We explore the tension between standardisation and flexibility in information infrastructure (II). In line with other accounts of large technical systems, we describe how the geographically dispersed, yet highly interconnected nature of an II accumulates resistance against changes. Still, we argue that in II design one has to anticipate and prepare for changes, even substantial ones, if the II shall survive. An II contains huge numbers of components. Most of them alternate between standardisation and change throughout their lifetime. These components are interdependent: one is changed while others have to remain stable and vice versa. We discuss theoretical concepts for framing these aspects of an II. The empirical underpinning of our paper is a study of two existing, embryonic manifestations of II.

No abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -Companies desire to improve their team organization by learning from other companies in their sector and adopting "best practice". Researchers and consultants, who are called on to facilitate these learning processes, are confronted with the real world ambiguity and multiple meanings of "team" and "team organization". A shared understanding of team organization is a precondition for learning and knowledge transfer between companies. This paper seeks to ask how this common understanding can be constructed. Design/methodology/approach -The paper uses participatory research and a literature review. Based on a research project involving Norwegian manufacturing companies, the paper presents and discusses a participatory process, in which a graphical profiling tool was developed and applied in order to make sense of different forms of team organization. Findings -The paper finds that companies were actively involved in deciding what the relevant dimensions of team working were. In reflection seminars, systematical comparison between companies dissolved conceptual ambiguity and supported reflection.Research limitations/implications -The paper reports experiences with the mapping tool from two companies. Both are characterized by cooperative industrial relations, and openness to researchers. More research should be done in order to investigate the general workability of the process proposed here. Practical implications -The proposed process for constructing and using a mapping tool are relevant for consultants and researchers, who aim to facilitate learning in a multiple company context. In particular, it is relevant for dealing with popular, but unclear concepts such as "team" and "team working". To be workable, the process should take care to involve relevant stakeholders and the profiling should avoid technical language. Social implications -Through a participatory approach, all participants in an organization can take part in a dialogue on team working. By introducing a common language, power distances may be reduced. Originality/value -The general idea of using graphical profiling to support reflection is not original. The contribution is presenting and discussing a concr...

No abstract

No abstract