Engineering Objects for Collaboration: Strategies of Ambiguity and Clarity at Knowledge Boundaries

Abstract

Prior research suggests that boundary objects gain meaning through group interaction. Drawing from the literature on strategic ambiguity, we explore the possibility that individuals strategically create potential boundary objects in an attempt to shape the meanings that groups develop. From ethnographic observations of automotive engineers, we identify 2 creation strategies: ambiguity (to create objects that support multiple meanings) and clarity (to create objects that permit a particular meaning). We detail design activities that engineers undertook to create objects under each strategy. We find that, when creating objects, engineers favored a strategy of ambiguity, which they believed would foster healthy long‐term group interactions, over a strategy of clarity, which they tended to employ only when they expected resistance to their ideas.

Boundary object efficacy: The mediating role of boundary objects on task conflict in global virtual project networks

“…Research on the efficacy of boundary objects typically focuses on the different meanings associated with the objects. This focus examines how boundary objects are plastic and how this plasticity facilitates knowledge transfer (Barley et al, 2012;Barrett and Oborn, 2010;Carlile, 2002Carlile, , 2004Sapsed and Salter, 2004). However, this line of research does not account for how workers use boundary objects in ways that allow for different meanings to emerge (Levina and Vaast, 2005).…”

Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects

“…In other words, a useful object is one that helps group members to deal effectively with the syntactic, semantic boundaries discussed above. When this happens an object is said to have become a boundary object (Barley, Leonardi, & Bailey, 2012;Bechky, 2003b;Boland & Tenkasi, 1995;Carlile, 2002Carlile, , 2004Levina & Vaast, 2005;Pawlowski & Robey, 2004;Star & Griesemer, 1989). Consequently, not all objects are boundary objects per se.…”

Best of Both Worlds

“…This dimension has already been discovered in another setting as a trait of visual, collaborative boundary objects by [17]; 8. systematic and fragmented uses: at times a leadership wall or data board is examined by a team systematically (from top to bottom), other times officers may just pick out important changes to the visuals; 9. certain and uncertain: based on real-life phone line data-but also uncertain: may contain hypotheses of the criminal analyst. It is the very nature of boundary objects to lend themselves to these different uses.…”