Laura A. Dabbish
James D. Herbsleb
ABSTRACT
Coordinating activities across groups in systems engineering or product development projects is critical to project success, but substantially more difficult when the work is innovative and dynamic. It is not clear how technology should best support cross-group collaboration on these types of projects. Recent work on coordination in dynamic settings has identified cross-boundary knowledge exchange as a critical mechanism for aligning activities. In order to inform the design of collaboration technology for creative work settings, we examined the nature of cross-group knowledge exchange in an innovative engineering research project developing a lunar rover robot as part of the Google Lunar X-Prize competition. Our study extends the understanding of communication and coordination in creative design work, and contributes to theory on coordination. We introduce four types of cross-team knowledge exchange mechanisms we observed on this project and discuss challenges associated with each. We consider implications for the design of collaboration technology to support cross-team knowledge exchange in dynamic, creative work environments.
- Adler, P. S. 1995. Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6 (2): 147--167.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Banker, R. D., Bardhan, I., & Asdemir, O. 2006. Understanding the impact of collaboration software on product design and development. Information Systems Research, 17 (4): 352--373. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bechky, B. A. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14 (3): 312--330. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bergman, M., Lyytinen, K., Mark, G. 2007. Boundary objects in design: An ecological view of design artifacts. Journal of the AIS, 8(11): 546--568.Google Scholar
- Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 1998. Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40 (3): 90--111.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20 (2): 343--378.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 14 (4): 442--455. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5): 555--568. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. 2003. Into the black box: The knowledge transformation cycle. Management Science, 49(9): 1180--1195. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cataldo, M., Wagstrom, P. A., Herbsleb, J. D., & Carley, K. M. 2006. Identification of coordination requirements: implications for the Design of collaboration and awareness tools. Proceedings of CSCW 2006, ACM Press: 353--362. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christensen, L. R. 2008. The logic of practices of stigmergy: Representational artifacts in architectural design. Proceedings of CSCW 2008, ACM Press: 559--568. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational information requirement, media richness, and structural determinants. Management Science, 32(5): 554--571. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. 2000. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46 (12): 1554--1568. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. 2006. Coordination in fast-response organizations, Management Science, 52(8): 1155--1169. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Galbraith, J. 1977. Organization Design, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Gittell, J. H. 2002. Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects. Management Science, 48 (11): 1408--1426. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Google Lunar X PRIZE. http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/.Google Scholar
- Grinter, R. E., Herbsleb, J. D., & Perry, D. E. 1999. The geography of coordination: Dealing with distance in R&D work. Proceedings of GROUP 1999: ACM Press: 306--315. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grudin, J. 1988. Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. Proceedings of CSCW 1988, ACM Press: 85--93. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gutwin, C., Penner, R., & Schneider, K. 2004. Group awareness in distributed software development. Proceedings of CSCW 2004, ACM Press: 72--81. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hauptman, O., & Hirji, K. K. 1991. The influence of process concurrency on project outcomes in product development: An empirical study of cross-functional teams. IEEE Trans. Engineering Management, 433: 153--164.Google Scholar
- Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9--30.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Herbsleb, J. D., & Grinter, R. E. 1999. Splitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway's law revisited. Proceedings of ICSE 1999, IEEE Press: 85--95. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. 1995. Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization Science, 6 (4): 373--393.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoegl M., Weinkauf K., & Gemuenden H. G., 2004. Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1): 38--55. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kazanjian, R. K., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M. A. 2000. Creativity and technological learning: The roles of organization architecture and crisis in large-scale projects. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 17: 273--298.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J. & Yates, J. 2006. Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations. Organization Science, 17(1): 22--44. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 1--47.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee, C. P. 2007. Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. CSCW, 16 (3): 307--339. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S., & Hollingshead, A. B. 2007. Coordinating Expertise among Emergent Groups Responding to Disasters. Organization Science, 18(1): 147--161. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malone, T., & Crowston, K. 1994. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1): 87--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Mark, G. 2002. Extreme collaboration. Communications of the ACM, 45(6): 89--93. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mihm, J., Loch, C., & Huchzermeier, A. 2003. Problem-solving oscillations in complex engineering projects. Management Science, 46 (3): 733--750. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, I. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Organization. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
- Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. 2009. Coordination in Organizations: An Integrative Perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1): 463--502.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Orlikowski, W. 1992. Learning from Notes. Proceedings of CSCW 1992, ACM Press: 362--369. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sarma, A., Redmiles, D., & van der Hoek, A. 2008. Empirical evidence of the benefits of workspace awareness in software configuration management. Proceedings of FSE 2008, IEEE Press: 113--123. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. 1989. Institutional ecology, 'Translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907--39. Social Studies of Science, 19 (3): 387--420.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Teasley, S., Covi, L., Krishnan, M. S., & Olson, J. S. 2000. How does radical collocation help a team succeed? Proceedings of CSCW 2000, ACM Press: 339--346. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
- Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32 (5): 590--607. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Coordination in innovative design and engineering: observations from a lunar robotics project
Recommendations
Understanding coordination in computer-mediated versus face-to-face groups
Groups performed intellective and judgmental tasks in face-to-face (FTF) or computer-mediated communication (CMC) settings after coordination training or no training to determine the impact of CMC, training, and task type on group performance and ...
One for all and all for one - towards a framework for collaboration support systems
AbstractTo reach their goals, companies are on a never-ending search to find new methods for innovation. In order to tackle the complex problems, which cannot be solved by a single person, the implementation of teamwork is assumed to be applicable. With ...
Asynchronous Creative Collaboration in Distributed Design Teams
DIS '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive SystemsComputer-mediated collaboration has changed the work dynamics of creative industries. Designers are currently challenged to collaborate with other individuals who are spread around the globe. Motivated by a concept-driven approach, my work pursues a ...
Comments