Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development

European Journal of Information Systems

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 570-586

  Doolin, Bill ^a   McLeod, Laurie ^a  

^a AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

artefacts; boundary objects; IS development; sociomateriality

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

ARTEFACTS; BOUNDARY OBJECTS; COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE; INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT; IS DEVELOPMENT; LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY; MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS; SOCIO MATERIALITIES;

INFORMATION USE;

EID: 84865837150     PISSN: 0960085X     EISSN: 14769344     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2012.20     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. ARIAS E, EDEN H, FISCHER G, GORMAN A and SCHARFF E (2000) Transcending the individual human mind-creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7(1), 84-113.
2. BARAD K (2003) Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3), 801-831.
3. BARRETT M and OBORN E (2010) Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations 63(8), 1199-1221.
4. BECHKY BA (2003) Object lessons: workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology 109(3), 720-752. (Pubitemid 38421908)
5. BERGMAN M, LYYTINEN K and MARK G (2007) Boundary objects in design: an ecological view of design artifacts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8(11), 546-568.
6. BLOOMFIELD BP (1995) Power, machines and social relations: delegating to information technology in the National Health Service. Organization 2(3/4), 489-518.
7. BOLAND RJ and TENKASI RV (1995) Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science 6(4), 350-372.
8. BOUJUT J-F and BLANCO E (2003) Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12(2), 205-219.
9. BRAUN V and CLARKE V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77-101.
10. CARLILE PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13(4), 442-455.
11. CARLILE PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science 15(5), 555-568. (Pubitemid 39453864)
12. CONSTANTINIDES P and BARRETT M (2006) Negotiating ICT development and use: the case of a telemedicine system in the healthcare region of Crete. Information and Organization 16(1), 27-55. (Pubitemid 43046046)
13. ENGESTROM Y and BLACKLER F (2005) On the life of the object. Organization 12(3), 307-330. (Pubitemid 40572636)
14. EWENSTEIN B and WHYTE J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: the role of visual representations as 'epistemic objects'. Organization Studies 30(1), 7-30.
15. GAL U, LYYTINEN K and YOO Y (2008) The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infrastructures, and organisational identities: the introduction of 3D modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. European Journal of Information Systems 17(3), 290-304.
16. GASSON S (1999) A social action model of situated information systems design. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 30(2), 82-97.
17. GASSON S (2006) A genealogical study of boundary-spanning IS design. European Journal of Information Systems 15(1), 26-41. (Pubitemid 43323392)
18. GRønbk K (1990) Supporting active user involvement in prototyping. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 2, 3-24.
19. HARRÉ R (2002) Material objects in social worlds. Theory, Culture & Society 19(5/6), 23-33.
20. HENDERSON K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16(4), 448-473.
21. HENDRY DG (2004) Communication functions and the adaptation of design representations in interdisciplinary teams. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (BENYON D and MOODY P, Eds), pp 123-132, Association for Computing Machinery, New York.
22. HOWARD-GRENVILLE JA and CARLILE PR (2006) The incompatibility of knowledge regimes: consequences of the material world for crossdomain work. European Journal of Information Systems 15(5), 473-485. (Pubitemid 44599788)
23. HUTCHBY I (2001) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2), 441-456.
24. INTRONA LD and HAYES N (2011) On sociomaterial imbrications: what plagiarism detection systems reveal and why it matters. Information and Organization 21(2), 107-122.
25. JONSSON K, HOLMSTRÖM J and LYYTINEN K (2009) Turn to the material: remote diagnostics systems and new forms of boundary-spanning. Information and Organization 19(4), 233-252.
26. KARSTEN H, LYYTINEN K, HURSKAINEN M and KOSKELAINEN T (2001) Crossing boundaries and conscripting participation: representing and integrating knowledge in a paper machinery project. European Journal of Information Systems 10(2), 89-98.
27. LATOUR B (1991) Technology is society made durable. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (LAW J, Ed.), pp 103-131, Routledge, London.
28. LAW J and MOL A (1995) Notes on materiality and sociality. Sociological Review 43(2), 274-294.
29. LAW J and SINGLETON V (2005) Object lessons. Organization 12(3), 331-355. (Pubitemid 40572637)
30. LEE CP (2007) Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 16(3), 307-339. (Pubitemid 46873352)
31. LEONARDI PM (2011) When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 147-167.
32. LEVINA N and VAAST E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly 29(2), 335-363. (Pubitemid 46063149)
33. LUTTERS WG and ACKERMAN MS (2007) Beyond boundary objects: collaborative reuse in aircraft technical support. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 16(3), 341-372. (Pubitemid 46873353)
34. MCLEOD L (2008) Understanding IS development and acquisition: a process approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. [WWW document] http://hdl.handle.net/10292/ 644, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland.
35. MOL A (1999) Ontological politics. A word and some questions. In Actor Network Theory and After (LAW J and HASSARD J, Eds), pp 74-89, Blackwell, Oxford.
36. NANDHAKUMAR J and JONES M (1997) Too close for comfort? Distance and engagement in interpretive information systems research. Information Systems Journal 7(2), 109-131. (Pubitemid 127468505)
37. ORLIKOWSKI WJ (2007) Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies 28(9), 1435-1448.
38. ORLIKOWSKI WJ (2010) The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1), 125-141.
39. ORLIKOWSKI WJ and SCOTT SV (2008) Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals 2(1), 433-474.
40. ØSTERLUND C (2008) The materiality of communicative practices: the boundaries and objects of an emergency room genre. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 20(1), 7-40.
41. PELS D, HETHERINGTON K and VANDENBERGHE F (2002) The status of the object: performances, mediations, and techniques. Theory, Culture & Society 19(5/6), 1-21.
42. PICKERING A (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
43. PICKERING A (2003) On becoming: imagination, metaphysics, and the mangle. In Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality (IHDE D and SELINGER E, Eds), pp 96-116, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
44. SAPSED J and SALTER A (2004) Postcards from the edge: local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organization Studies 25(9), 1515-1534. (Pubitemid 39620536)
45. STAR SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35(5), 601-617.
46. STAR SL and GRIESEMER JR (1989) Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19, 3 387-420.
47. SUBRAHMANIAN E, MONARCH I, KONDA S, GRANGER H, MILLIKEN R, WESTERBERG A and THE N-DIM GROUP (2003) Boundary objects and prototypes at the interfaces of engineering design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12(2), 185-203.
48. SUCHMAN L (2005) Affiliative objects. Organization 12(3), 379-399. (Pubitemid 40572639)
49. SUCHMAN L (2007) Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
50. SUCHMAN L, TRIGG R and BLOMBERG J (2002) Working artefacts: ethnomethods of the prototype. British Journal of Sociology 53(2), 163-179.
51. SWAN J, BRESNEN M, NEWELL S and ROBERTSON M (2007) The object of knowledge: the role of objects in biomedical innovation. Human Relations 60(12), 1809-1837.
52. WALSHAM G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4(2), 74-81.
53. WESTRUP C (1993) Information systems methodologies in use. Journal of Information Technology 8(4), 267-275.
54. WINOGRAD T and FLORES F (1997) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
55. YAKURA EK (2002) Charting time: timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal 45(5), 956-970.
56. ZACHRY M (2008) An interview with Susan Leigh Star. Technical Communication Quarterly 17(4), 435-454.