This paper considers the limitations of project management tools as boundary objects within dispersed or global programs of teamwork. The concept of boundary object is receiving growing attention in the management literature. These artefacts are argued to provide a basis for negotiation and knowledge exchange between differentiated communities of practice. The paper assesses these claims theoretically and empirically in the context of global projects. Theoretically it draws on the literatures on boundary objects, dispersed work and project management tools and organization. The paper then analyses a case study of a global program in a major computing corporation. The program spanned numerous geographical sites across the US, Europe and Japan as well as several functional communities of practice including production, services, sales, IT and company registry. The method involved interviews with 33 program managers at six sites and analysis of program management devices such as integrated timelines, online status reporting tools and modular roadmaps. The paper argues that in dispersed programs where there is no opportunity for face-to-face interaction, and/or ambiguous lines of authority, project management tools will be ineffectual as boundary objects and prone to avoidance. Boundary objects are inherently limited precisely because of their marginal nature, the effects of which are exacerbated in diverse and dispersed programs.

No abstract

No abstract

The teamworking and knowledge management fields are increasingly converging. Teamworking is turned to with a growing disillusion with knowledge management approaches that are seen as excessively ‘hard’, ‘objectified’, or ‘information technology dominated’. This paper is a critical review, the purpose of which is to survey the literature across several fields that provide insights into teamworking aspects of knowledge management, and the reverse. This approach is chosen as disciplines tend to sustain presumptions and preoccupations that may be contradicted by other fields, as is shown. In particular, the review challenges what is referred to as the ‘organizational behaviour textbook theory of teamworking’ and refers to research and theory from several disciplines that qualify what is still an influential orthodoxy. The paper attempts to draw together some principles from current themes such as collective mind, modularity, cross‐functional teams and communities of practice.