The increased digitalization of work results in practices that are increasingly networked and knowledge-based. As such, we need to continuously inquire how digital technology leads to changes in work and not be content knowing that it leads to change. This paper contributes to advancing such knowledge through an analysis of digitalized condition-based maintenance of machinery in a Swedish iron ore mine. Drawing on the distinction between digital representation and digital meditation figurations of human and material agency, we analyze how the distributed network of workers used a diverse portfolio of digital technologies to make complex knowledge-based decisions on when and how to maintain the mining machinery. We combine these empirical insights with extant literature to advance a new theoretical perspective on how key characteristics of digital technologies are implicated in networked, knowledge-based work practices.
AguinisH., and LawalS.O. (2013). eLancing: A Review and Research Agenda for Bridging the Science-Practice Gap, Human Resource Management Review23 (1): 6–17.
2.
AndersenP.B. (1990). A Theory of Computer Semiotics: Semiotic Approaches to Construction and Assessment of Computer Systems (No. 3), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AyyagariR., GroverV., and PurvisR. (2011). Technostress: Technological Antecedents and Implications, MIS Quarterly35 (4): 831–858.
4.
BaileyD.E., LeonardiP.M., and BarleyS.R. (2012). The Lure of the Virtual, Organization Science23 (5): 1485–1504.
5.
BaldwinC.Y., and ClarkK.B. (2000). Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
BambergerP. (2008). Beyond Contextualization: Using Context Theories to Narrow the Micro-Macro Gap in Management Research, Academy of Management Journal51 (5): 839–846.
7.
BansiyaJ., and DavisC.G. (2002). A Hierarchical Model for Object-Oriented Design Quality Assessment, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering28 (1): 4–17.
8.
BarleyS.R., and KundaG. (2001). Bringing Work Back In. Organization Science12 (1): 76–95.
9.
BarleyS.R., MeyersonD.E., and GrodalS. (2011). E-mail as a Source and Symbol of Stress, Organization Science22 (4): 887–906.
10.
BechkyB. (2003a). Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction, American Journal of Sociology109 (3): 720–752.
11.
BechkyB. (2003b). Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on the Production Floor. Organization Science14 (3): 312–330.
12.
BellD. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, New York, NY: Basic Books.
13.
BeningerJ.R. (1986). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Infromation Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
BijkerW. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical shange, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
15.
BoudreauM.-C., and RobeyD. (2005). Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective, Organization Science16 (1): 3–18.
16.
BrynjolfssonE., and McAfeeA. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies, New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
17.
Burton-JonesA. (2014). What have we Learned from the Smart Machine?Information and Organization24 (2): 71–105.
18.
CappelliP., and ShererP.D. (1991). The Missing Role of Context in OB: The Need for a Meso-Level Approach, in CummingsL.L., and StawB.M. (eds.) Research in Organizational Behvior (Vol. 13, pp. 55–110), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
19.
CarlileP.R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in new Product Development, Organization Science13 (4): 442–455.
20.
CavayeA.L.M. (1996). Case Study Research: A Multi-faceted Research Approach for IS, Information Systems Journal6 (3): 227–242.
21.
Cecez-KecmanovicD., GalliersR., HenfridssonO., NewellS., and VidgenR. (2014). The Sociomateriality of Information Systems: Current status, future directions, MIS Quarterly38 (3): 809–830.
22.
ChudobaK.M., WynnE., LuM., and Watson-MannheimM.B. (2005). How Virtual are We? Measuring Virtuality and Understanding its Impact in a Global Organization, Information Systems Journal15: 279–306.
23.
DaftR.L., and LengelR.H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design, Management Science32 (5): 554–570.
24.
DeSanctisG., and PooleM.S. (1997). Transitions in Teamwork in New Organizational Forms, Advances in Group Processes14 (1): 57–176.
25.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review14 (4): 532–550.
26.
FelsteadA., and JewsonN. (2000). In Work, At Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking, London: Routledge.
27.
FelsteadA., JewsonN., and WaltersS. (2005). Changing Places of Work, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
FormanC., KingJ.L., and LyytinenK. (2014). Special Section Introduction—Information, Technology, and the Changing Nature of Work, Information Systems Research25 (4): 789–795.
HägerstrandT. (1975). Space, Time and Human Conditions, Westmead: Saxon House.
31.
HindsP.J., and KieslerS. (2002). Distributed Work, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
HustonL., and SakkabN. (2006). Connect and Develop: Inside Procter & Gamble's New Model for Innovation, Harvard Business Review84 (3): 58–66.
33.
JardineA.K.S., LineD., and BanjevicD. (2006). A Review on Machinery Diagnostics and Prognostics Implementing Condition-Based Maintenance, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing20: 1483–1510.
34.
JarvenpaaS.L., KnollK., and LeidnerD.E. (1998). Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams, Journal of Management Information Systems14 (4), 29–64.
35.
JohnsG. (2006). The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior, Academy of Management31 (2), 386–408.
36.
KallinikosJ. (2009). On the Computational Rendition of Reality: Artefacts and Human Agency, Organization16 (2), 183–202.
37.
KallinikosJ., AaltonenA., and MartonA. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts, MIS Quarterly37 (2): 357–370.
38.
KlingR. (1996). Computerization and Controversy, London: Academic Press.
39.
KnappG.M., and WangH.P. (1992). Machine Fault Classification: A Neural Network Approach, International Journal of Production Research30 (4): 811–823.
40.
LatourB. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
LeeA.S., and BaskervilleR. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research14 (3): 221–243.
43.
LeonardiP.M. (2010). Digital Materiality? How Artifacts without Matter, Matter, First Monday15 (6-7). ISSN 13960466.
44.
LeonardiP.M. (2011). When Flexible Routines meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies, MIS Quarterly35 (1): 147–167.
45.
LeonardiP.M. (2012). Car Crashes without Cars: Lessons about Simulation Technology and Organizational Change from Automotive Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
LeonardiP.M. (2013). Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality, Information and Organization23 (2), 59–76.
47.
LeonardiP.M., and BaileyD.E. (2008). Transformational Technologies and the Creation of New Work Practices: Making Implicit Knowledge Explicit in Task-Based Offshoring, MIS Quarterly32 (2): 411–436.
48.
LeonardiP.M., and BarleyS.R. (2008). Materiality and Change: Challenges to Building Better Theory about Technology and Organizing, Information and Organization18 (4): 159–176.
49.
LevinaN., and VaastE. (2008). Innovating or Doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore Collaboration, MIS Quarterly32 (2): 307–332.
50.
MarkusM.L., and RobeyD. (1988). Information Technology and Organizational Change: Casual Structure in Theory and Research, Management Science34 (5): 583–598.
MazmanianM., OrlikowskiW.J., and YatesJ. (2013). The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals, Organization Science24 (5): 1337–1357.
53.
MilesM.B., and HubermanA.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, London: Sage.
54.
MingersJ., and WillcocksL. (2004). Socioal Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems, Chichester: Wiley.
55.
MumfordL. (1964). Authoritarian and Democratic Technics, Technology and Culture, 5: 1–8.
56.
MumfordE., and BanksO. (1967). The Computer and the Clerk, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
57.
MurmannJ.P., and FrenkenK. (2006). Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change, Research Policy35 (7): 925–952.
58.
MutchA. (2013). Sociomateriality—Taking the Wrong Turning?Information and Organization23 (1): 28–40.
59.
NewellS., and DonaldG.D. (2007). An Analysis of Trust Among Globally Distributed Work Teams in an Organizational Setting, Knowledge and Process Management14 (3): 158–168.
60.
NicoliniD. (2007). Stretching out and Expanding work Practices in Time and Space: The case of Telemedicine, Human Relations60 (6): 889–920.
61.
NygaardK., and BergoO.T. (1975). The Trade Unions. New Users of Research, Personnel Review4 (2): 5–10.
62.
NylénD., HolmströmJ., and LyytinenK. (2014). Oscillating Between Four Orders of Design: The Case of Digital Magazines, Design Issues30 (3): 53–68.
63.
OlsonG.M., and OlsonJ.S. (2000). Distance Matters, Human-Computer Interaction15: 139–178.
64.
OrlikowskiW.J., and IaconoS. (2001). Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research: A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact, Information Systems Research12 (2): 121–134.
65.
OrlikowskiW.J., and ScottS.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization, Annals of the Academy of Management2 (1): 433–474.
66.
PerssonJ.S., MathiassenL., BoegJ., MadsenT.S., and SteinsonF. (2009). Managing Risks in Distributed Software Projects: An Integrative Framework, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management56 (3): 508–532.
67.
PremkumarG., RamamurthyK., and SaundersC.S. (2005). Information Processing View of Organizations: An Exploratory Examination of Fit in the Context of Interorganizational Relationships, Journal of Management Information Systems22 (1): 257–294.
68.
RamaprasadA., and RaiA. (1996). Envisioning Management of Information, Omega, International Journal of Management Science24 (2): 179–193.
69.
SchmidtK., and SimoneC. (1996). Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW Systems Design, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing5: 155–200.
70.
ScottW.H., MumfordE., McGiveringI., and KirkbyJ. (1963). Coal and Conflict, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
71.
ShaikenH. (1986). Work Transformed: Automation and Labor in the Computer Age, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
72.
SimonH.A. (1962). The Architecture of Complexity, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society106 (6): 467–482.
73.
SimonH.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
74.
StieglitzS., and BrockmannT. (2012). Increasing Organizational Performance by Transforming into a Mobile Enterprise, MIS Quarterly Executive11: 189–204.
75.
StraussA.L., and CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Reserach: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
76.
SvahnF., MathiassenL., and LindgrenR. (2017). Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns, MIS Quarterly41 (1): 239–254.
77.
TsangA.H.C. (2002). Strategic Dimensions of Maintenance Management, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering8 (1): 7–39.
78.
VlaarP.W., van FenemaP.C., and TiwariV. (2008). Cocreating Understanding and Value in Distributed Work: How Members of Onsite and Offshore Vendor Teams Give, Make, Demand, and Break Sense, MIS Quarterly Executive, 32 (2): 227–255.
79.
VolkoffO., StrongD.M., and ElmesM.B. (2007). Technological Embeddedness and Organizational Change, Organization Science18 (5): 832–848.
80.
WeickK.E., and RobertsK.H. (1993). Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks, Administrative Science Quarterly38: 357–381.
81.
WiesenfeldB.M., RaghuramS., and GarudR. (1999). Communication Patterns as Determinants of Organizational Identification in a Virtual Organization, Organization Science10: 777–790.
82.
WilliamsR., and EdgeD. (1996). The Social Shaping of Technology, Research Policy25 (6): 865–899.
83.
WilsonD. (1969). Forms of Hierarchy: A Selected Bibliography, in WhyteL.L., WilsonA.G., and WilsonD. (eds.) Hierarchical Structures (pp. 287–314), New York, NY: American Elsevier.
84.
WinnerL. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics?Daedalus109 (1): 121–136.
85.
YamR.C.M., TseP.W., LiL., and TuP. (2001). Intelligent Predictive Decision Support System for Condition-Based Maintenance, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology17 (5): 383–391.
86.
YatesJ. (1989). Control Through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
87.
YinR.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London: Sage Publications.
88.
YooY. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing, MIS Quarterly34 (2): 213–231.
89.
YooY. (2012). Digital Materiality and the Emergence of an Evolutionary Science of the Artificial, in LeonardiP.M., NardiB.A., and KallinikosJ. (eds.) Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World (pp. 134–154), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
90.
YooY. (2013). The Tables Have Turned: How Can the Information Systems Field Contribute to Technology and Innovation Management Research?Journal of the Association for Information Systems14 (5): 227–236.
91.
YooY., HenfridssonO., and LyytinenK. (2010). Research Commentary: The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research21 (4): 724–735.
92.
ZammutoR.F., GriffithT.L., MajchrzakA., DoughertyD.J., and FarajS. (2007). Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization, Organization Science18 (5): 749–762.
93.
ZuboffS. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, New York: Basic Books.
