Construction of Meaning in Socio‐Technical Networks: Artefacts as Mediators between Routine and Crisis Conditions

Abstract

This article focuses on the construction of meanings taking place in organizational routinized innovation processes. The results of the single case study investigating the company Carmlod, which institutionalized a routine process for their innovations, show how boundary objects like standardized methods and designed objects facilitate the communication process within interdisciplinary teams. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that team members continue using the distinct meanings of the mutually shared object. They follow their strategies and goals according to their professional disciplinary knowledge. Only when a fundamental crisis takes place, in which nobody knows the right strategy to achieve a possible solution any more, do artefacts within the contingent space of manoeuvre become important. In the process, team members are forced to enter into a coercion-free discourse within a socio-technical network that allows them to come up with true innovation and genuine collectively shared meanings.

Organising and Managing boundaries: A structurational view of collaboration with Building Information Modelling (BIM)

“…Levina and Vaast (2005) argued that joint understanding for an object only emerges when agents engage and interact with it and develop a collective identitythat is boundary objects. Such agents that may or may not cross role boundaries are boundary spanners (Levina and Vaast, 2005), boundary brokers (Koskinen, 2008), or mediators (Holzer, 2012) with boundary spanning competences. Naturally, there are some nuances among these terms and thus, for the purpose of this paper, we use the term boundary-spanner throughout, as it has less negative connotations related to lack of trust and higher leadership potential according to Fleming and Waguespack (2007).…”

“…Nevertheless, boundaries become important in contingent and difficult to plan situations, where the objects (e.g. BIM) act as anchors for the creation of new meanings, and help to coordinate knowledge across multi-disciplinary agents (Holzer, 2012). Subsequently, drawing upon the empirical data and their confrontation to theory, the study aims at proposing strategies for supporting project management in BIM-based projects enacted by multi-disciplinary networks.…”

Managing Controversies in the Fuzzy Front End

“…Furthermore, the emerging nature of the radical FFE processes is confirmed (Veryzer, 1998). Holzer (2012) has shown how a crisis in innovation facilitates an open debate of the situation, but has not been explored in relationship to FFE. The process of taking account of the situation by management is found to be an important activity, as it guides and frames the actions taken to solve the controversy.…”

Actor-Network-Theory and Creativity Research

“…The fact that ANT has been increasingly recognized can be attributed, among other things, to the rising prevalence of science in society. The growing role of science can be witnessed in human sciences literature, which is concerned with issues such as the increasing place of collaborative knowledge (Faraj et al 2011), the transition to a knowledgeintensive work (Alvesson 2011), and collective processes embedded in sociotechnical networks (Holzer 2012). While many such studies have considered science, knowledge, creativity, and innovation to take place within organization, ANT allows revealing that they are coextensive to the very constitution of society and collective action, through the relationship they establish.…”