skip to main content
10.1145/1234772.1234782acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschimitConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Network-centricity: hindered by hierarchical anchors

Published:30 March 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

Network-centricity is a concept under consideration as a useful paradigm for complex organizational operations, combining the strengths of bureaucracy with the innovative possibilities afforded by the ongoing explosion of information and communication technologies. Network-centric work (NCW) is that in which the activities associated with work are conducted via informal selfdirected networks of people, occurring within an environment enabled by technological and organizational infrastructure. NCW cuts across boundaries within and between organizations and engages participants with more regard for their expertise and motivation than their formal roles. Network-centric organizations embrace NCW alongside bureaucracies oriented to providing the resources and articulating the vision to which the NCW is to be oriented. Network-centricity is motivated by a desire for rapid adaptation and flexibility to changing circumstances. However, in an ethnographic study of a distributed team deployed by a large corporation seeking to benefit from a network-centric approach, we found that the work of the distributed team was hindered by some team members "anchoring" to bureaucratic work practices instead of supporting network-centric practices. We identify several such anchor points and the ways in which they impeded network-centric work.

References

  1. Alberts, D. S., J. Garstka, et al. (1999). Network-Centric Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority. Washington, DC, National Defense University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bos, N., N. S. Shami, et al. (2004). In-group/out-group effects in distributed teams: an experimental simulation. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Chicago, Illinois: 429--436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Callaghan, J. (2002). Inside intranets and extranets: knowledge management and the struggle for power. New York, Palgrave. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cebrowski, and Garstka, J. (1998). Network-centric warfare: Its origin and future. Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute. January, 1998. Available at http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles98/PROcebrowski.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidow, W. H. and M. S. Malone (1992). The virtual corporation: structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. New York, Harper Collins Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. DiMaggio, P. (2001). The Futures of Business Organization and Paradoxes of Change. In The Twenty-First-Century Firm: Changing economic organization in international perspective. Princeton U Press: 210--244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. DiSanctis, G. and Monge, P. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes in virtual organizations. Organization Science. Vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 693--703. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. González, V. M. and G. Mark (2005). Managing Currents at Work: Multi-tasking Among Multiple Collaborations. Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), Paris, France: 143--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360--1380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Heckscher, C. C. and A. Donnellon (1994). The Postbureaucratic organization: new perspectives on organizational change. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Herbst, P. G. (1976). Alternatives to hierarchies. Leiden, M. Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, C., Dourish, P. and Mark, G. (2006). The Human Infrastructure of Cyberinfrastructure. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on CSCW (CSCW'06), Calgary, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Five: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., and Schwarz, H. (2002). NetWORKers and their Activity in Intensional Networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11: 205--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Nohria, N. and J. D. Berkley (1994). The Virtual Organization: Bureaucracy, Technology, and the Implosion of Control. The Post-bureaucratic organization: new perspectives on organizational change. C. C. Heckscher and A. Donnellon. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 108--128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involvement in Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 100--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: a sociological view. London, Tavistock Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Pirolli, P. and S. Card (1999). Information Foraging. Psychological Review 106(4): 643--675.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Weber, M., G. Roth, et al. (1978). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Weick, K. E. and K. H. Roberts (1993). Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357--381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, N.Y., Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Network-centricity: hindered by hierarchical anchors

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHIMIT '07: Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on Computer human interaction for the management of information technology
      March 2007
      124 pages
      ISBN:9781595936356
      DOI:10.1145/1234772

      Copyright © 2007 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 March 2007

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHIMIT '07 Paper Acceptance Rate11of34submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate15of43submissions,35%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader