Advances in electronic communication tools have enabled collaborative engineering work to be conducted in virtual project networks that utilize “digital boundary objects” to exchange complex design knowledge. However, little is known about whether and how digital boundary objects facilitate negotiations in virtual settings that feature real-time communication. This article addresses this gap by exploring the role of digital boundary objects in negotiating complex design knowledge in a three-dimensional (3-D) virtual workspace. The authors found that digital boundary objects facilitate negotiations through a three-stage process of structuring negotiation space, structuring knowledge in the structured negotiation space, and framing combinations of structured knowledge.
AlinP., TaylorJ. E., & SmedsR. (2011). Knowledge transformation in project networks: A speech act level cross-boundary analysis. Project Management Journal, 42(4), 58–75.
2.
AnantatmulaV., & ThomasM. (2010). Managing global projects: A structured approach for better performance. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 60–72.
3.
AshbyW. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 83–99.
4.
BarleyW. C., LeonardiP. M., & BaileyD. E. (2012). Engineering objects for collaboration: Strategies of ambiguity and clarity at knowledge boundaries. Human Communication Research, 38(3), 280–308.
5.
BarrettM., & ObornE. (2010). Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations, 63(8), 1199–1221.
6.
BechkyB. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312–330.
7.
BerenteN., BaxterR., & LyytinenK. (2010). Dynamics of inter-organizational knowledge creation and information technology use across object worlds: The case of an innovative construction project. Construction Management & Economics, 28(6), 569–588.
8.
BolandR. J.Jr., LyytinenK., & YooY. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631–647.
9.
BowkerG. C., & StarS. L. (1999). Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences (First MIT Press paperback edition, 2000 ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
BresnenM. (2010). Keeping it real? Constituting partnering through boundary objects. Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), 615–628.
11.
BresnenM., GoussevskaiaA., & SwanJ. (2005). Implementing change in construction project organizations: Exploring the interplay between structure and agency. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 547–560.
12.
BrugmanH., & RusselA. (2004, May). Annotating multimedia/multi-modal resources with ELAN. Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.
13.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.
14.
CarlileP. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.
15.
CarnevaleP. J., & PruittD. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 532–582.
16.
ChinowskyP. S., & RojasE. M. (2003). Virtual teams: Guide to successful implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 19(3), 98–99.
17.
CurleeW. (2008). Modern virtual project management: The effects of a centralized and decentralized project management office. Project Management Journal, 39(S1), S83–S96.
18.
DeSanctisG., & MongeP. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 693–703.
19.
Di MarcoM. K., AlinP., & TaylorJ. E. (2012). Exploring negotiation through boundary objects in global design project networks. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 24–39.
20.
DodgsonM., GannD. M., & SalterA. (2007). “In case of fire, please use the elevator:” Simulation technology and organization in fire engineering. Organization Science, 18(5), 849–864.
21.
EwensteinB., & WhyteJ. K. (2007). Visual representations as 'artefacts of knowing.'Building Research & Information, 35(1), 81–89.
22.
EwensteinB., & WhyteJ. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as 'Epistemic objects.'Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.
23.
FeldmanM. S., & KhademianA. M. (2007). The role of the public manager in inclusion: Creating communities of participation. Governance, 20(2), 305–324.
24.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. M. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
25.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
26.
HildrumJ. (2007). When is frequent face-to-face contact necessary in innovation? A comparative study of two distributed product development projects. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(6), 467–484.
27.
HindsP., LiuL., & LyonJ. (2011). Putting the global in global work: An intercultural lens on the practice of cross-national collaboration. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 135–188.
28.
Howard-GrenvilleJ. A., & CarlileP. R. (2006). The incompatibility of knowledge regimes: Consequences of the material world for cross-domain work. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(5), 473–485.
29.
IorioJ., PeschieraG., TaylorJ. E., & KorpelaL. (2011). Factors impacting usage patterns of collaborative tools designed to support global virtual design project networks. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 16, 209–230.
30.
JarvenpaaS. L., & LeidnerD. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.
31.
JulianJ. (2008). How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and continuous improvement. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 43–58.
32.
KoskinenK. U., & MäkinenS. (2009). Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 31–38.
33.
KuruppuarachchiP. R. (2009). Virtual team concepts in projects: A case study. Project Management Journal, 40(2), 19–33.
34.
LuckR. (2010). Using objects to coordinate design activity in interaction. Construction Management & Economics, 28(6), 641–655.
35.
MacDuffieJ. P. (2007). HRM and distributed work. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 549–615.
36.
MacPhersonA., & JonesO. (2008). Object-mediated learning and strategic renewal in a mature organization. Management Learning, 39(2), 177–201.
37.
McNairL. D., & ParettiM. C. (2010). Activity theory, speech acts, and the “doctrine of infidelity”: Connecting language and technology in globally networked learning environments. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(3), 323–357.
38.
NeffG., Fiore-SilfvastB., & DossickC. S. (2010). A case study of the failure of digital communication to cross knowledge boundaries in digital construction. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 556–573.
39.
NicoliniD., MengisJ., & SwanJ. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.
40.
OkhuysenG. A., & BechkyB. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463–502.
41.
OswickC., & RobertsonM. (2009). Boundary objects reconsidered: From bridges and anchors to barricades and mazes. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 179–193.
42.
PhengL., & LeongC. H. Y. (2000). Cross-cultural project management for international construction in China. International Journal of Project Management, 18(5), 307–316.
43.
SapsedJ., & SalterA. (2004). Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1515–1534.
44.
StarS. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
45.
StarS. L., & GriesemerJ. R. (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.
46.
StyhreA., & GluchP. (2010). Managing knowledge in platforms: Boundary objects and stocks and flows of knowledge. Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), 589–599.
47.
TaylorJ. E., & LevittR. (2007). Innovation alignment and project network dynamics: An integrative model for change. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 22–35.
48.
WhyteJ., & LoboS. (2010). Coordination and control in project-based work: Digital objects and infrastructures for delivery. Construction Management & Economics, 28(6), 557–567.
49.
YakuraE. K. (2002). Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 956–970.
