among local teams: Bypassing intermediaries by using the intranet
Phase 1: Competing and avoiding intermediaries: Traditionally, members of different local
teams barely shared experiences and best practices. Since they assessed professional success as
20
the amount of concluded deals, they usually felt in competition with members of other teams.
Agents were consequently reluctant to provide their remote colleagues with information that
would help others, but not themselves, sell more.
The marketing managers’ mission was to encourage exchanges among local teams.
Agents were supposed to inform them of successful commercial initiatives and marketing
managers were to spread these initiatives among themselves and to other local teams. Agents,
however, usually did not share their occupational expertise and experiences with marketing
managers. Agents considered marketing managers too remote from their occupational concerns
to be good intermediaries, especially in a context of best practices sharing among local teams.
Pierre, sales agent: “These guys, honestly, they don’t do anything. Frankly, they sit there,
in their office, but they’ve never met clients. How could they tell us what to do when they
don’t know our job? One of them calls often. He wants to know what we do. There’s no
way he gets to know anything.”
Phase 2: Sharing knowledge and gaining social recognition through use of the intranet:
Agents’ increasing use of the intranet to do work, however, made members of diverse teams
exchange more experiences directly.
Indeed, when Dominique improved the features of the intranet as a result of his “tour de
France,” he added a new feature to the “commercial initiatives” folder in which agents could
describe some of their successful initiatives. At first, because of informal competition among
local teams, very few agents were willing to put their initiatives on line. Dominique then
introduced a link from the homepage to this application and put online pictures of those agents
who had contributed to the folder. This picture provided social recognition throughout the
network.
Excert from field notes, participant observation session: Thierry, a sales agent is, in
between two meetings with clients. He logs on to the intranet and examines its
homepage. As a researcher looks at him, he comments: “You see, these people are good.
21
Their initiatives worked and you can know how they did it. People know them now.
That’s good stuff.”
Soon, more and more agents started putting their initiatives on line and getting contacted
– via e-mail or phone calls – by members of other teams who wanted more precise information
on their experiences. Competition among local teams remained, but agents started exchanging
more experiences with remote colleagues and sharing best practices beyond their local team.
We now turn to the second case of an Eserve consulting company engaged on a project
by a client company Pubco.
Eserve-Pubco Case: How getting closer to the client changed the relationships
among consultants
What are Eserve and Pubco?
Eserve was a young, very successful, and rapidly-growing professional services firm
engaged in the production of Business-to-Consumer (B2C) applications. In the internet
consulting industry and among its employees, Eserve was known for its egalitarian,
nonhierarchical culture. Team members literally “rubbed shoulders” in an “open space”
environment, where even executives had no offices. However, Eserve had a hierarchical
structure for project teams and clearly-defined regional and corporate leadership. Project teams
comprised an account partner, a project manager, and strategy, graphic design, and technology
consultants, who defined, designed, and built the system. Projects generally went through three
phases – Planning, Prototyping, and Development (including implementation).
Pubco was a division of a well established publishing company. As is traditional in this
industry (Epstein 2001), it relied on strong hierarchical and departmental distinctions. In fall
1999, Pubco’s top management decided to revamp its current web site and to boost its e-brand.
Pubco’s top management argued that currently Pubco lacked necessary web development and
22
strategy expertise and needed to hire Eserve for the project. It was agreed that the project would
be conducted in close collaboration between Eservers (the consultants) and Pubco employees
(the clients).
Participants engaged in the project by the two firms differed significantly on several
grounds. Compared to Pubco’s participants, Eservers were younger (average age of 30 as
opposed to 44), had a higher proportion of males (6 males to 2 females as opposed to 2 males to
7 females), graduated from more prestigious academic institutions, and were generally better
compensated than Pubco participants1.
This case illustrates, first, how the designation of various boundary-spanning roles on the
Eserve-Pubco project strained the relationships among the two parties. Then it shows how, in
the second phase of the project, some project participants established a productive working
relationship by jointly engaging in the production of Use Case documents. Their reliance on the
Use Case documents, however, in turn obstructed their interactions with graphic designers.
Eserve/Pubco: When IT consultants do not use IT
Phase I: Too many boundary-spanning roles – not enough boundary spanners: The key
objective of the Plan phase of the project was the determination of the business vision for the
web site. This first involved brainstorming possible strategic initiatives for the web site and
prioritizing and choosing among them based on market and firm capability analyses. Frank, a
seasoned Eserve strategy consultant with some project management experience, became the
Eserve-Pubco project’s account partner. Frank usually would explain that his role was to
1
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov/oes) mean annual salary in the Computer Systems
Design and Related Services industry was 65% higher than in the Publishing Industry totaled across all
occupations.
23
represent the client’s needs to the Eserve team, but he would invariably add, “I will always
represent [Eserve] team’s needs.”
In the initial weeks of the project, Pubco participants struggled to understand Eserve’s
approach to the project. It was up to Frank to educate Pubco participants, but in his explanations
Frank relied heavily on what Eservers themselves referred to as “consulting speak.” In addition,
Frank lacked availability due to multiple business obligations. Bob, Eserve’s project manager,
who was new to Eserve and not yet accustomed to its methods, was the other manager who
interfaced with clients. His responsibilities were to coordinate the work of the team and to
coordinate with clients on specific tasks. Bob showed little respect for Pubco. He remarked that
Pubco was a slow-moving bureaucratic organization, not suited for the Internet age. After
spending a short period of time listening to clients to get the business background for the
project, he stopped paying much attention to clients’ opinions.
Simultaneously, Eservers were trying to learn about Pubco’s business through Pubco’s
project coordinator Maya, who was entirely devoted to the project. Maya had been involved
with Pubco for several years, analyzing its marketing strategy and devising a better customer
segmentation plan, which was of direct relevance to the project. Though she had no previous
experience on the web, because of her prior consulting background she was a natural choice for
a project coordinator. Maya was supposed to act as a key liaison between the companies. Yet the
relationship between Maya and Eserve’s managers, Frank and Bob, did not work out. Frank and
others resent her involvement in project decisions, arguing that she did not “know the web
space.” Disrespect for Maya grew so far as to be openly expressed in meeting remarks. Behind
closed doors, Eservers referred to her as “The Queen of Darkness”. There was another project
24
liaison, John, overseeing the project from the CxO level, but his involvement was peripheral due
to his other business obligations and lack of relevant experience.
Maya initially tried to help Eserve communicate with Pubco on terms that Pubco would
understand. She provided documents to inform Eservers about strategic analysis and marketing
research already done by Pubco. As Frank and Bob did not appreciate Maya, however, they
discounted the documents as “useless pieces of paper” and did not pass them to line consultants.
Maya also tried to give Eserve advice on how to approach the project in “a Pubco way.” She
explained that Pubco was a process-oriented company, liked structured approaches and, as a
stakeholder, wanted to be involved in decisions on the e-business project. Eservers complained
that Maya tried to impose things on them that did not make sense. Simultaneously, Maya also
started collecting complaints from Pubco participants about Eserve’s processes and delivering
them to Eserve’s top management.
While tensions among the managers on the project continued, Eserve and Pubco team
members relied on the managers to learn about each others’ practices and concerns. Although
email was available for direct communication among team members from both companies, in
the early stages of the project communications mainly took place face-to-face. The telephone
merely helped to set up the meetings rather than discuss issues. Aside from several scheduled
workshops in which all project members participated, small face-to-face group meetings among
the managers were the primary mode for issue discussion and decision making.
One such visit concerned interviews with potential users of the web site. Prior to the
visit, one line strategy consultant sent an email to a Pubco’s member to get assistance in
conducting customer interviews. The line consultant hoped that some Pubco members could
participate in the interview process. She did not receive any reply. Instead, during a meeting,
25
Bob learned from Maya that Pubco team members got a request for help. Maya stated that she
did not want Pubco participants to conduct any interviews because they would have to disclose
their affiliation with Pubco which would distort interview results. When Bob came back to
Eserve he reported that Pubco refused to participate because they wanted the one consultant to
do it all. Presented sarcastically, this reason upset Eservers who wanted to reach a wider
audience with more interviewers.
While key project decisions were being made in face-to-face meetings, processesoriented communication (mostly of a defensive nature) took place via email. Maya explained
that she preferred her requests to be documents as she did not trust Eserve to fulfill its oral
commitments.
A senior Pubco team member: “The relationship itself has really turned into, I
think, a tug of war … where we keep saying, ‘You need to do this, you need to
know this, you need to work with us on this,’ and they keep saying, ‘Uh-huh, uhhuh,’ but not listening and going on in a different direction. And they keep telling
us, ‘No, we do know that. No, we did do that,’ and, ‘Yes, we are working with you
on this.”
Pubco participants viewed the relationship as dysfunctional and feared that their interests
would be compromised if they left it up to Eservers to analyze potential web site initiatives.
Pubco team members, therefore, came up with the initiatives and passed them on to Eserve in a
“must have” list. Eservers, aware that Pubco might not renew the contract, supported these
recommendations. Acceptance of these initiatives marked the end of the first stage of the
project. Both parties, however, expressed concerns that these initiatives lacked innovation.
Phase II: Warming-Up: Team members go around the management structure: The
relationship started slowly mending when line consultants began engaging directly with line
Pubco members in the second phase of the project. The goal for the second stage of the project
was to design requirements and build a prototype of the web site. A strategy sub-team, in which
26
participants from both parties worked on joint tasks and conducted joint meetings, worked on
designing the requirements. A new and experienced project manager, Wendy, facilitated this
process on the Eserve side. Also, upon a “post-mortem” reflection on the first phase of the
project, Eservers decided to rely more on emails and to engage more in direct communication
with Pubco team members. However, Maya asked that she and Wendy be included in all faceto-face meetings and emails.
Wendy and the Eserve strategists became increasingly concerned about the value of the
previously selected initiatives. They shared these concerns with two Pubco members, who were
considered to be knowledgeable about Pubco’s customers and appeared friendly to Eservers.
Instead of responding to these concerns, Pubco members reported to Maya that they felt that it
was not in their authority to address such issues. Maya reacted by critiquing Wendy for being
unprofessional in bypassing established authority.
As the project progressed, there was more direct and electronic communication across
the two sub-teams; however, all important project-level decisions were still addressed in face-toface meetings among “the managers”.
One of Pubco’s team members reflected on the project: Something happened in the
communication from our core group to [Maya] and [John] back over to [Eserve]. I
think that if there were less process, or it was less formal without having these leaders
and project leaders and bearing everything through them, that in all cases early on that
were difficult in communication, we would not have had those problems. … And what I
mean by formal is just in terms of the communications or talking to [Maya] and [John]
when there is an issue, having them talk to [Frank] and then seeing what happens.
The evolution of the project bought several consequences for Frank’s, Bob’s, Maya’s,
and Wendy’s positions in their own organizations. Pubco key stakeholders were constantly
asking Frank’s superiors to sit in on important meetings and oversee his actions. Eserve
consultants blamed Bob’s poor project management and expressed frustration with his negative
27
attitude towards Pubco. Maya’s reputation at Pubco was good in the beginning, but gradually
deteriorated. With time, Pubco’s team members questioned her contributions, as she could not
establish a working relationship with Eserve. Wendy’s contribution to the project was well
respected at Eserve, but Maya saw her as a poor project manager for having “jumped the ranks.”
Functional Sub-Teams Emerge
Phase I: One Eserve Team, One Pubco Team: The successful integration of technical,
strategic, and design expertise was considered to be one of the key competitive advantages of
Eserve’s service delivery model. At Eserve, different professionals were collocated in an openspace environment working together on client’s projects.
At first, most Eservers devoted themselves to building the relationship with the client.
Internally, the team was initially composed of five strategy consultants, one full-time, one-halftime technical consultant and one half-time graphical designer. They communicated with each
other through face-to-face interactions and often worked jointly on the same tasks. For example,
a technologist and a strategy consultant interviewed Pubco team members about Pubco’s
existing IT-based initiatives.
Phase II: Requirements, Technology, and Design Sub-Teams: As the project moved towards
a prototype design, two more graphical designers joined the team, and a full-time technologist
replaced the half-time one. In addition, several new technologists from Pubco joined the project.
Eserve and Pubco participants were now organized into requirements, technology, and design
sub-teams each working on its own sets of tasks. The increased email and face-to-face
communication between Eserve and Pubco took place primarily within these sub-teams.
Members of the requirements sub-team met frequently and focused on creating requirements
called “Use Cases”. Eservers would produce initial documents based on their market research
28
and Pubco’s current web site. Then members from both organizations would discuss the
documents, projected on the screen, in meetings. Here is an interaction from the field notes of a
requirements meeting indicating that Eservers began to understand and speak Pubco’s language:
Strategy Consultant #1: The next one is more difficult [A document entitled “User
will choose a subdiscipline” appears on the projector screen]
Pubco Manager: See, that’s where we wanted to have different questions for
disciplines.
Strategy Consultant #2: The format of the tool is different for each discipline?
Client Manager: Content is different, but structure I wanted to be similar.
The strategy consultants and clients involved in the meetings engaged in rich dialogues before
reaching a decision. On occasion, technologists would be invited to these strategy meetings to
provide technical input on the feasibility of functionalities.
Once Use Case documents were finalized they were passed on to graphic designers to
develop graphical designs for the web site. However, the graphic designers were mostly new to
the project and were not used to working with functional specification documents. Thus they
lacked an understanding of Pubco’s business practices and did not know how to utilize Use Case
documents. A designer commented:
Eserve Designer: I was looking at them [Use Cases] but I could not understand
them. I would read through them, but it seemed like they were not making sense,
and it just kept on …They [requirements sub-team] were sending out a lot of
documents.
For several weeks designers who received Use Case documents did not use them,
sometimes throwing the documents directly into the trashcan. The work on the site design
stagnated and the requirements team blamed the designers for their lack of contribution.
Eventually, strategy consultants produced web-page layouts themselves, while graphic designers
embellished them with nice fonts and colors. The web-site design was unsatisfactory to the
client and had to be redone in the next phase of the project.
29
FURTHER THEORY DEVELOPMENT
In this section we focus on boundaries in practice to help us further interpret case data
and develop a new conceptualization of boundary spanners-in-practice and boundary objects-inuse. We subsequently tie these new theoretical constructs together to further understand the use
of IT in spanning boundaries in knowledge work.
Boundaries-in-Practice
The practice perspective on boundaries helped us understand the transformations
observed in each setting. First, in the Insura case, the initial boundary between headquarters and
sales agents was marked by sales agents’ resentment. Sales agents identified themselves as
money-earning, hard-working professionals while viewing the headquarters staff as privileged
and missing the everyday reality of their business. Headquarters staff viewed the same boundary
as mainly geographical and perceived the Intranet as a way of dealing with the geographical
distances. In the first phase, the use of the Intranet reinforced these distinctions. In the second
phase, we saw a transformation of local practices as the webmaster visited local teams. With
time, agents started to change their daily routines to use and appreciate the services that the
headquarters was providing. With the webmaster’s help, agents began to provide feedback to
headquarters reflecting their local needs. In this way, agents experienced a closer relationship
with headquarters. Moreover, through the use of the Intranet, the relationships among local
teams changed. Initially, they were mostly competitive. Marketing managers were assigned to
foster cooperation, but could not overcome the existing competition. As agents started sharing
best practices through the use of the Intranet, local teams started to exchange best practices, and
the relationship among them became cooperative and not just competitive (as in a widely
publicized Xerox Eureka case described by Bobrow and Whalen 2002).
30
Second, in the Eserve-Pubco case, the boundary between consultants and clients was
also contested. The Eserve consultants’ privileged educational background, age, salaries, and
web-space experience sharply contrasted with Pubco’s traditional business and moderate pay
scales. Eservers exhibited an elitist attitude towards their clients, while Pubco participants were
protective about their way of practicing and wanted to control the consultants’ actions. In the
first phase of the project, the boundary-spanning practice was mostly characterized by
misunderstandings, defensiveness, and strained interpersonal relationships. In the second phase
of the project, we saw a transformation of boundary-spanning practices. As line project
participants interacted more with each other around the development of system specifications
(Use Cases), they started to learn about each others’ backgrounds, business languages, and
interests. A closer relationship between Eserve and Pubco developed. However, the relationship
between the local practice, specifically the relationship between the strategy sub-team and the
design sub-team, was transformed in the process. The boundary between these sub-teams
became characterized by the distinction between those consultants who understood the clients
(those who were able to express their needs in a Use Case) and those who did not (those who
were unable to interpret a Use Case).
In short, the focus on boundaries-in-practice allowed us to see that boundary-spanning
involved a transformation of local practices and a qualitative change in the nature of the
relationships among parties. This transformation occurred as agents symbolically and practically
redefined the distinctions among the parties involved.
Boundary Spanners-in-Practice vs. -in-Role
Our investigations revealed that a significant number of agents were designated to span
boundaries. Intriguingly, only a few of these agents actually fulfilled their roles in practice. This
31
was most evident in the Eserve-Pubco case, where four different agents were given boundaryspanning roles (a solution advocated by Friedman and Podolny 1992), and yet none of them was
able to fulfill them in practice. Moreover, their actions often precluded the actual spanning of
boundaries. Similarly, marketing managers at Insura were unable to fulfill their boundaryspanning roles.
In a practice perspective, effective boundary-spanning involves the mutual adjustment of
practices by both parties. Thus boundary spanners must have an ability and inclination to
transform the practices of both parties involved. In the Insura case, Dominique acquired this
ability from having experienced the practice of headquarters and of sales agents and had an
inclination to do so based on his officially designated role. The literature on situated learning
helps us understand how an agent becomes a boundary spanner-in-practice (Lave 1988; Lave
and Wenger 1991; Contu and Willmott 2003). Situated learning theorists argue that the interest
and ability to practice arise from becoming a legitimate peripheral participant in that practice
(Lave and Wenger 1991p. 35-42). “Legitimate peripheral participation” describes learning
processes in communities of practice, where newcomers engage in legitimate (vs. illegitimate),
yet peripheral (vs. full), participation (vs. irrelevance) in practices of a particular community.
Participation involves access to the community’s practices, including its routines, languages,
and artifacts. We refer to the agents who are legitimate peripheral participants in the practices of
the parties separated by the boundary as “boundary spanners-in-practice”. They do not
necessarily coincide with those agents who have boundary-spanning roles – “boundary
spanners-in-role”.
To become a boundary spanner-in-practice, an agent must be engaged in the practices of
both parties and must be granted access to them. According to practice theory, engagement in
32
practice is akin to taking part in a game – it involves taking a stake in the game, following the
logic of the game, and potentially transforming this logic through engagement (Bourdieu and
Wacquant 1992). To do so, agents must be interested in the game, including having an
inclination and an ability to play it (ibid). In the Eserve-Pubco case, neither Frank nor Bob were
willing to learn Pubco’s practices or take stakes on Pubco’s behalf. On the other hand, Maya
was initially interested in becoming a peripheral member of Eserve’s community, but was not
granted access to it. Similarly, market managers at Insura were interested in spanning the
boundaries among local teams, but were pushed away because of the competitive nature of interteam relationships. We also saw examples of agents who were boundary spanners-in-practice,
but, initially, not -in-role. In the second phase of the project, some Pubco team members on the
strategy/requirements sub-team were effectively spanning the Eserve-Pubco boundary. They
built relationships with Eserve participants through ongoing interactions that involved the
sharing of stories and artifacts. However, as their authority on the project was limited, they had
to channel each significant decision through the appropriate boundary spanners-in-role.
Our cases show that the reliance on boundary spanners involves significant social costs.
In doing so, agents collectively produce a new boundary -- a boundary between those who are
spanning the boundary (“boundary spanners”) and those who are not (“non-spanners”). Like any
boundary, this one relationally distinguishes agents, in that boundary spanners are more like the
other party (in action and in identity) than non-spanners are. At the same time, this boundary
demarcates a similarity among boundary spanners who are more like each other than like nonspanners. Figure 1 illustrates these ideas.
Insert Figure 1 here
33
The designation of boundary-spanning roles formalizes and often institutionalizes
through titles or responsibility lists the spanner vs. non-spanner boundary, thereby making it
harder to transform practices. Because agents expect to gain benefits from working with others,
boundary spanners are empowered to act on behalf of others. The designation of boundary
spanners-in-role constitutes the production of elites in practice with associated prestige, career,
and monetary rewards (Katz and Tushman 1981). In our cases, which were typical in that sense
(Wiesenfeld and Hewlin 2003), all boundary spanners-in-role were managers who enjoyed the
social and economic privileges of their positions.
Yet a boundary position, while powerful, is also unstable and dangerous, so agents often
end up either oscillating between sides, permanently taking the position of one side, forming a
new practice or abandoning the practice altogether (Bourdieu 1977; Star and Griesemer 1989;
Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Friedman and Podolny 1992; Wiesenfeld and Hewlin 2003). We
saw this happen with Frank, Bob, and Maya. Despite the privileges, often only one or few
agents may be able and/or willing to play the boundary spanner role for both parties in
collaboration, which raises issues of availability and competence. Another possibility is that
boundary spanners start separating and forming their own community with its own interests and
identity. For instance, researchers who spanned the boundary between social theory and
computer science formed the IS research community. The new community gradually acquired
its own legitimacy and a unique set of practices and discourses to enlist new members (Benbasat
and Zmud 2003).
Given the negative consequences, why, then, are these roles engaged in and supported
by others? One answer may be that non-spanners do not realize the powerful position that
boundary spanners occupy. This answer does not do justice to the knowledgeability and
34
reflexiveness of social agents (Giddens 1984). Typically, programmers on an ISD project are
well aware of the power of the project manager, and yet, many of them are often unwilling
(and/or unable) to play that role. A more plausible answer might be that boundary-spanning-inpractice requires that agents, at least peripherally, become participants in the other party’s
practices (at least partially), share their partners’ interests, and take a risk of failing in that role.
Many agents may be uninterested in taking on this new identity and practices. Hence, the
dilemma for knowledge workers who identify the benefits in working across boundaries is
whether to become boundary spanners themselves or to support the designation of boundaryspanning roles, thereby producing the spanner vs. non-spanner boundary with associated social
consequences.
Boundary Spanners-in-Practice Facilitate the Establishment of Boundary
Objects-in-Use
Boundary spanners-in-role or in-practice need to make a trade-off between relying on
interpersonal ties and obligations, which take a great personal effort to sustain, and producing
objects that they and others can use to facilitate cross-boundary work. In the Insura case,
Dominique eventually succeeded in fostering the use of the Intranet for direct communication
between agents and headquarters as well as among agents. However, in the Eserve-Pubco case,
various Eserve-specific objects produced by boundary spanners-in-role only were hardly useful
to other participants. On the other hand, other objects, such as Use Case documents that had
been produced in joint strategy meetings, helped establish an understanding among strategy
team members, but became an obstacle in working with graphic designers.
Our cases suggest that that the same physical artifact (e.g., the Intranet) is or is not a
boundary object depending on its use. Objects that could be termed “boundary objects,” such as
35
the Intranet or the Use Cases documents, had no meaning or purpose in themselves. They only
acquired social properties as agents used them to make sense of the practices associated with
spanning the boundary. Depending on what agents did with them, objects designed for
boundary-spanning were used to facilitate or inhibit boundary-spanning or ignored altogether –
just as the use of a new IS may be ignored or evoke unexpected uses (Orlikowski 2000). We
thus propose to focus on the concept of “boundary objects-in-use.”
Consistent with prior studies of boundary objects (Carlile 2002; Bechky 2003), we
observed that the objects that became boundary objects-in-use helped participants to represent
differences in practices. Objects in practice can be seen as representations of practice (Bourdieu
1977). The intranet-based best practices repository at Insura, for instance, contained narrations
of local experiences of relevance for all teams, regardless of their locations. As they made their
local experiences explicit, sales agents skipped idiosyncratic details and presented practices that
agents from other teams could implement – and transform – in their own environment. In order
to help transform local practices and establish the boundary-spanning practice, boundary
objects-in-use need to represent the differences among the practices of the parties involved.
Thus, boundary objects-in-use represent the boundary-in-practice.
Moreover, we observed that boundary spanners-in-practice produced and used boundary
objects-in-use. Only the agents who are legitimate peripheral participants in the practices of the
parties involved can produce an object that represents the boundary in terms acceptable to these
parties. To change the relations among parties and to represent that change in an object, one
must first be allowed and willing to participate in the practices of both parties, to understand
how they and their representations are produced, and then to attempt a transformation by
challenging old and creating new representations (boundary objects-in-use).
36
We further propose that even the use of a boundary object-in-use requires that the user
possess sufficient interest and competence in the practices of the other party. By the term “use”
we mean a useful engagement with the object that entails an inclination and ability to understand
the meaning of the object and to potentially transform it through practice. Thus, boundary
spanners-in-practice are necessary in producing and using boundary objects-in-use. In the Insura
case, some sales agents became boundary spanners-in-practice when they started producing,
sharing, and using objects through the Intranet. In the Eserve-Pubco case, strategy team
members and some Pubco participants became boundary spanners-in-practice when they started
jointly working on Use Case documents. As we saw in both cases, boundary spanners-in-role
only were unable to produce useful objects and typically prevented others from exchanging
objects directly, as the direct sharing of objects undermined their authority.
Finally, considering the boundary between boundary spanners-in-practice and nonspanners, we saw that non-spanners attempted to influence representations of the boundary to
reflect their interests to a greater degree than the interests of their counterparts. In this way,
Eservers drew on a great number of Eserve’s methodologies and document templates, such as
the “initiatives rationalization map,” with little concern for their usefulness to Pubco. Similarly,
Pubco’s project participants produced the “must have” initiatives list to influence Eservers. The
survival of a boundary-spanning practice is threatened when non-spanners (including the
spanners-in-role only) attempt to transform these practices according to their party’s interests.
The Use of Information Technology in Boundary-Spanning Practices
These insights deepen our understanding of the role of IT in boundary-spanning practices. First,
they put in perspective the discussion of the properties of boundary objects. Organizational
scholars have focused their attention on figuring out which physical properties of boundary
37
objects make them more or less useful. While most studies of boundary objects emphasize their
tangible and visual properties (e.g., Henderson 1991; Carlile 1997; Bechky 1999), others,
however, see narratives (Bartel and Garud 2002) and abstract terms like “the production yield”
(Kim and King 2000) as boundary objects in their own right. In practice theory, objects are
symbolic representations of practice that can be exchanged among agents (Bourdieu 1977).
Hence they may be expressed in different media – anything from an oral expression to a
machine prototype. Thus we see IT-based media as one set of media through which objects are
created and shared.
What is special about IT-based media is that they typically provide a relatively easy, low
cost way of directly sharing, manipulating, and preserving objects. The ways in which the use of
objects can bypass the reliance on boundary-spanning roles create an interesting temporal
dynamic. In n the second phase of the Eserve-Pubco project, the requirements team members,
who became boundary spanners-in-practice, negotiated significant issues with each other faceto-face before presenting an IT-based artifact to other stakeholders. On the other hand, Insura
headquarters launched the Intranet without much up-front negotiation and suffered a significant
backlash from sales agents. Our observations are in line with a study of an engineering work
environment in which the use of IT-based media (CAD/CAM system) hampered boundaryspanning activities by prematurely allowing shop floor workers access to engineering sketches
(Henderson 1991). A boundary-spanning practice may thus suffer from a premature reliance on
IT-based objects. However, when a boundary spanner-in-practice at Insura invested in building
an unmediated relationship with sales agents, he was able to symbolically redefine the nature of
the Intranet as a boundary object-in-use. Thus through the development of new practices
surrounding the use of the Intranet, the nature of the boundary changed without changing the
38
physical artifact. At the same time, because agents were dealing with an IT-based object,
eventually they were able to change the artifact as well. Unlike the story told by Henderson
(1991) which emphasizes the “immutability” of the technology, the Intranet and Use Cases were
quite “mutable” in their use.
We observed that the deployment of IT before a sustainable boundary-spanning practice
is established may hurt boundary-spanning efforts. On the other hand, once boundary spannersin-practice have succeeded in changing local practices and establishing a boundary-spanning
practice that is supported by the parties involved, the use of technology helps extend the practice
beyond the time and space limitations of a particular agent (as also noted by Wenger 1998 p.
110). The use of technology may also help agents who are already engaged in the boundaryspanning practice manipulate the objects that they use to accommodate their needs.
We saw a radically different dynamic of IT use when boundary spanners-in-role only
were involved. At Eserve-Pubco, “the managers” were reluctant to use IT despite its wide
availability and accessibility. Not only was most communication carried through direct
interpersonal contact, but also even group meetings were not announced by email, which
resulted in excluding some group members from participating. We explain this reluctance by
noting that the use of technology could have allowed non-spanners a direct access to objects
created and shared by boundary spanners-in-role. Non-spanners could discover that the objects
that were shared by boundary-spanners-in-role only did not represent their interests. It is not
coincidental that on the Eserve-Pubco project the most important decisions were made in closed
meetings or in hallway conversations by the designated boundary spanners. Had the records of
these decisions been accessible to others through an IT-based medium (e.g., email or document
archives), it would have been easy for others to blame boundary spanners-in-role for the
39
shortcomings associated with these decisions and for their inability to incorporate feedback from
non-spanners. Thus, boundary spanners-in-role only may appear reluctant to use IT because
direct access to and temporal traces of objects that they create may reveal their vested interests.
Their use of IT may be limited to re-enforcing and protecting their role (as Maya did). Similarly,
we saw boundary spanners-in-role only discouraging non-spanners from the use of technology
by others. When line consultants wanted to involve line Pubco project participants in important
decisions, they were reprimanded by boundary spanners-in-role only. The direct contact among
non-spanners undermines the authority of a boundary spanner-in-role only. Figure 2 illustrates
these ideas.
Insert Figure 2 here
To summarize, we observed that the use of IT-based boundary objects helped agents
share and manipulate their representations of the boundary, but still relied on agents who were
inclined and able to engage in each other’s practices – boundary spanners-in-practice. At the
same time, the use of technology in sharing representations of practice changed the relationship
among agents and facilitated the emergence of new boundary spanners-in-practice.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
The use of IT in knowledge work has been investigated from multiple perspectives,
including the use of IT to support individual knowledge workers in their decision-making
(Vicente and Rasmussen 1992), knowledge-sharing and learning in computer mediated
communication (Constant et al. 1994; Goodman and Darr 1998; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2000;
Wasko and Faraj 2000; Kankanhalli et al. 2003), and the development of communities of
practice (Hayes and Walsham 2001; Sole and Huysman 2002; Pan and Leidner 2003). In this
paper we propose a complementary perspective which examines the use of IT in spanning
40
boundaries in knowledge work. The focus on the relationships (Kumar et al. 1998) and
relational limits (boundaries) among diverse knowledge workers helped us interpret agents’
diverse uses of IT in a systematic way. We are building on and extended the literature on
boundary spanners and boundary objects, to illustrate the enacted nature of boundaries,
boundary-spanning roles, and boundary objects. We observed that depending on the agents’
roles and relations to others in boundary-spanning practice, their use of IT in producing and
sharing representations of the boundary differed. As we outline several implications and
research directions below, we also invite our readers to refine and challenge our views on the
basis of new theories or empirical examples.
In our comparison of two cases, we highlighted the distinction between boundary
spanners-in-role and -in-practice. We suggested that only boundary spanners-in-practice can
perform boundary-spanning activities, as such activities necessitate legitimate participation in
the practices of both parties involved. This first contribution sheds a new light on Friedman and
Podolny’s (1992) recommendations that different people be assigned to different boundaryspanning roles. While many individuals may be designated to perform such roles, only a few of
them could perform these roles in practice. This realization offers insight into the choice,
motivation, and resources of project managers. The mere claim that project managers occupy
boundary-spanning roles does not guarantee that they will actually be able to facilitate an
establishment of boundary-spanning practices, as they may choose different identities
(Wiesenfeld and Hewlin 2003) or may be unable to become members of two or more parties.
Selecting a project manager should thus take into account not only the agent’s seniority,
experience, and social skills, but also his or her historically and contextually situated relations
with others on the project. Furthermore, it often happens that line members of project teams
41
informally become boundary spanners-in-practice while project managers remain merely
boundary spanners-in-role (Nochur and Allen 1992). In this situations, boundary spanners-inrole only may take actions, including the use of IT, that are directed primarily at the protection
of their roles vis-à-vis others (non-spanners). These agents may strategically draw on the formal
separation of roles advocated by Friemdan and Podolny (1992) to blame project failure on the
other designated boundary spanners. For boundary spanners-in-practice, however, advice and
trust brokering for both parties are inseparable.
Second, we also argued that boundary spanners-in-practice facilitated the creation of
boundary objects-in-use. Boundary spanners-in-practice draw on their experience and
understanding of the practices of the parties involved to produce objects that they and others can
use to span boundaries in everyday practice. Other researchers have argued that objects become
useful in practice when they represent the differences among the parties involved (Carlile 2002;
Bechky 2003). By developing the concept of boundaries, we concluded that objects become
used as boundary objects when they are used to represent the boundary that is at stake in the
specific setting. Not only do our observations agree with prior findings that boundary spannersin-practice are especially well-suited for facilitating the development and implementation of IS
(Zmud 1980; Pawlowski et al. 2000), but they also highlight that even the use of IS in boundaryspanning practice requires the engagement of boundary spanners-in-practice.
Third, our research also puts in perspective the existing stream of theorizing about
characteristics of boundary objects in organizational and IS literatures. Within practice theory,
various structural features of these objects are enacted in agents’ use and do not exist outside
that use (Giddens 1984; Orlikowski 2000). The flexibility, availability and increasing userfriendliness of digital technologies potentially make IT-based media well-suited for the creation
42
and distribution of boundary objects-in-use. However, we saw that only through agents’
practices do particular IT-based artifacts become boundary objects-in-use. To boundary objects
research we emphasize the need to pay more attention to agency and enactment of various
features of boundary objects-in-use. To research on IT use we emphasize the value of focusing
on boundaries and the role of IT-based artifacts in representing and helping to negotiate
boundaries through the use of objects.
Fourth, we observed how varied uses of IT by different agents changed the relationships
and boundaries among them. The recurrent use of ITs by some agents to span the boundaries in
knowledge work while others do not span this boundary contributes to the production and
reproduction of a new boundary between boundary spanners and non-spanners. The literature
has already noted the emergent gap between agents who use IT regularly and those who, for a
variety of reasons (lack of training, length of service, conflicts, etc.), do not (Sproull et al. 1984).
While the same technology is available to all agents, its actual use (or lack thereof) may separate
two groups and may contribute to the stabilization of the new boundary and even a new
community (e.g., an open-source development community). Through the use of IT-based
objects, boundary spanners-in-practice can leverage their limited time by drawing more agents
into the boundary-spanning practice. On the other hand, as their new and separate identities
emerge, they may start protecting the boundary separating them from non-spanners. In such
situations, the managerial challenge becomes to establish practices for navigating the spanner
vs. non-spanner boundary.
The findings presented in this paper constitute the result of our reflexive process inspired
by the practice perspective and our two case studies. These findings are open to refinement. In
particular, we suggest two promising areas of future work. First, it is important to deepen our
43
understanding of the power dynamics involved in spanning the boundaries in knowledge work.
For instance, we noted that boundary spanners-in-practice may lose some of their political
resources as IT-based boundary objects-in–use emerge, while Pawlowski and colleagues (2000)
found that boundary spanners-in-practice gained additional power when they led IT
implementations. Second, it seems promising to try to understand the nesting of different kinds
of boundaries in knowledge work. For example, what is the interplay between those boundaries
that are at stake in a particular practice (such as graphic designers vs. strategic consultants in the
Eserve-Pubco case) and other important boundaries in the setting (such as gender, age, and
others)?
By highlighting the duality of boundaries, as relational limits that unite and divide
agents on the basis of their practices, we provided a complementary account to knowledge
management in organizations. By focusing on knowing in practice and on the essential role of
human agency in enacting knowledgeable performance (Orlikowski 2002), we developed a
complementary account to works that have focused on “knowledge sharing” or “knowledge
creation.” While we believe that these accounts have provided and continue to provide
important insights, we aimed to contribute to the “dialogical discourse” on KM in IS research by
viewing action as situated and provisional (Schultze and Leidner 2002). Bourdieu’s practice
theory helped us, as well as other IS researchers (Pentland 1992; Kvasny and Truex 2000;
Schultze and Boland 2000), to uncover power dynamics that shaped agents’ engagement with
IT. We realize that a focus on cohesion (for example, on how a common identity was produced)
would have illuminated different aspects of the settings. Our proposed lens can be usefully
utilized in future research to shed new light on challenges and conflicts involved in the
development and implementation of new IT in organizations.
44
References
Ackerman, M., and Halverson, C. "Organizational Memory: Processes, Boundary Objects, and
Trajectories," Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, HICSS-32, Maui, HI, USA, 1999, pp. 43-55.
Agar, M. The professional stranger: an informal introduction to ethnography, Academic Press,
New York, NY, 1980.
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. E. "Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues," MIS Quarterly (25:1), Mar, 2001,
p. 107.
Aldrich, H., and Herker, D. "Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure," Academy
of Management Review (2:2), Apr., 1977, pp. 217-230.
Allen, T. J. "Communications, technology transfer, and the role of technical gatekeepers," R&D
Management (1), 1971, pp. 14-21.
Allen, T. J., and Cohen, S. I. "Information flow in Research and Development laboratories,"
Administrative Science Quarterly (14:1), March, 1969, pp. 12 - 19.
At-Twaijri, M. I. A., and Montanari, J. R. "The Impact of Context and Choice on the BoundarySpanning Process: An Empirical Extension," Human Relations (40:12), Dec, 1987, p.
783.
Barley, S. R. "Technology as an Occasion for Structuring - Evidence from Observations of Ct
Scanners and the Social-Order of Radiology Departments," Administrative Science
Quarterly (31:1), Mar, 1986, pp. 78-108.
Baroudi, J. J. "The Impact of Role Variables on IS Personnel Work Attitudes and Intentions,"
MIS Quarterly (9:4), Dec, 1985, p. 341.
Bartel, C., and Garud, R. "Narrative Knowledge in Action: Adaptive Abduction as a Mechanism
for Knowledge Creation and Exchange in Organizations," In Handbook of
Organizational Learning and Knowledge, M. Easterby-Smith and M. Lyles (Eds.),
Blackwell, UK, 2002.
Bechky, B. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of
Understanding on a Product Floor," Organization Science (14:3), May-June, 2003, pp.
312-330.
Bechky, B. A. Crossing Occupational Boundaries: Communication and Learning on a
Production Floor, Unpublished Thesis,Type, Stanford University, CA, USA, 1999.
Becker, H. S. Tricks of the Trade: How to think about your research while you're doing it, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1998.
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. "The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and
communicating the discipline's core properties1," MIS Quarterly (27:2), Jun, 2003, p.
183.
Bobrow, D., and Whalen, J. "Community Knowledge Sharing in Practice: The Eureka Story,"
Reflections: The SoL Journal (4:2), 2002, pp. 47-57.
Bødker, S. "Understanding representation in design," Human-Computer Interaction (13:2),
1998, pp. 107-125.
Bødker, S. "Scenarios in user-centred design - setting the stage for reflection and action,"
Interacting with Computers (13:1), 2000, pp. 61-75.
Boland, R. J., Jr., and Tenkasi, R. V. "Perspective making and perspective taking in
communities of knowing," Organization Science (6:4), 1995, pp. 350-372.
45
Bourdieu, P. Outline of a theory of practice,(R. Nice, Trans.), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge ; New York, 1977.
Bourdieu, P. The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power,(L. C. Clough, Trans.),
Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif., 1996.
Bourdieu, P. Practical reason: on the theory of action, Stanford University Press, Stanford,
Calif., 1998.
Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L. J. D. An invitation to reflexive sociology, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 1992.
Bowker, G., and Star, S. L. "Knowledge and Information in International Information
Management: Problems of Classification and Coding," In Information Acumen: The
Understanding and Use of Knowledge in Modern Business, L. Bud-Frierman (Ed.)
Routledge, London, 1994, pp. 187-213.
Bowker, G., Timmermans, S., and Star, S. L. "Infrastructure and Organizational
Transformations: Classifying Nurses' Work," In Information Technology and Changes in
Organizational Work, W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross
(Eds.), Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1996, pp. 344-369.
Briers, M., and Chua, W. F. "The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management
accounting change: A field study of an implementation of activity-based costing,"
Accounting, Organizations and Society (26:3), 2001, pp. 237-269.
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. "Organizing knowledge," California Management Review (40:3),
1998, pp. 90-111.
Carlile, P. R. Understanding Knowledge Transformation In Product Development: Making
Knowledge Manifest Through Boundary Objects, Unpublished Thesis,Type, University
Of Michigan, USA, 1997.
Carlile, P. R. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New
Product Development," Organization Science (13:4), July-August, 2002, pp. 442-455.
Certeau, M. d. The practice of everyday life, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. "Whats Mine Is Ours, or Is It - a Study of Attitudes
About Information Sharing," Information Systems Research (5:4), Dec, 1994, pp. 400421.
Contu, A., and Willmott, H. "Re-embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations
in Learning Theory," Organization Science (14:3), May-June, 2003, pp. 283-296.
Drucker, P. F. The age of discontinuity; guidelines to our changing society, Harper & Row, New
York,, 1969.
Dubinsky, A. J., Michaels, R. E., Kotabe, M., Lim, C. U., and Moon, H.-C. "Influence of Role
Stress on Industrial Salespeople's Work Outcomes in the United States, Japan, and
Korea," Journal of International Business Studies (23:1), 1st Qtr., 1992, pp. 77-99.
Dyer, J. H., and Singh, H. "The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage," Academy of Management Review (23:4),
1998, pp. 660-679.
Epstein, J. Book business: publishing past, present, and future, (1st ed.), W.W. Norton, New
York, 2001.
Friedman, R. A., and Podolny, J. "Differentiation of Boundary Spanning Roles: Labor
Negotiations and Implications for Role Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly
(37:1), 1992, pp. 28-47.
46
Giddens, A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration, University of
California Press, Berkeley, 1984.
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative
research, Aldine Pub. Co., Chicago, IL, 1967.
Goodman, P. S., and Darr, E. D. "Computer-aided systems and communities: Mechanisms for
organizational learning in distributed environments," MIS Quarterly; (22:4), 1998, pp.
417-440.
Grant, R. M. "Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm," Strategic Management Journal
(17:Winter), 1996, pp. 109-122.
Hayes, N., and Walsham, G. "Participation in groupware-mediated communities of practice: a
socio-political analysis of knowledge working," Information and Organization (11:4),
2001, pp. 263-288.
Henderson, K. "Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication
Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering," Science,
Technology, & Human Value (16:4), 1991, pp. 448-473.
Hinds, P., and Kiesler, S. Distributed work, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2002.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., and Staples, D. "The use of collaborative electronic media for information
sharing: an exploratory study of determinants," Journal of Strategic Information Syste
(9:2-3), 2000, pp. 129-154.
Kankanhalli, A., Tanudidjaja, F., Sutanto, J., and Tan, B. C. Y. "Role of Information
Technology in Successful Knowledge Management Initiatives," Communications of the
ACM (46:9), 2003, p. 69.
Katz, R., and Tushman, M. "An Investigation into the Managerial Roles and Career Paths of
Gatekeepers and Project Supervisors in a Major R&D Facility," R & D Management
(11:3), Jul, 1981, p. 103.
Katz, R., Tushman, M., and Allen , T. J. "The influence of supervisory promotion and network
location on subordinate careers in a dual ladder RD&E setting," Management Science
(41:5), May, 1995, p. 848.
Keller, R. T., and Holland, W. E. "Boundary-Spanning Roles in a Research and Development
Organization: An Empirical Investigation," Academy of Management Journal (18:2),
Jun., 1975, pp. 388-393.
Kim, J. Y., and King, J. L. "Boundary Instances in Heterogeneous Engineering Teams: Trouble
Management in the Dram Manufacturing Process," Research on Managing Groups and
Teams (3), 2000, pp. 79-98.
Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. "A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive
Field Studies in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 67-92.
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the
Replication of Technology," Organization Science (3:3), August, 1992, pp. 383-397.
Kumar, K., van Dissel, H., and Bielli, P. "The Merchant of Prato revisited: toward a third
rationality of information systems," MIS Quarterly (22:2), 1998, pp. 199-226.
Kvasny, L., and Truex, D. "Information Technology and the Cultural Reproduction of Social
Order: A Research Program," In Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information
Technology, R. L. Baskerville, J. Stage, and J. DeGross (Eds.), Kluwer Academic
Publishers, New York, 2000, pp. 277-294.
Lave, J. Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge ; New York, 1988.
47
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 1991.
Leifer, R., and Delbecq, A. "Organizational/Environmental Interchange: A Model of Boundary
Spanning Activity," Academy of Management Review (3:1), Jan., 1978, pp. 40-50.
Leifer, R., and Huber, G. P. "Relations Among Perceived Environmental Uncertainty,
Organization Structure, and Boundary-Spanning Behavior," Administrative Science
Quarterly (22:2), Jun., 1977, pp. 235-247.
Levina, N. Multi-party Information Systems Development: The Challenge of Cross-Boundary
Collaboration, Unpublished Thesis,Type, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, 2001.
Lysonski, S. "A Boundary Theory Investigation of the Product Manager's Role," Journal of
Marketing (49:1), Winter, 1985, p. 26.
Lysonski, S. J., and Johnson, E. M. "The Sales Manager as a Boundary Spanner: A Role Theory
Analysis," The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management (3:2), Nov, 1983, p. 8.
Malinowski, B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and
adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, Routledge & Sons, London,
1922.
Metiu, A. Faraway, So Close: Code Ownership over Innovative Work in the Global Software
Industry, Unpublished Thesis,Type, University of Pennselvania, Philladelphia, PA, 2001.
Metiu, A. "Knowledge Creation Across Boundaries: Innovative Work in Software
Development," Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Third European Conference on
Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities, H. Tsoukas and N.
Mylonopoulos (Eds.), Athens, Greece, 5-6 April 2002, 2002.
Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. "Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage," Academy of Management Review (23:2), Apr, 1998, pp. 242-266.
Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., and Swan, J. "From global knowledge management to internal
electronic fences : Contradictory outcomes of intranet development," British Journal of
Management (12:2), 2001, pp. 97 - 111.
Newman, M., and Robey, D. "A Social-Process Model of User-Analyst Relationships," Mis
Quarterly (16:2), Jun, 1992, pp. 249-266.
Nochur, K. S., and Allen, T. J. "Do Nominated Boundary Spanners Become Effective
Technological Gatekeepers?," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (39:3),
1992, pp. 265-269.
O'Connor, G. C., Rice, M. P., Peters, L., and Veryzer, R. W. "Managing Interdisciplinary,
Longitudinal Research Teams: Extending Grounded Theory-Building Methodologies,"
Organization Science (14:4), July-August, 2003, pp. 353-373.
Orlikowski, W. J. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in
Organizations," Organization Science (3:3), August, 1992, pp. 398-427.
Orlikowski, W. J. "Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying
technology in organizations," Organization Science (11:4), 2000, pp. 404-428.
Orlikowski, W. J. "Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed
organizing," Organization Science (13:3), May/Jun, 2002, p. 249.
Pan, S. L., and Leidner, D. E. "Bridging Communities of Practice with Information Technology
in Pursuit of Global Knowledge Sharing," Journal of Strategic Information Systems
(12:1), March, 2003, pp. 71-88.
48
Pawlowski, S. D., Robey, D., and Raven, A. "Supporting Shared Information Systems:
Boundary Objects, Communities, and Brokering," Proceedings of the Twenty-First
International Conference on Information Systems, W. J. Orlikowski, P. Weill, S. Ang, H.
Krcmar, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Brisbane, Australia, December 10-13, 2000, 2000, pp.
329-338.
Pentland, B. T. "Organizing moves in software support hot lines," Administrative Science
Quarterly (37:4), 1992, pp. 527-548.
Pettigrew, A. M. "Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice," Organization
Science (1:3), August, 1990, pp. 267-292.
Schultze, U., and Boland, R. J., Jr,. "Place, space and knowledge work: a study of outsourced
computer systems administrators," Accounting, Management and Information
Technologies (10:3), 2000, pp. 187-219.
Schultze, U., and Leidner, D. E. "Studying knowledge management in information systems
research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions," MIS Quarterly (26:3), Sep, 2002, p.
213.
Singh, J., and Rhoads, G. K. "Boundary Role Ambiguity in Marketing-Oriented Positions: A
Multidimensional, Multifaceted Operationalization," JMR, Journal of Marketing
Research (28:3), Aug, 1991, p. 328.
Singh, J., Verbeke, W., and Rhoads, G. K. "Do organizational practices matter in role stress
processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketing-oriented boundary
spanners," Journal of Marketing (60:3), Jul, 1996, p. 69.
Sole, D., and Huysman, M. "Communities of Practice and The Role of Location: Revealing
Limits of Virtuality and Knowledge," Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference
on Information Systems, J. I. DeGross, L. Applegate, and R. Galliers (Eds.), Barcelona,
Spain, December 16-18th, 2002, pp. 553-561.
Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., and Zubrow, D. "Encountering an alien culture," Journal of Social
Issues (40:3), 1984, pp. 31-48.
Star, S. L. "The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous
Distributed Problem Solving," In Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, M.
Huhn and L. Gasser (Eds.), Morgan Kaufman, Menlo Park, CA, 1989, pp. 37-54.
Star, S. L., and Griesemer, J. R. "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects:
Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907-39,"
Social Studies of Science (19), 1989, pp. 387-420.
Star, S. L., and Ruhdeler, K. "Steps toward an ecology infrastructure: Design and access for
large information spaces," Information Systems Research (7:1), 1996, pp. 111 - 134.
Staudenmayer, N., Tyre, M., and Perlow, L. "Time to Change: Temporal Shifts as Enablers of
Organizational Change," Organization Science (13:5), September-October, 2002, pp.
583-597.
Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. M. Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory, (2nd ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1998.
Suchman, L. A. Plans and situated actions : the problem of human-machine communication,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York, 1987.
Tsoukas, H. "The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach,"
Strategic Management Journal (17:Winter), Winter, 1996, pp. 11-25.
Tushman, M. L. "Special boundary roles in the innovation process," Administrative Science
Quarterly (22:4), 1977, pp. 587 - 605.
49
Tushman, M. L., and Scanlan, T. J. "Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information
Transfer and Their Antecedents," Academy of Management Journal (24:2), Jun, 1981a,
p. 289.
Tushman, M. L., and Scanlan, T. J. "Characteristics and External Orientations of Boundary
Spanning Individuals," Academy of Management Journal (24:1), Mar, 1981b, p. 83.
Tyre, M. J., and Orlikowski, W. J. "Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological
adaptation in organizations," Organization Science (5:1), February, 1994, pp. 98-118.
Vandenbosch, B., and Ginsberg, M. J. "Lotus notes and collaboration : plus ça change…,"
Journal of MIS (1:3), 1996, pp. 65 - 81.
Vicente, K. J., and Rasmussen, J. "Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations," IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC-22), 1992, pp. 589-606.
Von Krogh, G. "The communal resource and information systems," Journal of Strategic
Information Systems (11), 2002, pp. 85-107.
Walsham, G. "Cross-cultural software production and use: A structurational analysis," MIS
Quarterly (26:4), Dec, 2002, p. 359.
Walter, A. "Relationship promoters: Driving forces for successful customer relationships,"
Industrial Marketing Management (28:5), Sep 1999, 1999, p. 537.
Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S. "It is what one does: why people participate and help others in
electronic CoP.," Journal of Strategic Information Systems (9), 2000, pp. 155-173.
Wenger, E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, N.Y., 1998.
Wiesenfeld, B., and Hewlin, P. "Splintered Identity and Organizational Change: The
Predicament of Boundary Spanning Managers," In Research on Managing Groups and
Teams, Vol. 5, Elsevier Science Ltd., 2003, pp. 27-52.
Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, (Vol. 5), Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, CA, 1984.
Zmud, R. W. "Management of Large Software Development Efforts," MIS Quarterly (4:2), Jun.,
1980, pp. 45-55.
50