Understanding the role of documents in a hierarchical flow of work

Abstract

Studies of work and document flow in a German Ministry show that when documents cross organisational boundaries their status, and associated responsibilities change. These changes, trajectories, deadlines, are recorded on the document. WorkjZow, in this case, is not abstract, prespecified, independent, conceptually or physically separated from the artefact whose movement it controls. It is inscribed, developed, and updated on the artefact itself. This empirical fusion of workflow with objects has major advantages. It enables strong bureaucratic rules to be reconciled with local, ad-hoc, fine-grained contingencies and discretionary action. This is an important lesson for the design of organisational CSCW systems.

Balancing Flexibility and Coherence: Information Exchange in a Paper Machinery Project

“…Both concept pairs have shown their fruitfulness on their own (Boland and Tenkasi 1995;Henderson 1991Henderson , 1998aHenderson , 1998bMambrey and Robinson 1997;Star 1993), but they have not been used together before. The two pairings that we studied with our case were the relationship of boundary objects to perspective taking and the relationship of conscription devices to perspective making.…”

“…The users of a conscription device must engage in inputting its elements and in revising them, if it is to serve its intended function for the users' purposes. These concepts have been used in analyzing why a certain technical solution has not been workable ( e;g., Henderson 1991) or would not be workable (e.g., Mambrey and Robinson 1997). Boland and.Tenkasi (1995) have introduced perspective making and perspective taking for discussing how to represent and integrate knowledge across organizational units and boundaries.…”

Between Chaos and Routine: Boundary Negotiating Artifacts in Collaboration

“…Since Star and Griesemer (Star and Griesemer 1989) initiated the concept of boundary objects, it has been used in a wide variety of research areas including research on collaborative information systems, organization science, and information science (Krasner, Curtis et al 1987;Mambrey and Robinson 1997;Albrechtsen and Jacob 1998;Van House, Butler et al 1998;Bechky 1999;Henderson 1999;Garrety and Badham 2000;Pawlowski, Robey et al 2000;Karsten, Lyytinen et al 2001;Lutters and Ackerman 2002;Diggins and Tolmie 2003;Larsson 2003). Research employed the concept of boundary objects to show that a single object can be used for different purposes by different people (Larsson 2003), to theorize information systems as boundary objects between communities of practice (Pawlowski, Robey et al 2000), and to explore activities surrounding boundary objects within information or work flow (Mambrey and Robinson 1997;Lutters and Ackerman 2002).…”

“…Research employed the concept of boundary objects to show that a single object can be used for different purposes by different people (Larsson 2003), to theorize information systems as boundary objects between communities of practice (Pawlowski, Robey et al 2000), and to explore activities surrounding boundary objects within information or work flow (Mambrey and Robinson 1997;Lutters and Ackerman 2002).…”

“…Myriad ethnographic studies have documented the importance of inscriptions and material artifacts to the creation of shared understanding (Star and Griesemer 1989;Tang 1989;Bucciarelli 1994;Heath and Luff 1996;Pycock and Bowers 1996;Mambrey and Robinson 1997;Harper 1998;Perry and Sanderson 1998;Bechky 1999;Henderson 1999;Hertzum 1999;Brereton and McGarry 2000;Eckert 2001;Lutters and Ackerman 2002;Schmidt and Wagner 2002;Subrahmanian, Monarch et al 2003). In particular, the relationship of material artifacts to coordinative practices has rightfully attracted a great deal of interest.…”