This article outlines a novel approach to the role of models in innovation processes: showing how innovative architectural outcomes result from the strategic management of multiple physical models in a design process. Drawing on actor-network theory, we explore architect Frank Gehry’s designing in action to trace the work done in translating design ideas with architectural models. We observe how certain practices constituted around material models are Gehry’s means for unsettling and resetting the clients’ receptiveness and willingness to embark upon a particular architectural path. We find that the physical models, as actants in these activity flows, are rendered strategic in ways currently overlooked. When approval for an innovative design is secured, through the unfolding of models, their strategic role is realized. Our approach goes beyond current accounts of the role and nature of architectural models to reveal how architectural models as strategic actants are mobilized in an innovation process.
AlcadipaniR.HassardJ. (2010). Actor-network theory, organizations and critique: Towards a politics of organizing. Organization, 17, 419-435.
2.
AlexandrovaA. (2008). Making models count. Philosophy of Science, 75, 383-404.
3.
AlthusserL. (1970). For Marx. London, England: Allen Lane.
4.
AustinJ. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
Bailer-JonesD. M. (2003). When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 59-73.
6.
BechkyB. A. (2006). Talking about machines, thick description, and knowledge work. Organization Studies, 27, 1757-1768.
7.
BennisW. (2003). Frank Gehry: Artist, leader and “neotenic.”Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(1), 81-87.
8.
BhaskarR. (with HartwigM.). (2010). The formation of critical realism: A personal perspective. London, England: Routledge.
9.
BloomfieldB. P.VurdubakisT. (1999). The outer limits: Monsters, actor networks and the writing of displacement. Organization, 6, 625-647.
10.
BolandR. J.CollopyF. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
BrownT. (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, pp. 84–92.
12.
ButlerJ. (1993). Bodies that matter. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
CabantousL.GondJ. P. (2015). The resistible rise of Bayesian thinking in management: Historical lessons from decision analysis. Journal of Management, 41, 441-470.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Do mastication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-223). London, England: Routledge.
16.
CallonM. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. In CallonM. (Ed.), The laws of the market (pp. 1-57). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
17.
CallonM. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In MacKenzieD.MuniesaF.SiuL. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 311-357). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
CallonM. (2009). Elaborating the notion of performativity. Le Libellio d’Aegis, 5(1), 18-29.
19.
CallonM.LatourB. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so? In KnorrK.CicourelA. (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro-and macro-sociologies (pp. 277-303). London, UK: Routledge.
20.
CallonM.LawJ. (1982). On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12, 615-625.
CameronK. S. (2003). Organizational transformation through architecture and design: A project with Frank Gehry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 88-92.
23.
CleggS. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. London, England: SAGE.
24.
CuffD. (1991). Architecture: The story of practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
EckertC.BoujutJ. B. (2003). The role of objects in design cooperation: Communication through physical or virtual objects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, 145-151.
26.
EwensteinB.WhyteJ. K. (2007). Visual representations as ‘artefacts of knowing’. Building Research & Information, 35, 81-89.
27.
EwensteinB.WhyteJ. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as “epistemic objects.”Organization Studies, 30(01), 7-30.
28.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219-245.
29.
FramptonK.KolbowskiS. (Eds.). (1981). Idea as model: 22 Architects 1976/1980. New York, NY: Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies.
30.
GassonS. (2015, January5-8). Knowledge mediation and boundary-spanning in global IS change projects. Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-48), Knowledge Flows, Transfer, Sharing and Exchange minitrack, Knowledge Systems
GherardiS. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
33.
GiereR. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71, 742-752.
34.
GilbertS. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 73-79.
35.
GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448.
36.
HabermasJ. (1970) Towards a theory of communicative competence, Inquiry, 13, 360-375.
37.
HassardJ.CoxJ. W. (2013). Can sociological paradigms still inform organizational analysis? A paradigm model for post-paradigm times. Organization Studies, 34, 1701-1728.
38.
HealyP. (2008). The model and its architecture. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: 010 Publishers.
39.
HendersonK. (1998). The role of material objects in the design process: A comparison of two design cultures and how they contend with automation. Science Technology Human Values, 23, 139-174.
40.
IsaacsonW. (2011). Steve Jobs. Great Britain, UK: Little, Brown.
41.
JarzabowskiP.SpeeA. P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 69-95.
42.
JohnsonJ.LangleyA.MelinL.WhittingtonR. (2007). Strategy as practice: Research directions and resources. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
43.
Knorr-CetinaK. (1997). Sociality with objects: Social relations in post social knowledge societies. Theory Culture Society, 14, 1-30.
44.
KnuuttilaT. (2005). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science, 72, 1260-1271.
45.
KnuuttilaT. (2011). Modeling and representing: An artefactual approach. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42, 262-271.
46.
KnuuttilaT.MerzM. (2009). Understanding by modeling: An objectual approach. In de RegtH. W.LeonelliS.EignerK. (Eds.), Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 146-168). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
47.
KnuuttilaT.MerzM.MattilaE. (2006). Computer models and simulations in scientific practice. Science Studies, 19(1), 3-11.
48.
KornbergerM.CleggS. R. (2011). Strategy as performative practice: The case study of Sydney 2030. Strategic Organization, 9, 136-162.
49.
LanzaraG. F. (2009). Reshaping practice across media: Material mediation, medium specificity and practical knowledge in judicial work. Organization Studies, 30, 1369-1390.
50.
LatourB. (1988). The politics of explanation: An alternative. Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge, 10, 155-176.
51.
LatourB. (1988b). The Prince for machines as well as for machinations. In ElliottB. (Ed.), Technology and social process. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
52.
LatourB. (1999). On recalling ANT. In LawJ.HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 15-25). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
53.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
LatourB. (2008). A cautious prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In GlyneeJ.HackneyF.MintonV. (Eds.), Networks of design: Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of the design history society (pp. 2-10). Boca Raton, Florida: Universal Publishers.
55.
LatourB.YanevaA. (2008). Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: An ANT’s view of architecture. In RetoG. (Ed.), Explorations in architecture: Teaching, design, research (pp. 80-89). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
56.
LawJ. (1986). On power and its tactics: A view from the sociology of science. The Sociological Review, 34, 1-38.
57.
LawJ. (1986b). On power and its tactics: A view from the sociology of science. Sociological Review, 34, 1-38.
58.
LawJ. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379-393.
LawJ. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In LawJ.HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1-14). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
61.
LawJ. (2008). On sociology and STS. The Sociological Review, 56, 623-649.
62.
LawJ.HassardJ. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
63.
MäkiU. (2009). MISSing the World: Models as Isolations and Credible Surrogate Systems. Erkenntnis, 70, 29-43.
64.
MacKenzieD. (2003). An equation and its worlds: Bricolage, exemplars, disunity and derivatives markets. In MacKenzieD.MuniesaF.SiuL. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 54-86). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
MacKenzieD. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66.
MacKenzieD. (2007). Is economics performative? Option theory and the construction of performativity in financial economics. Social Studies of Science, 33, 831-868.
67.
MacKenzieD.MilloY. (2003). Constructing a market, performing a theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 107-145.
68.
McDonnellJ. (2009). Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users. CoDesign, 5, 35-50.
69.
McNeillD. (2009). The global architect: Firms, fame and urban form. New York, NY: Routledge.
70.
MiettinenR.Samra-FredericksD.YanowD. (2009). Re-turn to practice: An introductory essay. Organization Studies, 30, 1309-1327.
71.
MorganM. S.MorrisonM. (Eds.). (1999). Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
72.
MorrisM. (2006). Architecture and the miniature. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Academy.
73.
NaarL.CleggS. R. (2015). Gehry in Sydney: The Dr Chau Chak Wing Building, UTS. Melbourne, Australia: Images Publishing.
74.
NietzscheF. (1996). On the genealogy of morals (SmithD., Trans. & Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
75.
OrlikowskiW. J.ScottS. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433-474.
76.
PickeringA. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
77.
PitkinH. F. (1972). Wittgenstein and justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.
78.
RennstamJ. (2012). Object-control: A study of technologically dense knowledge work. Organization Studies, 33, 1071-1090.
79.
RheinbergerH. J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
80.
RortyR. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81.
RortyR. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
82.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. L. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.
83.
StawB. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of management Review, 6, 577-587.
84.
SuárezM. (2003). Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International studies in the philosophy of science17, 225-244.
85.
SuárezM. (2004). An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science (Symposia)71, 767-779.
86.
SvetlovaE.DirksenV. (2014). Models at work—Models in decision making. Science in Context, 27, 561-577.
87.
van FraassenB. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
88.
WeickK. (2003). Organizational design and the Gehry experience. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 93-97.
