By definition, boundary objects allow different parties to collaborate across boundaries; however, what defines said boundaries is a complex subject. In their case studies, Levina and Vaast (2008) have explored collaboration across boundaries in globally distributed projects, listing the boundaries created by physical distance or institutionalised social boundaries, such as boundaries created by culture, organisations or the functions of the collaborating parties, as well as the boundaries created by the situated practices of the parties.
Situated practice refers to knowledge embedded in the organisation; knowledge that is tacitly shared and ways of working that are familiar amongst the members of the organisations. In Levina and Vaast’s study, situated practices are related to the different backgrounds of the developers and their managers, ranging from the practices created by the computer science discipline to the financial services industry. The authors explain that the different boundaries, based on educational background, knowledge of the industry and access to resources, should be taken into account when discussing cross-boundary collaboration.
When analysing the boundaries, Levina and Vaast source their definition of boundaries from practice theory (Bourdieu 1977). They state that fields or practices are separated by the boundaries that arise from differences in the practices across the fields. These fields are dynamic and the boundaries are renegotiable. New ‘fields of practice’ and new boundaries can arise when new information systems are created or new practices are applied. They state, “the fields and the boundaries produce both sharedness and differences” (pp. 309). The ‘sharedness’ is required for collaboration, whereas the differences can impede it. New, joint fields of practice emerge from boundary-spanning competencies of the boundary spanners (Levina & Vaast 2005). Levina and Vaast (2005) state that development of
boundary-spanning competency “means producing a specific type or organizational capital by using and relating capital produced in other fields.” By ‘capital’, they mean knowledge, experience or other capital embedded in the field.
Project conflicts and conflict resolution are tied to the boundaries and to the structures that create boundaries. Carlile (1997; 2002) applies Bourdieu’s theory as a tool that investigates the connections between individuals and structural forces. Carlile explains that Bourdieu’s practice theory omits duality between these forces and asks ‘where’ the individuals and structures are connected instead of ‘what’ connects them. The lack of dualism allows the investigation of objects as constraints and structures of knowledge. Knowledge-in-practice can be embedded in objects and can be transferred across organisational boundaries.
Carlile (2002) defines three types of boundaries: syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. In his research of boundary objects, such as drawings and prototypes used in design, production and manufacturing, he notes that the practical role of boundary objects is to establish “a shared syntax or language for individuals to represent their knowledge” (Carlile 2002, pp. 451) and that the object “provides a concrete means for individuals to specify and learn about their differences and dependencies” (Carlile 2002, pp. 452). Syntactic boundaries are boundaries created by different syntax conventions: a lack of shared syntax can inhibit the quality of the communication. Semantic boundaries arise when, even in case of shared syntax, the intended meaning is not carried across and interpretations differ. By pragmatic perspective towards boundaries, Carlile means that the individuals should understand the differences and the consequences of dependencies. When applying boundary objects, the pragmatic boundary is addressed by facilitating a process where the collaborating parties can jointly transform their knowledge and apply changes into the objects, if the collaboration results in negative consequences. According to Carlile, boundary objects also have a political role, which comes from the need to facilitate a transformation of knowledge to create new knowledge. Carlile writes that sharing knowledge across boundaries comes at cost; transforming knowledge is creating new knowledge, altering existing knowledge and validating it. What happens to the objects during this knowledge transformation is not discussed in the 2002 article, but in his earlier work, Carlile (1997) points out that effective boundary objects are accessible and timely, up to date. This can be interpreted to signify that carelessly made changes, not concerned with the timeliness or accessibility of the object, can transform the objects into less effective versions, collaboration-wise.
The concept of boundary objects has been developed, extended or contested in a multitude of studies. According to Henderson (1991), Lee (2007), Levina and Vaast (2005), and Nicolini et al. (2012), there are object categories that share similarities with boundary objects but fall outside the original definition of Star and Griesemer. First, Henderson (1991) proposes one of the extensions and defines the concept of ‘a conscription device’. Conscription devices are objects that “enlists group participation, are receptacles of created knowledge and are adjusted through group interactions” (Henderson 1991, pp. 456). The study argues that boundary objects become too inflexible when a multitude of stakeholders are trying to apply the objects, whereas conscription devices can enlist more participation. The failure of boundary objects happens when the organisations applying objects try to encompass too much information into their objects. To remain relevant, the objects should maintain flexibility, or the phenomena they are trying to capture should restructure according to the object depiction. However, the conscription devices remain a subcategory of boundary objects and the differences between these two categories are not further explored.
The theoretical underpinnings of Henderson’s concepts stem from Latour and Woolgar (1986), in the form of ‘inscriptions’, a concept that Henderson borrows to explain conscription.
Lee (2007) critiques that research has often black-boxed boundary objects. To address this issue, her paper expands on the concept of a conscription device and claims that such devices, adjusted through group interactions, are not boundary objects. According to Lee, the process of method standardisation has been detached from the objects and according to Lee’s paper, boundary objects as originally defined do not sufficiently describe the materiality inside communities of practice. Lee proposes that the objects applied in the process of non-routine and novel collaboration are ‘boundary negotiating artefacts’. Boundary negotiating artefacts are fluid and change status over time and contexts. Lee examines artefacts that were used to negotiate or cross boundaries, or to push boundaries further in an environment where the work was non-routinised and lacked established practices. Lee’s rationale for distinguishing boundary negotiating artefacts from boundary objects into a separate category of potential boundary object predecessors relies on this difference in the nature of the work. Lee delegates boundary objects into routine work and boundary negotiating artefacts into non-routine work.
Levina and Vaast (2005) investigate the nature of the work and boundaries in their second major publication on boundary objects. In this paper, the authors discuss how boundary objects and boundary spanners can fail and succeed in their intended purpose. They show how objects that were designated as boundary object only became boundary objects, applied as intended by the members of the organisation, after actions of boundary spanners. Boundary spanners are people who were designated to this role and who had to actively perform their role to change the way the objects were applied. Levina and Vaast argue that designating an object or a person with the state of boundary object or boundary spanner is not enough: the objects and boundary spanners become ‘true’ boundary objects or boundary spanners only through action of the boundary spanners.
Nicolini et al. (2012) paraphrase Levina and Vaast (2005) and state that boundary-spanning activities, such as meetings and personal visits, support the role of the boundary objects and form around the object, but are also mediated by the boundary objects. In their study, Nicolini et al. (2012) attempt to draw from several theories that analyse collaboration and the material aspects of collaboration. Their clarifications of a few aspects of boundary objects are notable. They highlight the fact that not all parties have to share and understand all aspects of the objects in the same way. The article declares (pp. 617):
This example of the bioreactor also illustrates that boundary objects delimit the need to learn across the boundary of practice. This is because they carry details that can be understood by both parties, but neither party is required to understand the full context of use by the other because the object itself takes care of performing such mediation.
Nicolini et al. (2012) strive to investigate objects through different theoretical senses, such as boundary objects and Activity Theory, amongst others, in order to create a pluralistic framework of three tiers of objects that are used to facilitate cross-disciplinary work by enabling common understanding and providing basic infrastructures. Their study highlights the contextuality and multiplicity of the objects and the actions directed towards them by the different parties.
Finally, this multifaceted investigation of the objects concludes with an application of another concept by Star: the concept of material infrastructures (Star & Ruhleder 1996). The infrastructures, another aspect of Star’s work on the
material, are linked to her later work on boundary objects. In the Star (2010) paper, she especially highlights the infrastructural nature of boundary objects. Star is not the only author that has aligned infrastructure with boundary objects. In their theoretical lens investigation paper, Nicolini et al. (2012) differentiate between two types of infrastructure. First, they discuss work-oriented infrastructure: infrastructure that establishes communication channels, such as project proposals or a project repositories. Next, they analyse service infrastructure: infrastructure that exists in the locations where the collaboration is taking place – in their example, chairs and meeting rooms. These infrastructures become visible only when they are not functioning up to the standards or expectations, or as Star and Ruhleder explain (pp. 113), infrastructure is “embodiment of standards. Modified by scope and often by conflicting conventions, infrastructure takes on transparency by plugging into other infrastructures and tools in a standardized fashion” and the infrastructure “Becomes visible upon breakdown. The normally invisible quality of working infrastructure becomes visible when it breaks; the server is down, the bridge washes out, there is a power blackout. Even when there are back-up mechanisms or procedures, their existence further highlights the now-visible infrastructure”. Even if the environments are not meant as boundary objects or used as such, a breakdown can potentially transform an infrastructure object into a boundary object. Table 8 summarises the literature of this section.
Topic Focus Area Authors
Original definition of boundary and discussion of the concepts. Extended by analysis of what is considered infrastructure and what is the function the infrastructure serves in team collaboration
Boundary object concept introduction, categorisation of different boundary objects. Star’s 2010 paper provided more clarification of the concept and discussion on how it has been applied since its inception. Star and Ruhleder (1996) paper provides an analysis of different aspects of infrastructure in a multidisciplinary team.
Star and Griesemer (1989), Star (2010), Star and Ruhleder (1996)
Discussion of effective use of boundary objects, different types of boundaries
Analysis of different boundaries and uses for boundary objects to mitigate them
Carlile (1997), Carlile (2002)
Boundary-spanning activities and actors and analysis of how agents who act as boundary spanners created boundary objects that enabled new practices to develop
Levina and Vaast have done both analysis of the practice-situated boundaries and their causes and boundary spanners and boundary objects that become boundary spanners-in-practice and boundary objects- in-use.
Levina and Vaast (2005), Levina and Vaast (2008)
New boundary object
categories discussed via use of sketches and drawings as tools for visual representations
Definitions of boundary objects subcategories such as conscription devices that enlist group participation and boundary negotiating artefacts designed to push the boundaries in complex, non-routine projects that lack standardised objects for collaboration
Henderson (1991), Lee (2007),
Boundary objects, objects that can precede or follow use of boundary objects and objects that can transform into boundary objects
Analysis of different theoretical explanations discussing the material elements of organisations and specifically infrastructures. Includes discussion through multiple theoretical lenses, such as Activity Theory, boundary objects and practice studies.
Nicolini et al. (2012)