Application of Boundary Objects

One of the common applications of boundary objects has been to investigate team and project collaboration, especially collaboration in virtually organised projects, through the lens of this concept. A recent literature review of boundary objects as the tools for virtual team communication has identified several roles for boundary objects (Marheineke et al. 2016). According to the review, boundary objects can be used to negotiate meanings in order to fulfil tasks, can be applied for information processing, can affect people in collaboration processes and can bring structure to the collaboration. The review applies Carlile’s (2002) three boundaries – syntactic, semantic and pragmatic – with the addition of emerging boundaries, in the classification of boundary objects literature. The review concludes by addressing the need for research of boundary objects as part of the work of the boundary spanners, the people who mediate the collaboration process and create new competencies.

The interconnected role of boundary objects and boundary spanners can create both positive and negative effects on their environment. For example, Di Marco et al. (2012) state that boundary objects can aid negotiations between virtual team counterparts. They highlight that especially visual boundary objects are helpful when negotiating over complex design artefacts. In a similar vein, Iorio and Taylor (2013) conclude that boundary objects are useful when conflicts arise in virtual project environments, especially if they are referred to early. Repeated applications of the objects during the conflict shorten the conflict and more strategic application further increases their efficacy. While the accounts from Di Marco et al. and Iorio and Taylor highlight the positive aspects of boundary object application, the research by Barrett and Oborn (2010), on boundary objects in distributed teams, discusses the negative effects linked to use of boundary objects. In this study, shifting power dynamics during the projects created a situation when the control over the use of the objects was not equally distributed amongst all stakeholders. The objects were used to enforce the boundaries between the members of the organisations and the project ran into conflict situations (Barrett & Oborn 2010).

Remote and distributed work has been studied in a similar vein by Jonsson et al. (2009), who focused on the boundary-spanning capabilities of the boundary objects in maintenance work using remote diagnostic systems. The study states that the information system is not only a mediator of the information, but also has an active role in spanning the boundaries, creating new boundaries and reinforcing existing ones.

Building on Jonsson et al.’s (2009) research, Barrett et al. (2012) describe boundary relations created by the objects. The object, a pharmacy robot in their case, facilitated cooperation between one set of practitioners, but simultaneously there was neglect and strain between another set of practitioners. Introduction of the robot into the work environment elevated the status of the robot technicians, a group of boundary spanners, and the pharmacist working with the technicians. However, the previously mutually collaborative relationship between the pharmacists and pharmacy assistants deteriorated due to boundary neglect, or a lack of boundary spanners that would mitigate the boundary between these two parties, albeit that boundary spanning is not particularly discussed in this paper. Similarly, the relationship between the pharmacy assistants and the robot technicians was strained, due to increased fragmentation of the work around the object and again, if interpreted with the lens of the boundary spanning

concept, due to the lack of a boundary spanners taking action when it came to the technicians. In their study, Barrett et al. highlight the fluid and hybrid nature of the objects and how the adoption of the technological innovation was used to span and reconfigure boundaries. Their case study highlights both the positive and negative effects of the boundary objects and discusses briefly how the power structures shift in the organisation due to introduction of the objects.

The object in the Barrett el al. (2012) case does not undergo drastic changes, but other case studies have investigated the results of the changes in objects themselves. Subrahmanian et al. (2003) study the application of prototypes as well as other boundary objects in a distributed environment. Their case study shows that uncoordinated information flow can erode the usability of the prototypes. Another source of erosion was due to changes in the requirements and organisational changes. Reorganisation of their case project led to creation of new boundary objects, which were unclear to collaborating parties.

But if the erosion of the object is contained, prototypes as boundary objects can be used to bridge multiple boundaries between the organisations and benefit collaboration. For example, Winkler et al. (2014), address how prototypes can be used to bridge the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic boundaries defined by Carlile. The uses of objects include contrasting more complete prototypes with more abstract ones, visually and verbally exemplifying how the prototypes work and what functionalities are still missing, emphasising the openness of the prototype and facilitating feedback, and preventing misunderstandings.

In addition to research that investigates boundary objects’ use in collaboration, there are more perspectives that have been addressed and other object categories that are similar but not quite the same. Gal et al. (2008) take a broader perspective to examine boundary objects in the context of the identities and practices of the organisations that use them. They investigate the interdependencies among organisational identities, inter-organisational work, and the boundary objects that support this work. Boundary objects can even impact the identities of other organisations working for the same project, the organisations ‘across the boundary’. From the Agile perspective, this finding is significant. Gal et al. imply that boundary objects can not only be seen as tools for collaboration in Agile projects, but they can also help to create, maintain and distribute the Agile identity across organisational borders. Thus, the objects selected for the project should be aligned with the Agile values, especially flexibility and change, so that the project team using the object will not miss the opportunity to further grow its Agile identity.

In summary, boundary objects are powerful tools for collaboration (Di Marco et al. 2012) and can even be applied to extend organisational identities (Gal et al. 2008), but the changes of the environment (Subrahmanian et al. 2003), or more specifically in the power structures of the environment (Barrett & Oborn 2010), can erode the objects and hinder their abilities. Table 9 summarises the articles discussed in this section. The next section will briefly discuss the Agile research and boundary objects and conclude the context and literature review section.

Table 9. Literature that has Applied Boundary Objects