In this article, the authors engage in, and contribute to, the discussion about the role of objects (material arrangements) in processes of organizing. The point of departure of the study was a critical incident at a hospital when a drop infusion pump failed. By following the action, that is, to apply an action net perspective, initiated by incident aiming to secure the ongoing care and treatment of patients on the ward, the authors are able to illustrate the relation between objects-in-use (such as boundary objects) and ongoing organizing practices, and how such organizing activities are dependent on, and conditioned by, material arrangements and objects. Furthermore, they also show that objects, far from being stable entities, are also being constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed—dependent on what is appropriate in a specific time and place, and as part of ongoing organizing.
AbbottA. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
BarrettM.ObornE. (2010). Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations, 63, 1199-1221.
3.
BechkyB. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14, 312-330.
4.
BergM.BowkerG. (1997). The multiple bodies of the medical record. Sociological Quarterly, 38, 513-537.
5.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442-455.
6.
CarlileP. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555-568.
7.
CzarniawskaB. (1997). Narrating the organization. Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
8.
CzarniawskaB. (2002). Organizing, process of. In SorgeA. (Ed.), Organization (pp. 314-333). London, England: Thomson Learning.
9.
CzarniawskaB. (2004). On time, space, and action nets. Organization, 11, 773-791.
10.
CzarniawskaB.HernesT. (2005). Actor-network theory and organizing. Malmö, Sweden: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
11.
de LaetM.MolA. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump. Social Studies of Science, 30, 225-263.
12.
FeldmanM. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611-629.
13.
FujimuraJ. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation.” In PickeringA. (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 168-211). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
GherardiS.NicoliniD. (2005). Actor-networks: Ecology and entrepreneurs. In CzarniawskaB.HernesT. (Eds.), Actor-network theory and organizing (pp. 285-306). Malmö, Sweden: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
15.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
16.
HendersonK. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16, 290-307.
17.
HernesT. (2004). The spatial construction of organization. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
18.
HernesT.MaitlisS. (2010). Process, sensemaking, and organizing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
HernesT.PaulsenN. (2004). Introduction: Boundaries and organization. In PaulsenN.HernesT. (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1-13). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan.
20.
JonesG.McLeanC.QuattroneP. (2004). Spacing and timing. Organization, 11, 723-741.
21.
KatzD.KahnR. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. (Original work published 1966)
22.
KelloggK. C.OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17, 22-44.
23.
Knorr CetinaK. (2001). Objectual practice. In SchatzkiT. R.Knorr CetinaK.von SavignyE. (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175-188). London, England: Routledge.
24.
KorneliussenT.PanozzoF. (2005). From “nature” to “economy” and “culture”: How stockfish travels and constructs an action net. In CzaniawskaB.SevónG. (Eds.), Global ideas. How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy (pp. 106-125). Malmö, Sweden: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
25.
LamontM.MolnárV. (2002). The study of boundaries in social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195.
26.
LatourB. (1986). The powers of association. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 264-280). London, England: Routledge.
27.
LatourB. (1987). Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LatourB. (1992). Technology is society made durable. In LawJ. (Ed.), A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103-131). London, England: Routledge.
29.
LatourB. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston, MA: Graduate School of Business administration, Harvard University.
34.
LevinaN. (2005). Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: A collective reflection in action view. Information System Research, 16, 109-130.
35.
LindbergK.CzarniawskaB. (2006). Knotting the action net, or organizing between organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22, 292-306.
36.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. The organizational basis of politics. New York, NY: The Free Press.
37.
MartinP. Y.TurnerB. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 22, 141-157.
38.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practices. London, England: Duke University press.
39.
NicoliniD. (2010). Practice as the site of knowing: Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22, 602-620.
40.
NicoliniD.MengisJ.SwanJ. (2011). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
41.
Nippert-EngC. (2004). Drawing the line: Organizations and the boundary work of “Home” and “Work.” In PaulsenN.HernesT. (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 262-280). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan.
42.
O’MahoneyS.BechkyB. A. (2008). Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 422-459.
43.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435-1448.
44.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
45.
RenemarkD. (2009). A net of actions in the tracks of the storm Gudrun. In CzarniawskaB. (Ed.), Organizing in the face of risk and threat (pp. 117-131). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
46.
SantosF. M.EisenhardtK. M. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16, 491-508.
47.
SapsedJ.SalterA. (2004). Postcards from the edge: Local communities a, global programs and boundary objects. Organization Studies, 25, 1515-1534.
48.
SchatzkiT. R. (2006). On organization as they happen. Organization Studies, 27, 1863-1873.
49.
StarS. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 601-617.
50.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrae Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.
51.
SturdyA.ClarkT.FinchmanR.HandleyK. (2009). Between innovation and legitimation boundaries and knowledge flow in management consultancy. Organization, 16, 627-653.
52.
SuchmanL. (2000). Organizing alignment: A case of bridge-building. Organization, 7, 311-327.
TrompetteP.VinckD. (2009). Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissance, 3, 3-25.
55.
Van MaanenJ. (1988). Tales from the field. On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
56.
WalterL. (2009). The Tjörn bridge catastrophe—On building a new bridge out of an old one. In CzarniawskaB. (Ed.), Organizing in the face of risk and threat (pp. 132-143). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
57.
WeickK. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York, NY: Random House.
58.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409-421.
59.
ZeissR.GroenewegenP. (2009). Engaging boundary objects in OMS and STS? Exploring subtleties of layered engagement. Organization, 16, 81-100.
