IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/trt/disawp/0804.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The role of competencies and interests in developing complex IT-artefacts: the case of a metering system

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Ponte

    (DISA, Faculty of Economics, Trento University)

  • Alessandro Rossi
  • Marco Zamarian

    (DISA, Faculty of Economics, Trento University)

Abstract

In this paper we aim at contributing to the ongoing debate on the relationship between artefacts and organizational structuration. Current literature emphasises the role of artefacts as mediators between interests of different categories of actors, namely between designers and users. Alternatively, it concentrates on the processes of learning and interacting between each actor and the artefacts themselves. We explore an arrangement which is not captured by these characterizations, and yet is becoming more and more common, that is situations in which complexity imposes an integration of different actors focusing on knowledge domains which are only partly overlapping. To explore these issues, we examine the dynamics surrounding the design of a complex artefact: an electronic metering system developed by a consortium of firms. The main results emerging from the case study are 1) the relevance of each actor's interests as the main rationale for explaining the technical features of the artefact; 2) the role of negotiation and consensus in determining the final shape of the artefact in term of its features; 3) the bundling/unbundling of features within the physical object as the cooperative effort rises/falls.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Ponte & Alessandro Rossi & Marco Zamarian, 2008. "The role of competencies and interests in developing complex IT-artefacts: the case of a metering system," DISA Working Papers 0804, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 07 Jul 2008.
    • Handle: RePEc:trt:disawp:0804
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.unitn.it/files/download/10533/04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1248.
    2. Stango Victor, 2004. "The Economics of Standards Wars," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    4. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    5. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2000. "Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 404-428, August.
    6. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    2. Becker, Markus C. & Rullani, Francesco & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2021. "The role of digital artefacts in early stages of distributed innovation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    3. Joe Nandhakumar & Nikiforos S. Panourgias & Harry Scarbrough, 2013. "From Knowing It to “Getting It”: Envisioning Practices in Computer Games Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 933-955, December.
    4. Paul M. Leonardi & Diane E. Bailey & Casey S. Pierce, 2019. "The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 665-686, June.
    5. Paul M. Leonardi, 2011. "Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 347-369, April.
    6. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.
    7. Natalia Levina, 2005. "Collaborating on Multiparty Information Systems Development Projects: A Collective Reflection-in-Action View," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 109-130, June.
    8. Anne-Laure Fayard & Emmanouil Gkeredakis & Natalia Levina, 2016. "Framing Innovation Opportunities While Staying Committed to an Organizational Epistemic Stance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 302-323, June.
    9. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    10. Hong, Jacky Fok Loi & Snell, Robin Stanley & Easterby-Smith, Mark, 2009. "Knowledge flow and boundary crossing at the periphery of a MNC," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 539-554, December.
    11. Esther Tippmann & Pamela Sharkey Scott & Andrew Parker, 2017. "Boundary Capabilities in MNCs: Knowledge Transformation for Creative Solution Development," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 455-482, June.
    12. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.
    13. Sajtos, Laszlo & Rouse, Paul & Harrison, Julie & Parsons, Matthew, 2014. "Case-mix system as a boundary object: the case of home care services," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 189-196.
    14. Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21, February.
    15. Vialle, Pierre & Song, Junjie & Zhang, Jian, 2012. "Competing with dominant global standards in a catching-up context. The case of mobile standards in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 832-846.
    16. Carole Groleau & Christiane Demers & Mireille Lalancette & Marcos Barros, 2012. "From Hand Drawings to Computer Visuals: Confronting Situated and Institutionalized Practices in an Architecture Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 651-671, June.
    17. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    18. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    19. Slavova, Mira & Metiu , Anca, 2015. "Ritualization and the Process of Knowledge Transfer," ESSEC Working Papers WP1511, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    20. F. Ackermann & M. Yearworth & L. White, 2018. "Micro-processes in Group Decision and Negotiation: Practices and Routines for Supporting Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 709-713, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    artefacts; interests; ambiguity; competencies;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:trt:disawp:0804. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Roberto Gabriele (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ditreit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.