MSU ADVANCEnetwork
Science in the Public Interest
Bridging Boundaries for
Collaborative Ends
Laura J. Black, Ph.D., Montana State University
Siobhan O’Mahony, UC Davis GSM
May 4, 2009
Overview:
The Beauty of Sharing REALLY Bad Drafts

Why collaborating is hard

Research: Reducing “disconnects” in large
space system development programs

Summary of findings
*******

Guidelines for practice
2
Why Collaborating Is Hard
(at least one important reason)
Working Across Boundaries
What happens when expertise differs?
How do we THINK together?
4
4
Knowledge: Not JUST in Our Heads
Knowledge is DISTRIBUTED across…
…our
ACTIVITIES
…our THINKING…
…and the LOCATIONS where we use the TOOLS and
PROCESSES we need to think and work.
5
5
Knowledge—Not JUST in Our Heads
Remove any one of these…
…our THINKING
…the LOCATIONS with
situated TOOLS and
PROCESSES
…our
ACTIVITIES
…and we know LESS
6
6
Research:
“Disconnects” in Large
Aerospace Programs
Empirical Background

Aerospace acquisition—very large product
development using technologies in new ways

Congressional authority, changing stakeholders

No chance to to learn from mistakes

Requirement to integrate expertise across

Geographic settings

Disciplinary boundaries

Organizational lines

Society sectors
8
Presenting Research Problem
How can we “stay on the same page”
as we do this long-horizon innovative work?
How can we reduce "disconnects" between the
System Program Office and the prime contractor?
“Disconnects”: Latent differences in
understanding that can negatively affect the
program if they remain undetected or unresolved.
9
9
Research Approach

Conduct semi-structured and open-ended
interviews in System Program Office

Causes of disconnects

Ways to reduce disconnects, stay "on the same page"

Qualitatively analyze data to identify themes
and distill constructs

Construct simulation model of causal
relationships to test competing explanations
10
What the SPO said…

“We need people who can WRITE requirements.”

“Poor Lt.Col. S—he didn’t know what the contractor
gave him was crap.”

“It takes the integrated product teams a long time to
understand the consequence of a proposed change.”

“The Engineering Change Board is too slow—by the
time a change is approved, the contractor’s
understanding of the change has changed.”

“The problem is that requirements keep changing—
even entire stakeholder groups change.”
11
Competing Explanations

…people can't communicate

…the SPO lacks expertise

…people are TOO SLOW in making
sense of proposed changes

…people (esp. in the SPO) are TOO
SLOW to act

…shifting requirements cause
disconnects
12
Modeling SPO-Contractor Interactions
System Program Office
(SPO)
Decide
Act
Orient
Observe
Observe
Orient
Act
Decide
KTR = Contractor
SPO = System Program Office
Contractor
(KTR)
13
13
Modeling Chain of Interactions

4-player "intellectual supply chain"


SPO, Contractor, Subcontractor, Vendor
Baseline: organization's collective
understanding of work-to-be-done

Technical, financial, schedule baselines
14
What causes disconnects?
Requirement
Requirement
<Requirement
CHANGING
<Requirement
<Requirement
Changes
to
Changes REQUIREMENTS
Switch Changes
Changes
toBaseline>
Baseline>
to
Changes
to Baseline>
Baseline
Initial Baseline
Baseline
Decision and
Decision
andand
Decision
and
DELAYS
IN Delay
DECIDING
Decision
Action
Action
Delay
Action
Delay
Action
Delay
AND
ACTING
DELAYSand
IN
Observation
and
Observation
Observation
and
Observation
and
OBSERVING
AND
Orientation
Delay
Orientation
Delay
Orientation
Delay
Orientation
Delay
ORIENTING
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Adjusting
Adjusting
Adjusting
Adjusting
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Perceived
Perceived
Perceived
Perceived
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
•SPO
•Contractor
•Sub-Contractor
•Vendor
ClarityofofBaseline
Baseline
Clarity
Clarity
of
Baseline
Clarity of Baseline
COMMUNICATION
Communication
Sent
Communication
Sent
Communication
Sent
Communication Sent
CLARITY
EXPERTISE—
AFFECTING
Orientation
Orientation
Orientation
Orientation
ORIENTATION
Expertise
Level
Expertise
Level
Expertise
Level
Expertise Level
15
15
What causes disconnects?
Requirement
Requirement
<Requirement
<Requirement
<Requirement
Changes
to
Changes Switch Changes
Changes
toBaseline>
Baseline>
to
Changes
to Baseline>
Baseline
Initial Baseline
Baseline
Decisionand
and
Decision
Decision
and
Decision
and
Action
Delay
Action
Delay
Action
Delay
Action
Delay
Observationand
and
Observation
Observation
and
Observation
and
Orientation
Delay
Orientation
Delay
Orientation
Delay
Orientation Delay
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Adjusting
Adjusting
Adjusting
Adjusting
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Perceived
Perceived
Perceived
Perceived
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
•SPO
•Contractor
•Sub-Contractor
•Vendor
ClarityofofBaseline
Baseline
Clarity
Clarity
of
Baseline
Clarity of Baseline
Communication
Sent
Communication
Sent
Communication
Sent
Communication Sent
Orientation
Orientation
Orientation
Orientation
Expertise
Level
Expertise
Level
Expertise
Level
Expertise
Level
16
16
Simulation Base Case
Government and Contractor Baselines
200
150
100
50
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
Months
SPO Baseline
KTR Baseline
SUB Baseline
VEN Baseline
36
42
48
54
60
Widgets
Widgets
Widgets
Widgets
Disconnect index 2529
17
17
Simulated Scenario:
Turning Off the “Requirements Grenade”
Explanation: Disconnects arise from “out there”—
because external stakeholders change requirements

Scenario: Turn the Requirement Changes Switch “off”
(no party receives external requirements changes)
<Requirement
Changes to Baseline>
Baseline
Decision and
Action Delay
Observation and
Orientation Delay
Adjusting
Baseline
Perceived
Baseline
Clarity of Baseline
Communication Sent
Orientation
Expertise Level
18
18
Simulated Scenario:
Turning Off the “Requirements Grenade”
Government and Contractor Baselines
200
150
100
50
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
Months
SPO Baseline
KTR Baseline
SUB Baseline
VEN Baseline

36
42
48
54
60
Widgets
Widgets
Widgets
Widgets
Disconnect index 2288—only a 9.5% improvement
19
19
Simulated Scenario:
Speeding Up the SPO
Explanation: If the SPO oriented and acted more
quickly, fewer disconnects would result

Scenario Speeding-1: Reduces the SPO’s decision
and action delay from 5 months to 1

Scenario Speeding-2: Reduces the SPO’s observation
and orientation delay from 5 months to 1
<Requirement
Changes to Baseline>
Baseline
Decision and
Action Delay
Observation and
Orientation Delay
Adjusting
Baseline
Perceived
Baseline
Clarity of Baseline
Communication Sent
Orientation
Expertise Level
20
20
Simulated Scenario Speeding-1:
Speeding Up the SPO–Accelerating Decision and Action
Government and Contractor Baselines
200
150
100
50
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
Months
SPO Baseline
KTR Baseline
SUB Baseline
VEN Baseline
36
42
48
54
60
Widgets
Widgets
Widgets
Widgets
Disconnect index 2635—a 4.2% deterioration
21
21
Simulated Scenario Speeding-2:
Speeding Up the SPO–Accelerating Observation and Orientation
Government and Contractor Baselines
200
150
100
50
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
Months
SPO Baseline
KTR Baseline
SUB Baseline
VEN Baseline
36
42
48
54
60
Widgets
Widgets
Widgets
Widgets
Disconnect index 1918—a 24.1% improvement
22
22
What We Learned About Disconnects

Disconnects

…do not result from big changes from “out there”

…are good, if you have confidence you can rapidly
assimilate their implications

…cause changes that, when “open” too long, spawn
exponentially more follow-on changes!
23
23
How to Stay on the Same Page

Increase expertise

Put the best people on the project at the start

Design socially constructed resolutions as
well as technically designed solutions

Iterating more times, more quickly, on lessperfect information produces better outcomes
24
How to Stay on the Same Page

Orient 5 to 8 times for every big act!

Cycle through the OODA loop more times but with less
drastic action each time

Each time you communicate, use some kind of
representation!



"How do I know what I think until I see what I say?"
Remember, knowledge isn't JUST all in our heads—we need to
see and touch things to "know"
Use your representations as “boundary objects”
25
How to Stay on the Same Page

Boundary objects: Artifacts enabling people to
collaborate effectively across some boundary

Open to multiple interpretations by each party

Representing key dependencies among players

Hiding a lot of details—"Impoverished replicas” of the
salient shared dependencies
To be a boundary object (not a bludgeoning tool) the
artifact must be transformable by all parties
26
26
Why “Boundary Objects” Help

Leverage points in the simulated world
<Requirement
Changes to Baseline>
Helps shorten the
time to understand
changes
Baseline
Decision and
Action Delay
Observation and
Orientation Delay
Helps compensate for low
expertise levels and leverages
high expertise levels
Adjusting
Baseline
Perceived
Baseline
Helps compensate for
differences in organizations,
relative expertise, knowledge
domains, timing and location
of collaborators
Clarity of Baseline
Communication Sent
Orientation
Expertise Level
27
27
Enabling Cumulative Innovation
Through Collaboration with
Unexpected Allies
Siobhan O’Mahony
UC Davis GSM
ADVANCEnetwork
“Science in the Public Interest”
Montana State University
May 4, 2009
Overview
• The conditions that enable or hinder cumulative
innovation
• 2 in depth examples of unexpected allies learning to
collaborate:
– The case of open source vs industry
– The case of Dupont vs academia
• Principles for fostering collaboration with unexpected
allies – to achieve cumulative innovation
Cumulative Innovation
• Cumulative innovation: repurposing or
recombining pre-existing ideas to foster new
innovations (adapted from Scotchmer, 1991,
2005).
• Assumption: Recombinatory processes are
not inherent to an innovation itself. They are
inherently behavioral and shaped by the
institutions in which they are embedded (Mokyr,
2004; Murray and O’Mahony, 2007)
Institutions Supporting Cumulative
Innovation are Under-theorized
• Organizational scholars have studied what affects the
structure and flow of knowledge
• However, for innovation to occur, knowledge must
not just flow; it must be understood and recombined
in new ways
• However, we know little about the social or
institutional factors that affect an innovator’s ability or
willingness to recombine knowledge.
What Enables Cumulative Innovation?
1.
Disclosure – to build on pre-existing knowledge one
must know of it
2.
Accessibility – to use knowledge developed by others,
one must have access to make use of it
3.
Validation – one must be able to replicate and validate
prior knowledge to make use of it (Murray and
O’Mahony, 2007)
The over-riding research question: What role do
organizations and institutions play in enabling or
inhibiting these conditions?
Cumulative Innovation:
Informal and Formal Mechanisms
Antecedents
Informal
Formal
Disclosure
Publications, research
communities,
conferences
Patent filings, NDAs,
Trade secrets
Accessibility
References, source code, Licenses, patent
material libraries
commons, open
licenses, standards,
cell banks
Validation
Peer review systems,
Patent examiners, cell
academic norms
banks,
encourage replication and
falsification
The cumulative perspective shifts
attention from ‘who knows who?’ to
‘who can share, build upon and
reuse knowledge?’
and, most importantly,
‘under what conditions?’
Case #1: Open Source vs
Industry
from:
O’Mahony & Bechky, 2008
The “Linux Uprising” did not
happen by the community
alone.
Some firms played an
important role.
Yet, open source
communities were
challenging the proprietary
model of software
development.
How did these unexpected
allies ever collaborate?
Divergent Interests
OS Projects
Maintain communal form:
informal collegial project
practices and working norms
Firms
Influence project direction to align
with firm strategy and time table
Maintain individual technical
autonomy
Acquire more predictability in the
software development process to
foster firm planning
Preserve transparency and open
access to code development,
in order to foster full
participation in community
decision-making
Pursue partnership and
collaboration opportunities with
discretion
Sustain project’s vendor
independence
Establish governance mechanisms
to shape a project’s future
But areas of mutual interest also
existed….
“Commercial interests brought in a lot of problems
that did not use to be there, like new interesting
technical problems, like what do you do with
terabyte disks and large scale clustering? Things
that many technical people are kind of interested
in but they never get to actually play with…
For example, there’s a lot of people who are
interested in doing performance work on extreme
loads and the only place where that actually
happens is the commercial setting” (Founder,
Linux kernel project)
Convergent Interests
OS Projects
Firms
Enhance technical capability,
performance and portability of
software for use in the enterprise
Acquire access to technical
expertise and improve recruitment of
skilled programmers
Improve individual skill through
exposure to new commercial
performance challenges
Collaborate with skilled experts to
solve difficult technical problems;
learn how source code can be
customized to solve customer
problems
Achieve commercial legitimacy and
recognition – establish traditional
marketing channels
Alleviate power of industry
monopoly and enhance their own
market share
Enhance project’s market share and
diffusion
Increased margins through reduced
licensing fees
Domains of Adaptation
Communities and Firms adapted their
organizing practices in these four areas and
reinforced them with the creation of
boundary organization:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Governance
Membership
Ownership
Control Over Production
Boundary Organizations
• Boundary objects can help translation across different
knowledge sharing communities
• Boundary organizations facilitate collaboration between
scientists and non-scientists by remaining accountable to
both
– Are often created through legislation to bridge science
and politics
• “Boundary organizations..involve people from both
communities but play a distinctive role that would be
difficult or impossible for organizations in either community
to play” (Scott, 2000: 15).
1) Governance
• Creating a Project Representation – “If [this] had been all
over the newspaper…then Sun may never had adopted [GUI
desktop project] because they would say, “Well we can’t do
this. We can’t talk to these guys without being in the public
eye, therefore we cannot have exploratory conversations.
Therefore we cannot do business with them, right?”
• Preserving Pluralistic Control – “This is about openness
and democracy and no corporate influence poisoning the
whole thing….Some of them are pretty heavy handed, some
of these folks are saying things like, ‘if we don’t have a board
member, we will not join this movement. We must be on the
board of directors.”...I’m not sure that our hacker community
is ready for that.”
1) Governance
Interests Satisfied
Organizing Practices
Adapted
Open Source
Software Projects
Firms
Creating project
representation
Provides open access
and participatory
processes
Reduces ambiguity and
provides some
degree of discretion
Preserving pluralistic
control
Ensures independent &
collective control
without undue firm
influence
Provides some voice
on project direction
without direct
control
2) Membership
Defining Rights of Members - “What we were trying to do
as a Foundation is have our own entity that could be on
an equal footing with these companies, that could
represent the community interests, right?”
Sponsoring Contributors – “They understood this
effectively that you know [Webserver Project] was not an
industry consortium, right? It was a collection of
individuals, so when an individual [Fortune 500 Firm]
engineer got core commit access, if that individual left
and went somewhere else to work on [the project], they
would still have the same status within [the project].”
2) Membership
Organizing
Practices
Adapted
Defining Rights of
Members
Sponsoring
Contributors
Interests Satisfied
Open Source
Software Projects
Firms
Preserves individual
basis of
membership and
independence of the
community
Firms cannot gain
formal rights, only
sponsor
contributors
Provides additional
resources to help
project improve
Offers firms a means
of direct access to
development
process
3) Ownership
• Obtaining Work Assignment Rights – “I looked at it and
said no I am not going to sign. And we changed like five
words. And basically it was adding an ‘except for Linux’.”
• Developing Contribution Agreements –At one Webserver
Project meeting, members debated whether sponsored
contributors should submit a disclaimer from their employers
in addition to contribution agreements.
• Managing Code Donation - “When Sun and IBM donated
code to us, they signed contracts that said we sign over
copyright… we can consider that our code. And thus the
[project] Foundation is liable for it.”
3) Ownership
Organizing Practices
Adapted
Obtaining Work
Assignment Rights
Developing
Contribution
Agreements
Managing Code
Donation
Interests Satisfied
Open Source Software
Projects
Firms
Reinforces individual
autonomy and
independence
Ensures clear
provenance of code
Ensures clear provenance
of code, preserves
access
Ensures clear
provenance of code,
preserves access
Enhances technical
quality and reach of
the project
Improves efficiency from
having to manage
separate code base
4) Control of Production
Community Control of Code Contribution - “The
challenge we have is.. to figure out a way to keep the
power with the hackers and provide an environment
where players like Sun Microsystems or IBM or Compaq
or smaller companies can be part of this [open source]”
Managing Technical Direction – “This is a public project.
The goals for that are discussed in public, they're made
by, the community…And so that's not controlled by any
company”
4) Control of Production
Organizing Practices
Adapted
Community Control of
Code Contribution
Managing Technical
Direction
Interests Satisfied
Open Source Software
Projects
Firms
Allows community to
preserve autonomy
and independence
Allows firms visibility into
code development &
access through
sponsored
contributors
Allows community to
preserve autonomy
and independence
Firms have informal
influence on code
development through
sponsored
contributors
The Emergent Triadic Role
Structure
Open Source
Communities
• Retain their technical
autonomy
Boundary
Organizations
(Non-Profit
Foundations)
• Continue to make
technical decisions
through peer review
• Hold the
community’s assets
& intellectual
property rights
• Retain a controlling
interest on
governance issues
• Mediate corporate
interests where
relevant
Firms
•
•
Support projects
May try to influence
technical priorities
•
Do not obtain direct
decision making or
ownership rights
•
May use
community work for
profit with proper
acknolwedgement
Case #2: Dupont vs
academia
From: Murray, 2009
The Creation of the
Oncomouse
• 1984 Phil Leder & Tim
Stewart, Harvard University,
develop the “Oncomouse
• First mouse with specific
genes inserted that
predispose the mouse to
cancer – an important
advance to understand the
role of genes in cancer
• Files patent application July
1984
• Publishes findings in Cell
October 1984
• Patent granted to Harvard
1988- -US Patent #
4,736,866 - licensed
exclusively to DuPont
• Mouse is distributed thru
suppliers but DuPont
places licensing restrictions
– “Reach-through” rights,
extend to all derived
works
– “Article review” of all
related publications
Academic Reaction & Response
• DuPont’s ‘reach-through’
rights ignite an uproar
among scientists (Science,
1993) – imposes “normative
transaction costs” on
scientists (Murray 2005)
• NIH recruits a non-profit
facility (Jackson Laboratory)
to be a repository for
genetically altered mice and
act as “boundary
organization” between
community and commercial
interests
• NIH, under Varmus,
negotiates new terms with
duPont to triage:
– limit ‘reach-through’ rights for
research
– retain them for commercial
purposes
• Firms must buy a
commercial license
• Scientific norms and
practices “trump” imposition
of private interests in order to
further cumulative research
The Role of Boundary Organizations
•
•
Boundary organizations can organize parties around
common innovation needs without compromising
divergent interests
They enable collaboration not by blurring boundaries,
but by reinforcing shared interests and delineating
where interests diverge
•
Only by preserving the boundaries that separated
parties with diverging interests could boundary
organizations sustain their ability to represent either
party.
•
Thus, their job is not to collapse divergent social
worlds but to preserve and bridge them.
Collaborating with Unexpected Allies
• Collaborators do not
need to maintain a full
set of shared interests
• Collaborators do not
need to change their
divergent interests –
but must parse
among these –
– think triage between the
interests of academia and
industry
1.
2.
3.
4.
Indentify the zone of
shared interests for
cumulative innovation
Recognize shared interests
alone are not enough –
Adaptation of practices is
required which may change
collaborator role structures
A new organization may be
required to preserve actors
ability to pursue divergent
interests
Breakout Discussion
1. What kinds of things do you collaborate on?
2. Where do these collaborations work well or
break down?
3. Are these factors more likely to be internally or
externally driven?
4. Have you collaborated with people that do not
share your interests? Under what circumstances
does this work?
5. Have you worked with a boundary organization
before?
Consider This….
Of 4,227 life scientists over 30 years, women
faculty patented their work at 40% the rate of
men – holding productivity, social network,
scientific field and employer characteristics
constant (Ding et al, 2006)
– Patents are often an avenue to many types of
rewards and recognition, consulting, advisory
boards
– Male patent holders typically have higher paper
counts, more NIH money, and more coauthorships with industry scientists
Why these Gender Differences?
• The “Larry Summers” explanation - women do research
that is less commercially relevant
– No – citation impact across gender not significant
• The “too busy” explanation – women are too busy
publishing and balancing family
• The network explanation – women lack contacts with
industry – industry contacts were often precursor for
patenting for men
• The “ambivalence” explanation- concern that engaging
with the commercial sector might create negative signal
value
Food for Thought
Who are you not collaborating with
that could be beneficial?
Guidelines for Practice
The Beauty of Sharing REALLY Bad Drafts
Guidelines for Practice

The enacted strategy is in people's heads.

We can socially construct understanding to


Build individual and collective chains of agreements

Anchor intangible agreements with tangible artifacts
We can manage OODA-loop pacing
deliberately

 5 to 8 iterations to stabilize a draft!

The drafts have to be BAD because it's too costly to
make them good.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCI-0838317.
61
Guidelines for Practice

Deliberately socially construct shared
understanding



Facilitate—(open, narrow, close)
Communicate

Plan to iterate

Establish and manage pacing

Use ugly, public representations
Persist
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCI-0838317.
62
The Shape of a Good Facilitation
Summary:
Make a mess…and clean it up!
63
Example of Social Construction

Around 1945, Duncan Hines and other
companies introduced instant cake mixes
…just add water!

THEY DID NOT SELL!

Why? Housewives indicated that just adding water
degraded role as family baker—that wasn't real baking

Duncan Hines adjusted formulation
…now must add an egg!

Result: Sales took off
64
Planning to Iterate

Are we talking to relevant stakeholders in the
timeframe they/we want?

Consider "sponsors" as well as "collaborators"

Is iteration included in the work design?

Are there many small agreements rather than
one agreement "big bang"?

How do the interim deliverables (artifacts)
support the socially construction of our work?
65
Pacing the Iteration

Is the pacing fast enough to prevent being
“overcome by events”?


The faster the environment is changing, the faster your
OODA cycles must be.
Does the plan include opening-out, narrowing,
and closing activities?

For EACH deliverable?

For the effort?
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCI-0838317.
66
Represent Work-In-Process Visually

Visual artifacts always trail the non-observable
development of understanding

Visual representations help people recall

Where they have been and

What they have agreed upon to this point
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCI-0838317.
67
Example of a REALLY Bad Draft
68
Example of REALLY Bad Draft
69
Example of REALLY Bad Draft
70
Example of REALLY Bad Draft
71
Share the Ugly Drafts


Ugly documents invite “fixing”

Beautiful documents look finished and "correct"

Keeping it ugly until the end invites modification
Iterating faster with ugly drafts

Produces better results than slow "perfection"

Is more effective at socially constructing agreements

Time-boxes work and makes it easier to manage along
the way

Keeps costs low enough to iterate some more
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCI-0838317.
72
Why Ugly Is Really Beautiful

Iterating with ugly drafts builds “buy-in”

Surfaces assumptions embedded in expertise

Provides more cues for our distributed cognition

Ugly drafts leave room for others to "add their
egg"—creates true ownership in outcomes

Shared ownership and understanding is key to
“uncontrolled” joint action
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCI-0838317.
73
Additional Resources
•
F. Murray (forthcoming). "The Oncomouse that Roared: Hybrid Exchange
Strategies as a Source of Productive Tension at The Boundary Of Overlapping
Institutions". American Journal of Sociology.
•
O’Mahony, Siobhán and Beth Bechky. 2008. “Boundary Organizations: Enabling
Collaboration Among Unexpected Allies,” Administrative Science Quarterly (53):
422-459.
•
F. Murray and S. O'Mahony (2007). "Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative
Innovation: Implications for Organization Science." Organization Science, Vol.
18, pp. 1006-1021.
•
F. Murray and L. Graham (2007). "Buying Science & Selling Science: Gender
Stratification in Commercial Science". Industrial and Corporate Change Special
Issue on Technology Transfer, Vol. 16:4, pp. 657-689.
•
W. Ding, F. Murray and T. Stuart (2006). "Gender Differences in Patenting in the
Academic Life Scientists." Science , Vol. 313, pp. 665-667.
Additional resources

Black, L.J. and D.R. Greer, 2009, "You Meant What?! Socially
Constructing Shared Meaning," working paper

Boyd, J. 1992. "A Discourse on Winning and Losing"

Note: Boyd did not appear to publish his research; documentation of some briefings may be
found in Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, published in 2002 by Back Bay
Books

Carlile, P.R. “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary
Objects in New Product Development,” Organization Science,13, 2002.

Henderson, K., “Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual
Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design
Engineering,” Science, Technology & Human Values,16, 1991

Lave, Jean, Cognition in Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988

Star, S.L. and J.R. Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and
Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum
of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39,” Social Studies of Science, 19, 1989.
75
Thank you!