Coordination and control in project‐based work: digital objects and infrastructures for delivery

Abstract

A major infrastructure project is used to investigate the role of digital objects in the coordination of engineering design work. From a practice‐based perspective, research emphasizes objects as important in enabling cooperative knowledge work and knowledge sharing. The term ‘boundary object’ has become used in the analysis of mutual and reciprocal knowledge sharing around physical and digital objects. The aim is to extend this work by analysing the introduction of an extranet into the public–private partnership project used to construct a new motorway. Multiple categories of digital objects are mobilized in coordination across heterogeneous, cross‐organizational groups. The main findings are that digital objects provide mechanisms for accountability and control, as well as for mutual and reciprocal knowledge sharing; and that different types of objects are nested, forming a digital infrastructure for project delivery. Reconceptualizing boundary objects as a digital infrastructure for delivery has practical implications for management practices on large projects and for the use of digital tools, such as building information models, in construction. It provides a starting point for future research into the changing nature of digitally enabled coordination in project‐based work.

Keywords:

• Infrastructure
• knowledge flows
• design process
• digital techniques
• practice

Notes

1. For examples see the special issue (Blackler and Engeström, 2005) and also work on the related functions of objects as epistemic objects (Rheinberger, 1997; Knorr Cetina, 1999; Ewenstein and Whyte, 2009) and memory objects (D’Adderio, 2003; Cacciatori, 2008).

2. Carlile’s category of ‘objects, models and maps’ draws together two types of boundary objects identified by Star and Griesemer in the museum context: ideal types—abstracted diagram, atlas or other description (e.g. species[0]—which does not describe any one specimen) and co‐incident boundaries—objects that have same boundaries but different internal contents (e.g. State of California). This reformulation significantly changes the focus. Within the classification, there is also a recursive (and hence confusing) use of the term ‘objects’ as a sub‐category of the class of ‘objects’.

3. Collins et al. (2007) draw on Galison’s (1996) idea of a ‘trading zone’, which is similar to the idea of a ‘boundary object’ but requires the emergence of a new language for coordination to develop (Chrisman, 1999). Levina and Vaast (2005) similarly argue that for boundary spanning to emerge a new joint field of practice must be produced. In the main ‘boundary object’ literature, however, through the negotiation process there may simply be awareness that other epistemic groups attach different meanings.

4. The term ‘repository’ will continue to be used in the general sense, with a capitalization in the pseudonym ‘Repository’, used in reference to the particular software used on this project.