Editorial: objects, knowledge sharing and knowledge transformation in projects

It is perhaps ironic that an industry so steeped in the production of our material environment and so inclined towards the use of material artefacts to assist in the process of construction should have had so little attention directed towards the role that these material objects play in enabling the knowledge creation, sharing and transformation that goes towards producing our built environment. Yet, it is only comparatively recently that an enthusiasm for the development of new tools and techniques to improve the construction process has been accompanied by fuller consideration of the ways in which these tools and techniques may actively constitute, or otherwise contribute towards, the total ‘activity system’ (cf. Engeström, 2001) of a construction project or programme (e.g. Suchman, 2000).

There has, of course, been a considerable amount of interest shown in understanding the construction process as a socio‐technical system since early work at the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s (e.g. Higgin and Jessop, 1965; Crichton, 1966). This work was important in questioning the supposed socially neutral effects of technology and the determinism that can be associated with its application. In other words, that technological and social systems need to be understood as being part of a complex and dynamic interdependent system that has important implications for the efficacy of different modes of organization and management practice. Such an approach persists, of course, and can throw important light on how human and material systems interact—in the motivation to engage with knowledge management systems or health and safety practices, for example. However, it takes a view on the interface between the social and the technological that tends to draw a very clear boundary between the two and which therefore persists in treating them as quite distinct, albeit inter‐related, domains of knowledge and objects of study.

Such ontological certainty about the ability to separate the human and material realm is rather less apparent in more recent developments in some areas of organizational theory (OT). Inspired by work within science and technology studies (STS), such developments have placed much more emphasis on the importance of material objects in the organization and management process (Zeiss and Groenewegen, 2009). Indeed, many researchers in construction management have begun to explore in much more detail how material objects may be implicated in the processes involved in the construction of a building and in the constitution of the project organization and management team set up to build it (e.g. Harty, 2005; Whyte et al., 2007; Georg and Tryggestad, 2009). These and other important forays into the realm of the material emphasize the value of drawing upon a range of perspectives in organizational and management theory and research which, although sometimes regarded as controversial, have nevertheless something very important to say about materiality in organization and management processes.

This special issue therefore responds to other recent calls for construction management theory and research to engage with and draw upon (and also contribute towards) knowledge about organization and management more generally (e.g. Bresnen et al., 2005; Chan and Räisänen, 2009). It is with examining such alternative perspectives on the role of objects and technologies and exploring the implications they have for understanding the construction management process that this special issue is principally concerned.

Exploring objects in construction management research and practice

Continuing problems of integrating activity across the range of professional and organizational groups commonly associated with complex projects in both construction and other sectors (Hobday, 2000) have naturally led, among other things, to the emergence of interest in material artefacts and their role in potentially facilitating, mediating and constituting joint activity (e.g. Sapsed and Salter, 2004; Boland et al., 2007). Construction activity not only involves a diverse range of actors and organizations, but also routinely incorporates a wide range of objects, from low‐tech paper and pencils to sophisticated ICT‐based collaboration and design systems. It therefore offers a rich, if relatively unexplored, context in which to investigate the constitution of and interactions between actors, objects and practices.

An interest in exploring how different types of material object may improve integration across different kinds of project setting is heightened by the emphasis placed in contemporary analysis on trying to understand how they relate to flows of knowledge and learning that enable or facilitate such integration. As Rooke, Rooke, Koskela and Tzortzopoulos in this issue point out, for example, knowledge can be conceived of as a complex flow of social practices, information and physical properties (see also Styhre, 2009). The importance of objects in providing the ‘tangible definitions’ (Bechky, 2003, p. 324) required to integrate activity has long been recognized as of central importance in understanding knowledge sharing and integration within and between communities of practice engaged in joint activity (Star and Griesemer, 1989; Boland and Tenkasi, 1995; Wenger, 1998). Indeed, practice‐based perspectives more generally (Nicolini et al., 2003) have attributed an important role to objects—both physical and abstract—in enabling joint activity and in allowing the translation and/or transformation of knowledge at boundaries in practice (Carlile, 2002).

Arguably, the construction sector (and project activity in general) is rife with such boundaries that need to be overcome and in which objects can perform a potentially important mediating role. The question then becomes one of how different material artefacts act as ‘boundary objects’ to enable or inhibit these flows of knowledge and learning across different types of project (see Styhre and Gluch, this issue, for an example on knowledge platforms in a Swedish firm).

However, the analysis of the role of objects in enabling knowledge sharing and knowledge integration in the context of project‐based working remains largely under‐developed. With a few notable exceptions (including the papers in this issue), rarely have attempts been made in project‐based settings to analyse the constitution and role of objects in such distinct ways and/or to explore the conditions under which they might enable (or inhibit), mediate, constitute or actively promote joint activity. This is despite the fact that many of the classic examples of boundary objects can be found in engineering settings, where project‐based working is the norm (e.g. Henderson, 1991; Carlile, 2004).

A number of the papers in this special issue therefore demonstrate how the construction setting offers a particularly interesting and fruitful context within which to explore the relationship between objects and the diverse organizational groups and communities of practice that are regularly engaged in joint activity on projects (see, for example, the papers by Whyte and Lobo and Berente, Baxter and Lyytinen). The issue then becomes one of understanding how particular objects—whether they are designated as such or more emergent as ‘boundary‐objects‐in‐use’ (Levina and Vaast, 2005)—manage to facilitate or inhibit interaction in particular circumstances (see Bresnen in this issue on how this can affect the constitution of partnering, for example).

However, a concern with understanding how the instrumental qualities of objects assist with the translation and transformation of knowledge across boundaries of practice that would otherwise inhibit joint activity is only one of many different perspectives on the role of objects in influencing organization and management practice. Although important in teasing out the material conditions that can have a bearing upon organizational integration, such an approach still tends to retain the notion that objects have relatively fixed and immutable physical characteristics that enable them to be used as passive tools that can aid coordination among and between different communities of practice who are otherwise separated by barriers of language, understanding or interest (e.g. Carlile, 2004). This is despite the fact that work within this tradition emphasizes the ‘interpretative flexibility’ (Bijker et al., 1987) surrounding such solid objects and how this can make them ‘plastic’ enough (Star and Griesemer, 1989) to be able to provide the tangible point of reference around which groups with different perspectives can effectively interact.

Consequently, an important further question is what light do alternative theoretical perspectives throw on the use and role of objects within and between projects? As Sage, Dainty and Brookes point out in this special issue, physical objects—such as the project file—can be understood not simply as integrative devices but also as conduits for power. Of course, work in the tradition of examining the social construction of technology (SCOT) has long questioned the extent to which any assumption about material objects’ ‘objective’ qualities can be taken for granted. A SCOT approach would emphasize instead that material technologies are constituted through complex patterns of interaction among social actors in ways that reflect and reinforce particular norms, values, interests and relations of power within and between social groups (see, for example, Schweber and Harty in this issue).

Objects are thus not neutral material artefacts but are socially constructed, highly symbolic and inscribed with meaning and significance. One can see this in the literature on boundary objects, where there is plenty of recognition that particular boundary objects may both mirror and reinforce existing relations of power and influence. Being able to understand and use engineering drawings, for example, not only has instrumental consequences, but also has symbolic effects in so far as it signifies and reinforces the status and expertise of the user and the professional standing of the group to which they belong (e.g. Henderson, 1991; Swan et al., 2007). These complex and subtle micro‐processes are revealed in research such as that reported by Luck in this issue, which focuses upon the interactions observable in design processes (see also Whyte and Lobo in this issue).

The second assumption, however—about the essentially passive nature of objects—is perhaps not so surprising, as attempts to theorize material–human relations have consistently tended to make a very clear ontological distinction between the active role of human agency and the passive functioning of objects. In social and organizational theory, objects have been seen variously as providing the technological infrastructure which determines social relations (Marx, 2002); as mirrors which passively reflect social distinctions (Bourdieu, 1984); as backdrops or placeholders around which human action is performed (Goffman, 1971); or as ‘allocative resources’ which are mobilized by human actors in social interactions (Giddens, 1990).

Yet, work within the field of science and technology studies (STS) has not only drawn attention to the socially constructed nature of technological artefacts, but has also questioned the asymmetric apportioning of agency solely to human actors. Whether the empirical focus has been on the production of scientific or technical knowledge, the building or assembly of complex socio‐technical systems, the constitution of specific practices and technologies, or the boundary‐crossing abilities of artefacts, STS has also ascribed a more active role to objects in the production of such phenomena.

Consequently, other perspectives influenced by this tradition or that emanate from related fields of organizational and social theory take a rather different line—adding more weight to the importance of the material conditions under which social actors interact. Activity theory, for example (Blackler et al., 2000; Engeström, 2001; Engeström and Blackler, 2005) conceptualizes material objects or tools as one equally important part of a three‐way activity system that also consists of the individual actor and the community context within which they act and by which they are influenced. The division of labour and rules under which individuals act influence social action within this broader context and, consequently, action in relation to a particular activity (e.g. constructing a building) is seen as being moderated not only by the conditions of social organization, but also by relevant material conditions—such as the enabling or constraining influences of technology.

Actor‐network theory (ANT) pushes the influence of objects further and proposes that a much more active role is played by objects in their capacity as ‘actants’—or active participants—in streams of activity (Latour, 2005). Consequently, ANT not only sees objects as being inscribed with meaning, but also sees them as having the capacity to actively intervene to influence events and social action. Meeting schedules and agendas, for example, structure discussions and decision‐making processes in particular ways through the established protocols that they embody.

As can be seen in a number of contributions to this special issue, an established interest in ANT in understanding the influence of objects as ‘immutable mobiles’ that constrain and shape social action has been developed further in recognition that there is also a good degree of mutability in such objects and in the ways they influence action (Law and Singleton, 2005). This can be seen for example in the papers by Kjellberg on the development of a Swedish warehouse and by Tryggestad, Georg and Hernes on the ‘Turning Torso’ building in Malmö. Although ANT has rather ironically been criticized not only for its radical departure from an ontological insistence on the lack of agency of objects, but also for its lack of critical intent (Whittle and Spicer, 2008), it remains an important way of attempting to understand the complex social and material processes associated with any realm of activity.

In this issue

This special issue therefore sets out to bring together existing work on the roles of objects in project‐based settings, with a specific focus on their active role in joint activity and with particular (but not exclusive) reference to their use in the construction industry context.

The 10 papers included in this issue indicate the range of theoretical orientations and methodological approaches that can be brought to bear on understanding the role of objects within the construction process. The diversity of authors also demonstrates the interest which the construction sector, and the role of objects within it, is eliciting from scholars beyond the construction management community, as well as from within it. But above all else, the papers show the importance of incorporating material artefacts into the study and analysis of construction processes and the insights this can bring.

We begin the issue with Whyte and Lobo’s paper investigating how digital objects are mobilized in the coordination and control of knowledge across the interfaces between firms, disciplines and functions. The authors present a case study of a large infrastructure project, a £485 million, 40km new motorway around a major European city, selected because of its pioneering use of digital technologies for integrating design data across such a complex project. The paper describes how a repository of digital objects—encompassing engineering models, process maps and standardized forms and procedures—functioned as governance mechanisms to facilitate and configure collaborative design activity and coordination across the different organizations involved. Drawing specifically on the notion of boundary objects, the paper argues that these boundary‐crossing objects played a central part in developing and governing project practices.

Berente, Baxter and Lyytinen identify a point of contention in the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in innovative construction work. On the one hand, organizational research argues that this type of inter‐organizational knowledge creation requires a high degree of both information pooling and physical interaction and that ICTs do not diminish dependence on both of these practices. On the other hand, many suggest that ICTs can take the place of a good deal of physical interaction. Through a multi‐level case study of a Frank Gehry construction project, the authors develop a framework that accommodates these competing arguments. The framework combines the notion of ‘object world’ congruence with the degree of information pooling evident in different relationships within the project. The result is that the authors develop a novel dynamic theory of inter‐organizational knowledge creation which more thoroughly attends to the role of ICTs in these practices. This work highlights the conditions under which ICTs can substitute for physical interaction and fulfil their expected benefits in innovative construction management projects.

Styhre and Gluch’s study of the development of ‘knowledge platforms’ in a large Swedish construction organization shows that rather than being a free‐floating resource in construction companies, accessible to everybody in the firm, knowledge needs to be systematized, structured, packaged and ordered. Using the term ‘platform’ as a form of boundary object that acts as a structured method for collecting and presenting acquired experiences and know‐how, the Swedish construction company used these platforms for prescribing standard solutions to recurrent problems in construction work. The platforms, however, by no means inhibited local adaptations to perceived problems but instead provided ‘scripts’ from which co‐workers could improvise. Using the platforms in this manner, as flexible yet ‘standardized packages’ of solutions helped the company (at least in theory) to reduce costs by avoiding the unnecessary repetition of certain work practices in their projects.

Rooke, Rooke, Koskela and Tzortzopoulos present an initial attempt to develop an alternative approach to the problem of implementing effective knowledge management through life in the built environment, and to conceptualize material artefacts and information sharing as interdependent and mutually shaped. They examine how knowledge can be analysed as a flow consisting of social practices, information and physical properties. A review of the literature on physical properties from design studies, production management and ethnomethodology demonstrates the information‐bearing functions of physical properties. This review is complemented by fieldwork conforming to the unique adequacy requirement carried out in several settings. The authors highlight that their tripartite conception of knowledge constitutes an initial disciplinary concept, differentiating disciplinary approaches to the management of knowledge (organizational practice; information management; design of physical artefact) and providing one way of integrating design with knowledge management, to the possible benefit of both.

Bresnen’s paper adopts a practice‐based approach to explore the mechanisms of partnering within construction contexts as socially constructed and emergent. Using a case study of the development of a partnering arrangement between a client and a contractor during the construction of a new hotel in the UK, Bresnen argues that boundary objects (including charters, contracts and risk/reward sharing mechanisms) were developed not only to facilitate the partnering agreement itself, but also to transform pragmatic boundaries between the partners and develop a shared understanding of what partnering meant in this specific, local context. But significantly and somewhat paradoxically, while these objects acted in some instances to transform understanding across boundaries, in others they served to reproduce and reinforce existing differences. This again affirms the centrality of objects to understanding interactions across boundaries, but also highlights the need to see such objects as socially constructed, often idiosyncratic and always grounded in the local conditions governing interaction on projects.

The contribution by Sage, Dainty and Brookes examines the implications of flexible project management (PM) knowledge tools. Increasingly flexible PM methods are being promoted both within project‐based organizations and by PM researchers, on the assumption that they avoid some of the negative power effects of bureaucratic organization. However, the authors question the assumption that such tools radically transform negative power effects, by examining a project file within a small team of practitioners in a large civil engineering consultancy in the UK. Using semi‐structured interviews and a review of documentation, they develop a theoretically informed narrative that questions how the project file is understood and used by practitioners. They mobilize two popular, but contrasting views of PM: as a technical tool of knowledge standardization and formalization; or as a social mediator of necessary knowledge differentiation and transformation. By drawing on actor‐network theories, the authors demonstrate how the project file oscillates between these modalities and is thus rendered multiple: constituting novel power effects within the organization that are not necessarily positive. The authors thus provide a note of caution to the claims of policymakers, practitioners and researchers who argue that more flexible, or transformative, PM knowledge tools inevitably reduce negative power effects, such as organizational rigidity and cultural repression.

Luck examines some of the ways in which objects feature in a design setting, to illustrate not only the use of objects (e.g. drawings) as points of reference in discussion, but also how participants raise awareness of particular features to make them noticeable to those present. This is achieved through talk, bodily posture, gaze and in gestural actions, such as pointing to features on a drawing. These are considered to be small, yet significant actions for participants in design situations that help create a shared sense or mutual intelligibility of the design. The theoretical and methodological position adopted, informed by ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, is seldom applied to the study of work practices and communication in construction settings. However, such an approach is important in capturing design as it happens in a ‘real‐world’ setting, in recording real‐time design activity and in observing micro‐interactional phenomena, which are significant in completing the design task at hand. Such situated analyses help develop an understanding of design practice and highlight significant features of talk (in‐interaction) that warrant more research attention. This also draws attention to the practical actions and activities that need to be supported in non‐face‐to‐face design environments and, more generally, help advance our understanding of communication in construction.

Schweber and Harty’s paper describes the insights a socio‐technical networks approach can offer studies of innovation in construction management. Drawing on work from the social construction of technology (SCOT), the paper positions such an approach as an analytical tool, rather than a fully fledged theory, and one which can be used to explore a wide range of research questions. The approach is illustrated through three case studies, each of which explores a different type of object: a physical artefact (the development of reinforced concrete in France, the UK and the US); a virtual technology (the implementation of 3D‐CAD software into four firms); and a social technology (the uptake of environmental assessment technologies in the UK since 1990). Three key contributions are proposed. First, that this approach offers a way to study innovation which refuses any a priori distinctions between the social and the technical, or the boundaries between them—instead seeing them as mutually constituted. Second, it explores the ongoing development of actors and objects, rather than claiming a separation between innovation and diffusion, or development and use. Third, it provides a framework for studying differences of meaning, identity and interests, and asks how particular artefacts and practices come to take on one form rather than another.

Kjellberg investigates the process of realizing changes in the built settings of business enterprises, a topic that hitherto has received scant attention. The author argues that the built environment critically influences many businesses, not least in the distributive trades, which is the setting for this study. Employing methodological tools from science and technology studies, a detailed historical account is developed of how a major Swedish food wholesaler introduced one‐storey warehousing into its operations in the 1950s. This corresponded to a type of gestalt‐switch in the wholesaler’s view of its warehouses—from symbols to tools—that required perspective‐specific investments to align ‘words and their worlds’. The author conceptualizes this process of alignment as an interplay between efforts to present (through actual changes in buildings and equipment) and re‐present (through novel images, charts and blueprints) the world so that it fitted the perspective being attempted. The implications of the analysis are that novel ideas about the role of the built environment in business require careful, local investments in order to be applicable, and that our knowledge of the built environment is better viewed as the result of socio‐technical investments than as a social accomplishment.

Tryggestad, Georg and Hernes address the question of how objects in construction can shape project goals and design ambitions. The authors pose this question because the construction management literature tends to overlook the role that material objects used in construction processes can play in transforming knowledge and thereby shaping project goals. Actor‐network theory is used to explore the connection between objects and knowledge with the purpose of developing an adaptive and pragmatic approach to goals in construction. Using as a case study the construction of the Turning Torso skyscraper in Malmö, the authors show how design ambitions emerged in a process of goal translation, and in turn, how tensions between aesthetic and functional concerns emerged and were resolved through trials of strength as the object—the building—was elaborated and circulated across stakeholders and sites in various forms (e.g. artistic sketches, drawings and models). The authors conclude that the implications for construction management research and practice emphasize the value of knowledge production—in this case the accomplishment of a stable/functional construction through redesign—and contrast this adaptive and pragmatic approach with a more rigid ‘best practice’ approach that does not take knowledge production into account. In terms of planning and resource allocation, the implication is that resources for (re)design should be distributed across the project life cycle instead of being solely confined to an initial briefing and design phase. A further implication is the importance of taking a distributed and emergent view of knowledge, where its development involves the mobilization and circulation of objects across stakeholders and sites.

Where next?

Together, this collection of papers makes a significant contribution to exploring both the role of objects in construction activities, and the range of theoretical perspectives and methodological issues that such studies can encompass. It raises ontological concerns about the nature of the social and the material and interactions between them. It brings with it too important questions of an epistemological nature about how such processes of human–material interaction can best be studied and understood in the field. Research within the traditions mentioned above not only departs from more standard conceptions of quantitative and even qualitative research (cf. Seymour and Rooke, 1995), but also shares some of the concerns emphasized in a previous special issue of Construction Management and Economics with exploring the informal and the emergent (Chan and Räisänen, 2009).

Consequently, it is not surprising to see in much of the above work an orientation towards research that takes the in‐depth qualitative case study as only a starting point. The call to ‘follow the actors’ (Latour, 1996, p. 204) and understand the networks of human and material interaction with which they are engaged therefore produces a heavy reliance on alternative, more anthropological methods of research—such as ethnomethodology and ethnography. These methods require a much deeper engagement with the communities or networks of interaction that are being studied and depend a lot more upon the use of observation methods applied in systematic ways over (sometimes extensive) periods of time. Such approaches have traditionally been under‐represented within the main body of construction management research, but clearly have an important part to play in illuminating construction management phenomena.

Construction is a fruitful and fascinating empirical context in which to study the boundaries between and intersection of objects and actors. The complexity of construction work, the range of objects that are central to its performance and the plethora of interests, expectations, conventions and intentions that intersect in project contexts all contribute to produce a fertile area in which to develop these ideas. Indeed many scholars from outside construction management, including some in this special issue, are using construction as an important empirical focus to gain insights into complex organizational issues surrounding materiality. So, as well as continuing to grow momentum around this research agenda within construction management, research in this area also provides a real opportunity to connect with and contribute to debates outside the construction management arena—something which arguably has been achieved with only limited success in the past, and something which might be considered highly desirable for the profile and health of the discipline. Debates surrounding the mutual constitution of objects over time, the potential and limitations of concepts such as the ‘boundary object’ or ‘object world’ and the refinement of methodological and analytical approaches which focus on objects and actors are all areas where construction, and construction management research, can make a wider contribution. This is a challenge not to be underestimated, but one which has considerable merit. Our hope is that readers will find this issue a stimulating and engaging catalyst towards such an agenda.

Acknowledgements

The guest editors would like to thank the CM&E editorial and administrative team for their support during the preparation of this special issue, the reviewers who played a significant role in the development of the papers and, of course, the authors for their contributions.