|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
This paper investigates how an organizational competence in boundary spanning emerges in practice by drawing on the concepts of boundary spanner and boundary object. Using data from two qualitative field studies, we argue that in order for boundary spanning to emerge a new joint field of practice must be produced. Our data illustrate that some agents partially transform their practices in local settings so as to accommodate the interests of their counterparts. While negotiating the new joint field, these agents become what we call boundary spanners-in-practice who produce and use objects which become locally useful and which acquire a common identity--hence, boundary objects-in-use. Moreover, we show how boundary spanners-in-practice use various organizational and professional resources including the influence that comes with being nominated to boundary spanners' roles to create the new joint field. The conditions necessary for boundary spanners-in-practice to emerge are outlined and discussed, as are important implications for IS implementation and use.
Keywords: Boundary spanning, boundary objects, boundary spanners, boundaries, practice theory, Bourdieu, knowledge management, organizational learning, IS implementation, IS use, client-consultant relationship, intranet, roles
**********
Introduction
The ability of an organization to build practices that draw on diverse bases of expertise constitutes one of the key organizational competencies in knowledge management (KM). According to the knowledge-based view of the firm, integrating various sources of expertise requires overcoming obstacles associated with knowledge embeddedness and tacitness. Nevertheless, doing so--and doing so better than the competition--can become a source of sustained competitive advantage (Dyer and Singh 1998; Grant 1996; Kogut and Zander 1992; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Tsoukas 1996). Recent studies of organizations, including IDEO, General Electric, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, have suggested that the success of these organizations is due, in large part, to their ability to effectively engage their members in practices that allow them to span the boundaries of diverse settings (Carlile 2004; Cross and Parker 2004; Hargadon 2003; Majchrzak et al. 2004; Orlikowski 2002).
Spectacular successes aside, there are also examples of ill-famed failure. NASA's recent Columbia shuttle disaster is a case in point wherein a manager in charge of the flight ignored investigation requests from engineers from another division who did not proceed through the appropriate channels of communication (Verton 2003). The manager's failure to span organizational unit boundaries contributed, in part, to the disaster. Information technology, which NASA uses extensively, was of little help: NASA employees could have used problem tracking and "lessons learned" information systems to span boundaries in real time but, instead, chose to use these systems for post-incident analyses only (Verton 2003).
These and other examples of organizational failures lead to the following question: How does boundary spanning competence emerge in practice? How do individuals, such as NASA's manager, actually come to fulfill their boundary-spanner roles and how do information systems become used in a way that facilitates boundary spanning? To understand boundary spanning in practice (i.e., in what people do) as opposed to in theory (i.e., what people aspire to do), this paper uses and extends upon a practice-based view on KM (Carlile 2004; Orlikowski 2002) and data from two qualitative field studies. It contributes to KM literature by developing a dynamic (Griffith et al. 2003) and dialogic (Schultze and Leidner 2002) perspective on the emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice.
The paper is organized as follows: first, we review and extend a practice-based perspective on KM in organizations and then tie this perspective to the existing literature on boundary spanners and boundary objects. Second, we present our empirical approach and our analysis of the two field studies. The discussion section then analyzes the processes involved in the emergence of an organizational competence in boundary spanning. Finally, we draw implications from our newly developed understanding for IT implementation and use.
Theoretical Development: A Practice-Based Perspective on Boundary Spanning in Organizations
The proposition that spanning boundaries of diverse professional and organizational settings can become a key organizational competence has received extensive theoretical support (Grant 1996; Kogut and Zander 1992; Nonaka 1994; von Hippel 1988). More recently, researchers have investigated the kinds of organizational practices that actually allow firms to claim such competence (Carlile 2002; Orlikowski 2002). We draw on these recent developments in the KM literature while borrowing original ideas from Bourdieu's theory of practice (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992) in order to understand how such practices emerge.
A Practice-Based Perspective on Knowledge Management in Organizations
Sociologists use the concept of practice to understand the dynamics of societies based on what people do (Bourdieu 1977; Certeau 1984; Giddens 1984). Practice is a "recurrent, materially bounded and situated action engaged in by members of a community" (Orlikowski 2002, p. 256). Through practice, reflexive agents engage in producing, reproducing, or transforming structures which, in turn, enable and constrain their actions (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984). In relation to KM, this perspective emphasizes knowing as "an ongoing social accomplishment, constituted and reconstituted in everyday practice" (Orlikowski 2002, p. 252).
This perspective allows us to understand the nature of boundaries in practice. As agents develop a continuity in their local practices, it allows them to act knowledgeably in a given material, historical, and social context (Lave 1988; Suchman 1987). At the same time, however, they are also distinguished from others who do not practice in a similar fashion (Wenger 1998, p. 103). Practice theorists have conceptualized this phenomenon as the emergence of fields (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, pp. 96-120). (2) By engaging in fields, agents pursue a joint interest (an inclination and ability to succeed in a given endeavor), but also differentiate themselves from outsiders who do not do the same. At any given time, agents are engaged in multiple, nested fields. Within each field, agents are also distinguished on the basis of the differential attainment of stakes offered by this field (into "haves" and "have-nots") (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992).
Through their engagement in fields, agents produce different kinds of resources (capital) which they can accumulate and use as bases of power in any given field. Bourdieu distinguishes four key species of capital: economic capital (e.g., money, time, technology), cultural capital (e.g., professional expertise, education, ownership of information), social capital (which social networks an agent can draw on), and symbolic capital (the ability to name any other resource as valuable, the power to name and classify things). Agents in every field are engaged in producing a unique subspecies of either the economic, cultural, or social capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 119).
Discontinuities in practice (boundaries of fields) create opportunities for organizations to develop a knowledge-based competitive advantage. For example, as engineers engage in their professional practice, a boundary simultaneously emerges and grows between them and, for example, the field of practice occupied by those in marketing. Organizations that successfully engage engineers and marketing specialists in relating practices of these fields (which we will refer to as boundary spanning) develop a knowledge-based competence in product development (Carlile 2002; Dougherty 1992). In addition to spanning the boundaries of professional fields, organizations may develop competencies in spanning the boundaries with other organizations (Dyer and Singh 1998; Powell 1990) and with academic research fields (Liebeskind et al. 1996).
According to Orlikowski (2002, p. 267), such a competence is, again, embedded in the practices of organizational members. Yet these practices must be sufficiently different from practices within the specific fields that contributed to the production of the boundary in question, otherwise agents will continuously reproduce that boundary. At the same time, these practices are not produced in a social vacuum. Rather, they are produced in the context of prior actions and relationships and in pursuit of a common interest, that is, in the context of a new field.
Here we propose that the emergence of a boundary spanning competence in practice is associated with the emergence of a new joint field which unites agents in their pursuit of a common organizational interests while, at the same time, distinguishing them from others who are not engaged in a similar pursuit. In practice theory terms, developing an organizational competence in boundary spanning means producing a specific type of organizational capital ("social capital" according to Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998) by using and relating capital produced in other fields.
For instance, new product development involves agents coming from various professional fields (e.g., styling, engineering, safety, and marketing) using and transforming part of their practices (Carlile 2004) so as to create a new joint field in which a new engineering product is developed. In doing so, these agents also relate diverse species of professional capital (subspecies of the cultural capital) so as to produce a unique capital in the new joint field. Agents' position and capital in the new field depend on how they relate the capital in the original professional fields to to the capital in the new field (Bourdieu 1996).
The concepts of field and capital allow us to engage in a dialogical discourse on KM by offering a way of "tracing power and domination to claims of expertise" (Schultze and Leidner 2002, p. 217). While Orlikowski's (2002) work has demonstrated that an organizational competence in spanning boundaries is embedded in the everyday practice of its members, our interest is in investigating how a new joint field, where such practices are produced, emerges.
To achieve this, we draw on two prominent concepts in the organizational literature on KM: boundary spanners and boundary objects. We argue that, currently, the literature has developed a rather static view of these concepts, focusing on either what these mechanisms are supposed to achieve in theory, or on what actually happens in practice. What is missing is an understanding of how boundary spanning mechanisms become or do not become enacted in practice.
Boundary Spanners in Theory and in Practice
The literature on KM has emphasized the importance of relying on individuals to perform boundary spanning roles (Cross and Parker 2004; Davenport and Prusak 1998; Hargadon and Sutton 1997; Pawlowski and Robey 2004; Swan and Scarbrough 2001). Cross and Parker (2004), for example, characterized boundary spanners as vital individuals who facilitate the sharing of expertise by linking two or more groups of people separated by location, hierarchy, or function. Managers of research and development groups, sales representatives, human resource specialists, and IT professionals are prime examples of professionals who are expected to span inter- and intra-organizational boundaries (Allen and Cohen 1969; Pawlowski and Robey 2004; Tushman 1977; Wenger 1998).
The literature on boundary spanners highlights the importance of designating boundary spanners' roles as a means of cultivating the organizational ability to deal with the challenges of managing across boundaries. Numerous research studies have identified and classified the roles boundary spanners are expected to perform (e.g., Aldrich and Herker 1977; Ancona and Caldwell 1992; Cross and Parker 2004; Friedman and Podolny 1992; Leifer and Delbecq 1978; Tushman and Scanlan 1981). For example, the boundary spanner's roles have been classified according to representative versus gatekeeper, advice versus trust broker (Friedman and Podolny 1992) as well as scout, ambassador, sentry, and guard (Ancona and Caldwell 1992).
In practice, however, multiple roles of boundary spanners often come into conflict, thereby leading to stress and burnout (e.g., Baroudi 1985; Dubinsky et al. 1992; Lysonski 1985; Singh et al. 1996). Moreover, it is often hard to find individuals willing to perform these roles as they are expected to be both sensitive to social cues (Caldwell and O'Reilly 1982) and competent in multiple domains (Nochur and Allen 1992). Qualified individuals may choose to avoid the uncomfortable (and often conflicting) feelings that arise when spanning more than one field, not to mention the potential for marginalization within each of the fields spanned (Bourdieu 1977; Tajfel 1978). Indeed, some may opt for one side over the other rather than endure the discomfort of spanning both (Wiesenfeld and Hewlin 2003).
One of the recommendations put forth in the literature is to assign different boundary spanning roles to different individuals, thus preventing role conflict (Friedman and Podolny 1992). In organizational practice, however, boundary spanners tend to occupy managerial positions (Wiesenfeld and Hewlin 2003) and may be reluctant to part with any of their roles, especially when the information and social capital already accumulated can be used to their personal advantage (e.g., Baroudi 1985; Katz et al. 1995; Keller and Holland 1975). What is more, some agents who have not officially been nominated to perform these roles may act as boundary spanners (Nochur and Allen 1992). In short, evidence suggests that the expectations of these roles and practices of boundary spanning often do not coincide. Therefore, we need to improve our understanding of the processes through which individuals become boundary spanners in practice.
In order to achieve this, we introduce a distinction between nominated boundary spanners and boundary spanners-in-practice. (3) According to Bourdieu's practice theory, through the process of nomination (or designation by name), agents who occupy dominant positions in a field, such as top leadership or KM groups in organizations, use the symbolic capital of their own positions to appoint themselves or others to various positions endowed with symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1998, p. 51). Through this nomination process, organizational leaders try to foster the emergence of a new joint field across a particular boundary. Figure 1a illustrates the lack of boundary spanning-in-practice when only nominated boundary spanners are present.
However, formal structures may not coincide with actual practice that involves diverse interests and in which actions (e.g., nomination) have unexpected consequences (Wenger 1998, p. 80). In contrast to nominated boundary spanners, however, boundary spanners-in-practice must actually engage in boundary spanning, relating practices in one field to practices in another by negotiating the meaning and terms of the relationship. This requirement is evident in the cases of successful boundary spanning described in the recent literature (e.g., Maguire et al. 2004; Volkoff et al. 2004). Boundary spanners-in-practice engage in building a new joint field between the two fields. To understand the emergence of an organizational competence in boundary spanning, we need to investigate how agents become boundary spanners-in-practice by drawing on their nomination or, possibly, independently from their...
|
