Activity theory: A useful framework for analysing project-based organizations

Vikalpa

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 1-18

  Vakkayil, Jacob D ^a  

^a INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT CALCUTTA   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052740919     PISSN: 02560909     EISSN: 23953799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0256090920100301     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Adler, P S (2005). “The Evolving Object of Software Development,” Organization, 12(3), 401-435.
2. Aldrich, H and Herker, D (1977). “Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure,” Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217-230.
3. Barthelmess, P and Anderson, K M (2002). “A View of Software Development Environments Based on Activity Theory,” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(1-2), 13-37.
4. Bhardwaj, S S and Saxena, K B C (2005). “Knowledge Management in Global Software Development Teams,” Vikalpa, 30(4), 65-75.
5. Blackler, F (1993). “Knowledge and the Theory of Organizations: Organizations as Activity Systems and the Reframing or Management,” Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 863-884.
6. Blackler, F (1995). “Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation,” Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021-1046.
7. Blackler, F; Crump, N and McDonald, S (2000). “Organizing Processes in Complex Activity Networks,” Organization, 7I(2), 277-300.
8. Borchers, G (2003). “The Software Engineering Impacts of Cultural Factors on Multi-cultural Software Development Teams,” Proceedings: 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’03), Washington: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 540-545.
9. Bowker, G and Star, S L (2000). Sorting Things Out: Classifica tion and its Consequence, Cambridge: MIT Press.
10. Bresnen, M; Goussevskaia, A and Swan, J (2004). “Embedding New Management Knowledge in Project-based Organizations,” Organization Studies, 25(9), 1535-1555.
11. Briers, M and Chua, W F (2001). “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), 237-269.
12. Brooks, G R (1995). “Defining Market Boundaries,” Strategic Management Journal, 16(7), 535-549.
13. Brown, J S and Duguid, P (1991). “Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation,” Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
14. Brown, J S and Duguid, P (2001). “Knowledge and Organization: A Social Practice Perspective,” Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213.
15. Carlile, P R (2002). “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development,” Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.
16. Child, J and McGrath, R G (2001). “Organizations Unfettered: Organizational Form in an Information-intensive Economy,” Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1135-11498.
17. Cook, S, and Brown, J (1999). “Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing,” Organization Science, 10, 381-400.
18. Davenport, T H (2005). Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results from Knowledge Workers, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
19. De Souza, C R B and Redmiles, D F (2003). “Opportunities for Extending Activity Theory for Studying Collaborative Software Development,” Paper presented at the Workshop in Applying Activity Theory to CSCW Research and Practice, Eighth European Conference in CSCW (ECSCW 2003), September, Helsinki, Finland.
20. DeFillippi, R J and Arthur, M B (1998). “Paradox in Project-based Enterprise: The Case of Film Making,” California Management Review, 40(2), 125-139.
21. D’mello, M and Sahay, S (2007). “I am Kind of a Nomad where I Have to Go Places and Places … Understanding Mobility, Place and Identity in Global Software Work from India,” Information and Organization, 17(3), 162-192.
22. Edwards, A (2005). “Cultural-historical Activity Theory and Learning: A Relational Turn,” TLRP Annual Conference Keynote Address, University of Warwick, November. Retrieved, February 10, 2007, from http://www.education. bham.ac.uk/research/projects/liw/publications/Edwards%20TLRP%20%2005.doc
23. Engeström, Y (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research, Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit, Online version Retrieved January 10, 2008 from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm
24. Engeström, Y (1999). “Learning by Expanding: Ten Years later,” Retrieved, March 19, 2006, from http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engeström/expanding/intro.htm
25. Engeström, Y (2000). “From Individual Action to Collective Activity and Back: Developmental Work Research as an Interventionist Methodology,” in Luff, P; Hindmarsh, J and Heath, C (Eds.), Workplace Studies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 150–168.
26. Engeström, Y (2001). “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward and Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization,” Journal of Learning at Work, 14(1), 133-156.
27. Engeström, Y E; Engeström, R and Karkkainen, M (1995). “Polycontextuality and Boundary Crossing in Expert Cognition: Learning and Problem Solving in Complex Work Activities,” Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319-336.
28. Engeström, Y; Engeström R and Vahaaho, T (1999). “When the Centre Does not Hold: The Importance of Knotworking,” in Chaiklin, S; Hedegaard, M and Jensen, U J (Eds.), Activity Theory and Social Practice, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
29. Faraj, S and Sproull, L (2000). “Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams,” Management Science, 46(12), 1554-1568.
30. Foot, K A (2001). “Cultural-Historical Activity Theory as Practical Theory: Illuminating the Development of a Conflictmonitoring Network,” Communication Theory, 11(1), 56-83.
31. Hakkarainen, K; Lonka, K and Paavola, S (2004). “Networked Intelligence: How Can Human Intelligence Be Augmented Through Artifacts, Communities, and Networks?” Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://www. lime.ki.se/uploads/images/517/Hakkarainen_Lonka_ Paavola.pdf
32. Hammersley, M (2006). “Ethnography: Problems and Prospects,” Ethnography and Education, 1(1), 3-14.
33. Havnes, A (2002, August). “Examination and Learning: An Activity-theoretical Analysis of the Relationship between Assessment and Learning,” Paper Presented at the Learning Communities and Assessment Cultures Conference organized by the EARLI Special Interest Group on Assessment and Evaluation, University of Northumbria, Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://www.leeds.ac. uk/educol/documents/00002238.htm
34. Herbsleb, J D and Moitra, D (2001). “Global Software Development,” IEEE Software, 18(2), 16-20.
35. Hutchins, E (1995). “How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speed,” Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265-288.
36. Hvinden, B (1984). “Exits and Entrances: Notes for a Theory of Socialization and Boundary-crossing in Work Organizations,” Acta Sociologica, 27(3), 185-198.
37. Jarzabkowski, P; Balogun, J and Seidl, D (2007). “Strategizing: The Challenges of a Practice Perspective,” Human Relations, 60(1), 5-27.
38. Keller, R T; Szilagyi, A D Jr. and Holland, W E (1976). “Boundary Spanning Activity and Employee Reactions: An Empirical Study,” Human Relations, 29, 699-710.
39. Kelly, T and Littman, J (2005). The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO’s Strategies for Beating the Devil’s Advocate and Driving Creativity throughout Your Organization, NewYork: Doubleday.
40. Kerosuo, H (2006). “Boundaries in Action: An Activity-Theoretical Study of Development, Learning, and Change in Health Care Organization for Patients with Multiple and Chronic Illnesses,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Helsinki. Helsinki, Finland, Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/kasva/vk/kerosuo/
41. Lehenkari, J (2006). “The Networks of Learning in Technological Innovation: The Emergence of Collaboration across Fields of Expertise,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Helsinki. Helsinki, Finland, Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kay/kasva/vk/lehenkari/
42. Leontyev, A N (1977). “Activity and Consciousness,” Retrieved, December 3, 2009, from http://marxists.anu.edu. au/archive/leontev/works/1977/leon1977.htm
43. Luria, A R (1976). “Cognitive Development its Cultural and Social Foundations,” Harvard: Harvard University Press, Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://marxists.anu. edu.au/archive/luria/works/1976/problem.htm
44. Martins, L E G and Daltrini, B M (1999). “An Approach to Software Requirements Elicitation using the Precepts from Activity Theory,” Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Washington: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 15-23.
45. McDonald, G; Le, H; Higgins, J and Podmore, V (2005). “Artifacts, Tools and Classrooms,” Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 113-127.
46. McGrath, G M and Uden, L (2000). “Modeling “Softer” Aspects of the Software Development Process: An Activity Theory based Approach,” Proceedings of the Thirty-third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS-33), Volume 4, Washington: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 40-48.
47. Miller, R (2005). “Creating Boundary Objects to Aid Knowledge Transfer,” KM Review, 8(2), 12-15.
48. Nardi, B (1992). “Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models and Distributed Cognition,” in Nardi, B (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, Massachusetts: MIT, 69-102.
49. Nathanael, D; Marmaras, N; Papantoniou, B and Zarboutis, N (2002). “Socio-technical Systems Analysis: Which Approach should be Followed?” in Bagniara, S; Pozzi, S; Rizzo, A and Wright, P (Eds.), Cognition, Culture & Design, Sienna: Instututo di Sienze et Tecnologie dela Cognizione, 137-142.
50. Orlikowski, W (2000). “Using Technology and Constituting Structure: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.
51. Puonti, A (2004). “Learning to Work Together: Collaboration between Authorities in Economic-crime Investigation,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Helsinki. Helsinki, Finland, Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http:// ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/kas/kasva/vk/puonti/
52. Sapsed, J and Salter, A (2004). “Postcards from the Edge: Local Communities, Global Programs and Boundary Objects,” Organization Studies, 25(9), 1515-1534.
53. Sawyer, K (2002). “Unresolved Tensions in Socio-cultural Theory: Analogies with Contemporary Sociological Debates,” Culture &Psychology, 8(3), 283-305.
54. Schatzki, T; Knorr- Cetina, K and von Savigny, E (2000). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, London: Routledge.
55. Star, S L and Greisemer, J (1989). “Institutional Ecology, Translations, and Coherence: Amateurs and Professional in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939,” Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
56. Stetsenko, A (2005). “Activity as Object-related: Resolving the Dichotomy of Individual and Collective Planes of Activity,” Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70-88.
57. Stetsenko, A and Arievitch, I (1997). “Constructing and Deconstructing the Self: Comparing post-Vygotskian and Discourse-based Versions of Social Constructivism,” Mind Culture, Aactivity, 4(3), 159-172.
58. Suchman, L A (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-machine Communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Thompson, M P A (2004). “Some Proposals for Strengthening Organizational Activity Theory,” Organization, 11(5), 579-602.
60. Toiviainen, H (2007). “Inter-organizational Learning across Levels: An Object-oriented Approach,” Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 343-358.
61. Toomela, A (2000). “Activity Theory is a Dead End for Cultural-Historical Psychology,” Culture Psychology, 6(3), 353-364.
62. Tushman, M L and Scanlan, T J (1981a). “Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and their Antecedents,” Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289-305.
63. Tushman, M L and Scanlan, T J (1981b). “Characteristics and External Orientations of Boundary Spanning Individuals,” Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 83-98.
64. Valsiner, J (2001). “The First Six Years: Culture’s Adventures in Psychology,” Culture & Psychology, 7(1), 5-48.
65. Venolia, G; De Line, R and La Toza, T (2005). “Software Development at Microsoft Observed: It’s about People … Working Together,” Retrieved, December 3, 2009, from ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-140.pdf
66. Wartofsky, M W (1973). “Perception, Representation, and the Forms of Action: Towards an Historical Epistemology,” in Wartofsky, M (Ed.), Models: Representation and the Scientific Understanding, Dordrecht: Reidel, 188-210.
67. Wenger, E (1991). “Toward a Theory of Cultural Transparency Elements of a Social Discourse of the Visible and the Invisible,” Academic Dissertation, Hanover, Palo Alto: Institute for Research on Learning, Retrieved, December 3, 2009, from http://www.ewenger.com/pub/pub disser tationdownload.htm
68. Wenger, E (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, New York: Cambridge University Press.
69. Wenger, E (2000). “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems,” Organization, 7(2), 225-256.
70. Whitley, R (2006). “Project-based Firms: New Organizational Form or Variations on a Theme?” Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(1), 77-99.
71. Whittington, R (2002). “Practice Perspectives on Strategy: Unifying and Developing a Field,” Academy of Management Proceedings, C1-C6.
72. Yakura, E K (2002). “Charting Time: Timelines as Temporal Boundary Objects,” Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 956-970.