Learning Dynamics across Boundaries of IS Context: A ...42 Management international / International Management / Gestión Internacional, Vol 16, numéro spécial Considered in our

Tous droits réservés © Management international / International Management/ Gestión Internacional, 2012

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation desservices d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politiqued’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/

Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé del’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec àMontréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche.https://www.erudit.org/fr/

Document généré le 23 fév. 2021 03:37

Management internationalInternational ManagementGestiòn Internacional

Learning Dynamics across Boundaries of IS Context: AStructural perspective to Support Knowledge ManagementLuciana Castro Gonçalves

Gestion des Connaissances dans la Société et les OrganisationsKnowledge Management in Society and OrganizationsGestión del conocimiento en la sociedad y en las organizacionesVolume 16, numéro hors-série, 2012

URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1012392arDOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/1012392ar

Aller au sommaire du numéro

Éditeur(s)HEC MontréalUniversité Paris Dauphine

ISSN1206-1697 (imprimé)1918-9222 (numérique)

Découvrir la revue

Citer cet articleCastro Gonçalves, L. (2012). Learning Dynamics across Boundaries of ISContext: A Structural perspective to Support Knowledge Management. Management international / International Management / Gestiòn Internacional,16, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.7202/1012392ar

Résumé de l'articleDans cet article nous analysons comment les organisations apprennent dansun contexte en Systèmes d’Information, où projets et communautés depratique interagissent. Notre cadre conceptuel combine la littérature enapprentissage social (Lave, 1991; Wenger; 1998, Orlikowski, 2002) et l’approchestructurationniste (Giddens, 1984). L’étude ethnographique utilisée permetd’analyser deux dynamiques d’apprentissage contrastées dans la Direction desSystèmes d’Information d’un constructeur automobile en France. Nos résultatssoulignent les attributs encastrés des connaissances ainsi que les facteursfacilitateurs et inhibiteurs du processus d’apprentissage collectif. Notrediscussion suggère une perspective intégrée du management desconnaissances (Pawlowski, Robey, 2004; Levina, Xin, 2007, Srikantaiah et al.,2010).

https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/

https://www.erudit.org/fr/

https://www.erudit.org/fr/

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/mi/

https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1012392ar

https://doi.org/10.7202/1012392ar

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/mi/2012-v16-mi0284/

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/mi/

Differentperspectivesincontemporaryknowledgemana-gementresearchrecognizethecontextualizedcharacter

ofknowledgeandindicatethatpeopleandtheirpracticescannotbeisolatedfromembeddedworkcontexts(Cook,Brown,1999).Knowledgeisacquiredandcreatedbytheparticipationofindividualsindifferentworksituations(Lave,1991)andtheirabilitytoenactactionablepracticeinspecificcontexts(Orlikowski,2002).However,thiscontex-tualizedcharacteralsomakesknowledgetransferdifficult,(Sulanski,1996).Amisunderstandingofthewaysinwhichknowledgeis“stickytothecontext”andhowpracticesmaybeshapedwithintheworkcontextpersists(Hsiaoetal,2006).Asthislackofunderstandingcouldimpedefutureknowledgemanagementresearch,recentliteraturehastriedtocombineexplorationofknowledgeattributesandtheeffectsoftheworkcontextonknowledgemanagementproblems(Hsiaoetal,2006).Specificfocusisplacedontheroleofcommunitiesofpracticeinembeddedlearning

dynamics.Theorganizationalstructureofthefirm(rules,resources)remainsvirtuallyunexplored,despitetheinsightsitprovidesregardingembeddednessinknowledgemanage-mentsystems.

Infact,thechallengeforaknowledgesystemistoensurethecomplementaryassociationbetweenhierarchicalandcommunitymechanismstocreateacontinuousorganizationallearningprocess(Cohendet,Diani,2003).Inlightofthisanalyticalgap,weseektoexaminetheknowledgeproductionprocess(knowing)inaworkprojectcontext,takingintoaccountstructuralandcognitivefactorsthatinfluenceembed-dedpracticesandorganizationallearning.Theaimistostudyembeddednessinitsrecursivedynamicbetweenthelocallevelofactionandthegloballeveloftheorganization.Ourmaininterestliesinthespecificworkcontextofinfor-mationsystems(IS),fromthepointofviewofITworkers(Pawlowski,Robey,2004;Levina,Xin,2007).

Résumé

Danscet articlenousanalysonscommentles organisations apprennent dans uncontexte en Systèmes d’Information, oùprojetsetcommunautésdepratiqueintera-gissent.Notrecadreconceptuelcombinelalittérature en apprentissage social (Lave,1991;Wenger;1998,Orlikowski,2002)etl’approche structurationniste (Giddens,1984). L’étude ethnographique utiliséepermetd’analyserdeuxdynamiquesd’ap-prentissage contrastées dans la DirectiondesSystèmesd’Informationd’unconstruc-teur automobile en France. Nos résultatssoulignent les attributs encastrés desconnaissancesainsiquelesfacteursfacili-tateurs et inhibiteurs du processus d’ap-prentissage collectif. Notre discussionsuggèreuneperspectiveintégréedumana-gement des connaissances (Pawlowski,Robey, 2004; Levina, Xin, 2007, Srikan-taiahetal.,2010).

Mots clés: dynamique d’apprentissage,équipe projet, communauté de pratique,frontières sociales, contexte SI, manage-mentdesconnaissances.

AbstRAct

This paper seeks to analyze the extent towhichorganizationscanlearninanInfor-mationSystem(IS)contextbyfocusingontherelationshipbetweenprojectsandcom-munitiesofpractice.Adoptingatheoreticalframework combining the social learningliterature (Lave, 1991; Wenger; 1998,Orlikowski,2002)andastructuralapproach(Giddens,1984),weusedanethnographicstudytoexaminetwocontrastinglearningdynamicsintheISDepartmentofamulti-national car manufacturer. Our findingshighlight embeddedness and facilitatingand inhibiting factors in learningprocess.Our discussion suggests an integratedknowledgemanagementperspective(Paw-lowski, Robey, 2004; Levine, Xin, 2007,Srikantaiahetal.,2010).

Keywords: Learning dynamics, projectteam, communities of practice, socialboundaries, IS context, knowledge man-agement.

Resumen

EnelpresentetrabajoanalizamoscómolasorganizacionesaprendenenuncontextodeSistemasdeInformacióndondeproyectosycomunidadesdepráctica interactúan.Parahacerlo,combinamoslaliteraturaenapren-dizaje social (Lave, 1991; Wenger; 1998,Orlikowski,2002)ylateoríaestructuracio-nista (Giddens,1984).Elestudioetnográ-fico utilizado permite analizar dosdinámicas contrastadas de aprendizaje enun fabricante de automóviles en Francia.Nuestros resultados muestran atributos delosconocimientosasícomofactoresfacili-tadoreseinhibidoresdeaprendizajecolec-tivo. Nuestra discusión sugiere unaperspectiva integrada de la gestión de losconocimientos (Pawlowski, Robey, 2004;Levine,Xin,2007,Srikantaiahetal.,2010).

Palabras claves:dinámicade aprendizaje,equipo de proyecto, comunidad de prác-tica, fronteras sociales, contexto SI, ges-tióndelosconocimientos.

Learning Dynamics across Boundaries of IS Context: a Structural perspective to Support Knowledge Management1

LUCIANA CASTRO GONÇALVESESIEE Paris, Université Paris-est

1. Theauthorwouldliketothankthreeanonymousreviewersfortheirdetailedfeedbackonthemanuscript.

42 Management international / International Management / Gestión Internacional, Vol 16, numéro spécial

Consideredinourresearchasknowledgebrokers(Brown,Duguid,1991;Pawlowski,Robey,2004)2,weareparticularlyinterestedinITprojectmanagersandtheeffectsoftheirpracticewithinrecursivelearningdynamics.Theirrela-tionshipwithITprojectstakeholdersrequiresthegradualdevelopmentofsensemaking(Weick,1990)andtheintegra-tionofsocialcapital(Deltour,Roussel,2010)withrespecttotheambiguoussituationsthatemergeduringaprojectimplementation (Daft andWeick,1994,SwansonandRamiller,1997).TheseITprofessionalsinfluencethedis-semination,exploitationandcreationofknowledgeaboutbothIT(technologicalchoice,ITimplementationandtech-nicalaspects)andbusinesspractices(ITappropriation,advantagesandfunctionalaspectsofIT,effectsinusers’practices)acrosstheboundariesthatseparateworkunitswithinorganizations(Pawlowski,Robey,2004).Theiracti-vitieswithinITprojects,includingthemosttechnicalones,incorporateanimportanttacitelementandalotof“bricolage”(Ciborra,1992)thatisrarelycapturedbyknowledgemana-gementsystems.Similarly,projectstructuresimposedbyISDepartments(managementtools,processes,methodologies)areofteninsufficienttocreatetangibleroutinesorgeneratereferencepointsforcollectiveactionwithinprojects,andmorewidelywithinorganizationsinanIScontext(CastroGonçalvesetal.,2007,CatroGonçalves,2010).ThatiswhyITprojectmanagersoftenneedtodeveloplearningdynamicsoutsidetheprojects’organizationalboundariestodealwiththiscontextofcontinualchange.Thechallengeistointegrate,inalimitedtimeandwithfewerresources,severalfieldsofpractices(Bourdieu,1998)intheprojectandwidelyintheprojectpolicyinordertoreinforcethemanagementprojectmaturityofthecompany.

Foranexhaustiveanalysisofknowledgetransferandreuse,projectsneedtobeviewedintermsofaspannedactivityintheirrelationshipwiththeongoingactivities,normsandpracticesoperatingintherestoftheorganization(Scarbroughetal.2004).ThisstudysuggestsextendinganalysestomoreinformalinteractionsituationswithinIScontexts,whichfeaturedistinctiverulesandresources(Giddens,1984)anddetermineotherknowledgeandsocialboundaries.

Thepresentpaperexploreshow can IS Departments learn from local IT Project Managers’ dynamics by focu-sing on the recursive relationship between project, com-munity of practice and their structure.

ByrenderingintelligiblethelocalstrategiesdevelopedbyITprojectmanagerstohelpthemmanagethecomplexityoftheirworkcontext,weanalyzeembeddedlearningsitua-tionsgeneratedintheirdailypracticethroughtheorganiza-tionalandsocialboundariesofprojectsandcommunitiesofpractice.Theideaistooffertheknowledgemanagementfieldacomplementaryunderstandingabouthowboundary

spanningmechanismscanbecome enactedinlocalpracticesandglobalstructures.

Ourpapersummarizesfirstlytwosociallearningapproa-ches(Lave,1991;Wenger,1998,Orlikowski,2002)thatcanhelpusanalyzetheselearningdynamicsmoreclearly:theproject-basedlearningperspectiveandthepractice-basedlearningperspective.TheseapproachesofferdistinctiveresponsestothetheoreticalgapsinknowledgemanagementstudiesinanIScontext.Thisliteratureallowsustoconstructabimodalandmulti-levelanalyticalframeworkbasedonastructuralapproach(Giddens,1984).Secondly,wepresentourempiricalapproachandouranalysisoftwoembeddedcasesfromanISDepartmentofamultinationalcarmanu-facturer.Finally,wediscussthefindingsofthisresearch,focusingontheeffectsofthetwocontrastinglearningdyna-micsthatemergeinthesameworkcontext.Throughthisembeddedviewofknowledgetransferandexploration,wehighlightfacilitatingandinhibitingfactorsthatinfluencelearningdynamicsinordertofuelthedevelopmentofknowledgemanagementapproacheswithintheparticularworkcontextofIS.

Theoretical background

LeARning dynAmics AcRoss KnowLedge And sociAL boundARies

Thisresearchfitsintothecurrentliteratureonthemanage-mentoflearningsituations(Cohen1998).Researchersconsi-derknowledgeisnotonlycarriedbyindividualsbutalsobytechnicalsystems(databases,ITsolutions,machines),mana-gementrulesandvalues(Leonard-Barton1995),mobilizedinspannedbutdistinctiveworkgroups(Montgomery,Oliver,2007).Individualbehaviourcanbeaffecteddifferentlybysocialandcognitivestructures(March,Olsen,1976)withinthesameorganization.Infact,thenatureofagroup’sboun-dariesinfluencestheabilityofitsmemberstoinfluenceothermembersandgroups(Hernes,2004).Itisthereforeimportanttodistinguishbetweensociallyconstructedhierarchicalgroupsandautonomouscommunitieswhenstudyingorga-nizationallearning(Cohendet,Diani,2003).

Somesociallearningapproaches(Lave,1991;Orlikowski,2002)highlightthelearningimpactonorganizationswhen,asahierarchicalgroup,projectteammembersgobeyondknowledgeboundaries(Carlile,2002)andlearningboun-daries(Scarbroughetal,2004).Theseboundaryperspectivesrespectivelytakeintoaccountthedifferentknowledgeattri-butesinprojectsandtheabilitytotransferlearningbetweenprojectsandotherorganizationalunits,thuscontributingtothestudyofboundary-spannedactivities(MontgomayandOliver,2007).

2. The authors define knowledge brokers as people who participateinmultipleformalandinformalcommunities inorder tofacilitate thetransferofknowledgeamongthem.

Learning Dynamics across Boundaries of IS Context: a Structural perspective to Support Knowledge Management 43

TwotheoreticalperspectiveshaveprovedparticularlyusefulinunderstandinglearningdynamicsacrossboundariesinanIScontext:theproject-basedlearningperspectiveandthepractice-basedlearningperspective.Thesetheoreticallensescanreflectthe“sitesofdifference”3(Abbott,1995)foundinprojectteamsandcommunitiesofpracticepartici-pating in local and broader learning dynamics in ISDepartments.

sociAL boundARies And LeARning dynAmics fRom A pRoject-bAsed peRspective

Theproject-basedlearningperspectiveexploresthehorizontaldimensionofprojectsinordertohighlightthecapacityofthese organizational units to support acquisition andknowledgecreationacrossfunctions(Carlile,2002),withinprojects(AyasandZeniuk,2001),andbetweenprojectsandotherorganizationunits(Scarbroughetal,2004).

Projectteamsaresupportedbycross-sectordisciplinesandacanonicalmechanismsincetheyareregulatedbyahierarchicalauthority(Cohendet,Diani,2003)andtemporallyboundedtask-setting.Learningwithinprojectsdependsontherelationshipbetweenparticipantsandtheiradherencetotheprojectsinquestion(Hatchuel,1992).Morebroadly,itindicatesacooperationdevicefoundedontheunderstandingofdifferentperspectivesofactioninordertoachieveapre-determinedcommongoal.

The project is thus a boundary spanning activity(Scaboughtetal,2004),wheresocialboundariesarebasedonaprescribedareaofinteractionmadeupofformalizedrulesthatstructuremembership,discourse,participation,temporaldimensionsandauthoritystructures.Inthisworkcontext,projectmanagerscoordinateprojectteams(ITwor-kers’boundaries)andstakeholders(users’boundaries),andencouragecooperationatdifferentlevelsofinteractioninordertocompletetheirproject.Theyareboundaryspanners(Levina,Vaast,2005)inthemeaningthattheirroleistoencouragethesharingofexpertisebylinkingtwoormoregroupsofpeopleseparatedbylocation,hierarchy,orfunction.Thecooperationthroughthesedifferentboundariesisboththeprocessandtheresultofanindividual,collectiveandorganizational learningdynamic,basedoninteractionbetweenthoseinvolved.Inordertopromotethiscooperation,projectmanagersneedtoapplytheircapacitytoenact“actio-nablepractice”indifferentsituations(Orlikowski,2002).Theyoftencreateanewemergentfieldinpracticetocreatecombinedknowledgefromdifferentgroups(Levina,Vaast,2005).Thiscapacitytoenactisbasedonthreetypesofcognitiveknowledge:device(technicalknowledge),proce-dural(process,methods,rulesforaction)andstrategicknowledge (decision-making) (Gott et al,1993).Thisknowledgeisnotalwaysaspresentasdesiredintherules

andresourcesimposedorallocatedbytheISDepartmentfortheirongoingprojects.Projectteamscantransformitthroughthe“learning-by-doing”dynamicthatcanbecreatedmoreinformallyaccordingtotheprojectsituations.Suchpracticeswithinprojectsareheterogeneous,andsharingknowledgewithingroupslikecommunitiesofpracticecanreinforcethiscapacity.

Theintegrationofdifferentsetsofknowledgeintheseephemeralunitsandthediffusionproducedbytheminorganizationsarelargelydiscussedintheproject-basedperspectivebutresearchespartiallyrespondtothelimitsconcerningtheaccumulationorthedepositionofknowledgeinamorelongterm.Consideringthatprojectworkingprac-ticeshavetheirownlogicofaction(Hansen,2002,Brenenetal.,2004),wefirstsuggestthatthestrengtheningofthepractice-basedperspectivecanhelpustobetterunderstandembeddedpracticesfromITprojectworkersinamoreinfor-malandlongtermviewpoint.

sociAL boundARies And LeARning dynAmics fRom A pRActice-bAsed peRspective

Situationaltheoryoffersageneralframeworkforanalyzingactivitieslocatedandorganizedinasocialcontext.Lave(1991)forexample,isinterestedinknowledgeacquisitioninsituationsor“situational social practices”.Takingthisworkasastartingpoint,Wenger(1998)conceptualizescommu-nitiesofpractice(CoP).Thistheorizationisanchoredintheideathatlearningtakesplaceinaprivilegedwayviainte-ractionsbetweenindividualsconfrontedwiththesametasksandstronglyengagedinthesamefieldofknowing.Thistheorizationproposesasocialperspectiveforlearningbytakingtherelationsbetweenorganizationalknowledgeandcollectiveactionintoaccount.WengershowshowmembersofaCoPdealwithambiguoussituationsandinstitutionaltensionintheirdailyroutines,howtheycreatesense(theindividualaspect)andnegotiatemeaning(thecollectiveaspect)inpractice.Wengersuggeststhatlearningemergesfrompracticeandcontinuouslyevolvingroutinesindailyactivities.Practiceconstitutesasupportforcollectivememoryandcontributestocreatingtheframesofinterpretationrequi-redtoachievetasks.

Theseautonomouscommunitiesarefoundedonvoluntarymembershipaccordingtocertainvalues,normsandcollec-tivelysharedinterests.Discourse,coordinationandlearningarestructuredinthisareaofinteractionviaidentity.Themost“dramaticknowledgecreation”islikelytooccurinthiskindofgroup(Cohendet,Diani,2003).Communitiesofpracticetendtostabilizeindividualcommitmentinuncertaincontextsandupdatecooperativeforms,dependingonasituation’sspecificities.Thedualitybetween“theparticipa-tionof actors” and “reification of practices”iscentralto

3. Abotts(1995)suggeststhatsharedcognitionsandsocialconstruc-tionsrespectivelyrepresentsymbolicandsocialboundariesthatdistin-guishonegroupfromanother.


thisregulationprocess.TheparticipationofCoPmembersisrevealedthroughtheexchangeofideasandinformation,thediscussionofproblemsanddiscoveryofnewsolutions,thesharedevaluationofnewworksituations,etc.Theseinteractionscontinuouslybuildsharedpractice,whichreflectsthecollectivelearningoftheCoPmembers,andtherelationsandidentitiesthatindividualsdevelop.TheinformalandspontaneouscharacteroftheCoPsupportstheinteractionsfacilitatedbythesharedhistorythattheirmembersexperienceinaworkcontext.Thecommonknowledgethattheypro-gressivelycreategeneratesasharedrepertorythatsupportstheroutinesintheCoPandknowledgetransfer.However,itisimportanttocreatecomplementaritybetweenCoPandothermoretraditionalcoordinationmechanisms(Cohendet,Diani,2003)inordertoavoidtheriskoffailureintheCoP,suchasexclusionordeviationfromorganizationalrules(CastroGonçalves,2007).Thepractice-basedlearningpers-pectiveunderlinestheembeddednatureofknowledgeandthenotionofidentityinpractice.

Weshallnowturntohowtheseinformalandemergentorganizationsinteractswithmoreformal,ephemeralandprescribedorganizationssuchasITprojectsandhowthislevelofactioncaninteractswiththestructureleveloforganizations.

deveLoping A bimodAL And muLti-LeveL vision of LeARning dynAmics

Ouremphasisonthecomplementarityofprojectsandcom-munitiesofpracticehelpsusunderstandhowembeddedlearningdynamicsareabsorbedbyorganizations.Atpresent,researchthatfocusesononeorotherofthesegroups’pro-pertiesfailstoprovidearepresentativeviewofthecomplexityoforganizationallearning(Bootz,2009,Scabroughetal,2004).AsarguedBresnenetal.(2004),structurationtheoryhelpstoconceptualizetheintroductionofnewpracticesinorganizationsinwhichdecentralizationanddiversityofpracticearethenorm.

Toconstructatheoreticalframeworkthatdynamicallycombinesbothperspectivesofthelearningprocess,werefertoGiddens’(1984)conceptofdualityofstructure,aconceptincorporatedinthetheoryofstructuration.Thisrichandmulti-facetedsocialtheoryiscompatiblewiththevisionoftheworldadvancedbyWenger,andplacesthestudyofthedynamicsbetweentheprojectandCoPwithinabroaderorganizationallevel.

Theconceptofstructuraldualityprovidesinsightsintotherecursivearticulationbetweenstructure(rulesandresour-ces)andcollectiveaction(socialinteractions)inaccordancewitharelationshipthatfacilitatesorrestrictslearningingroups.Instructurationtheory,interactionsbetweentheparticipantsandthesocialstructuresbecomeindivisible.Thestructureenablesactionwhichisreproducedsimulta-neouslyintheinteractionsbetweenindividuals.Itisthusthemeansandtheresultoftheaction,whichitorganizesina

recursiveway.ForGroleau(2000),rulesandresourcesmakeitpossibletoconnecttechnicalandsocialaspectsofthesystemandapproachdimensionsassociatedwithpower.Actuallyrulescanbeinterpretative(rulesofsignification)andnormative(regulatethelegitimizationofactions)andresourcesareconstitutedinonehandfrompowerrelationships(resourcesofdomination)andinanotherhandfromeconomicaspects(Giddens(1984).

Rulesandresourcesaretheproductofamobilizationandknowledgecreationprocess(Romelaer,1998),whichisshapedbytheblendingofindividualinteractionsatlocallevelandbythestructureatgloballevel.Thisdynamicbetweenactionandstructurebringstotheforethecapacityofrulesandresourcestoentitleandforceaction(Giddens,1984).Collectivelearningdevelopsinaccordancewiththisdynamicandthereflexivemovementbetweenthetwolevels,asacontinuum.

Thelevelofactionwithinthisconceptualframeworkisbimodal.Rulesandresourcesaretransformedbythemobi-lizationandexplorationofknowledgeindailypractice,andbyparticipationintheprojectmodeandintheCoPmode.TheprojectisregardedasaprescribedareaofinteractionandCoPasanemergentareaofinteractioninsofarasitisnotdefinedbytheorganizationbutbythevariousinformalinteractionsthatoccurwithinit.WetakeITprojectsaspointofentryforempiricalobservationsofCoP,whichcanberelativelydifficulttolocatewithintheorganization.Thelinkbetweenthetwooperatingmodesisformedbyatransitoryareawheretheinterfaceactors,thecommonboundaryobjectsandsharedrepertoriescirculate.Theseelementsensureintermediationbetweenthetwooperatingmodesand,morebroadly,learningbetweenITprojectsthatcrossesthreeinvisibleboundaries(Hernes,2004):mentalboundaries(ideasandconceptslinkedtotechnologies),physicalboun-daries(rulesofactioninprojects)andsocialboundaries(representationofpracticesandprofessionslinkedtoidentity).Whiletheseinvisibleboundariescanbeconsideredasdis-tinguishingattributesofknowledge,theyalsoenableustoexploretherelationshipsystembetweenthisknowledgeandthestructuresinwhichitoccurs.

Thedualityofstructureconceptenablesthemicro-socialleveltobedeterminedinitsdailyactivity.Thisstudyexa-minesthewayinwhichITprojectmanagersmobilizeandexploreknowledgeacrossboundaries.Bytheirdailytrans-formationofrulesandresources,theydevelopalearningdynamicintherecursiverelationshipbetweentheproject,theCoPandtheISDepartmentstructure.Thisorganizationaldynamicisillustratedinfigure1.Thisreadingoflearningdynamicstakestheevolutionofindividuals(projectmanager)intoaccountwithinthe“sitesofdifference”(Abott,1995)thatdistinguishbothgroups(projectandCoP)andorgani-zationalchange.Thisinteractionalanalysisraiseskeyques-tionslinkedtobothcooperationandcoordinationbetweendistinctiveworkgroups,andtheroleofrepresentationsandcollectivebeliefsinthecreationofknowledgeproductionandtransfersituations(Cohendet,Diani,2003).Ourgoalis


toprovideknowledgemanagementperspectiveswithamulti-levelandintegratedapproachthatassociatesnetworkingactivitiesthroughinvisibleboundaries,learningeffectsandorganizationalchange.

Methodology

ThefindingsreportedinthispaperarebasedonaqualitativeanalysisofanembeddedcasefoundedontwoITprojectsthatinteractwiththesamecommunityofpracticeintheISDepartmentlocatedinFranceofamultinationalcarmanu-facturer.Inordertodefinetheperimeterofourstudyinthecompanyandconstructourmethodologicalapproach,wefollowedthetraditionofresearchmobilisingpracticetheory(Wenger,1998;Orlikowski,2002,Levina,Vaast,2005,Rouleau,2006).Indeed,ourpresenceduring6months(4daysaweek)intheISDepartmentallowedustodevelopanethnographicinvestigation(Golden-BiddleandLocke,1993)basedondirectempiricalobservationsofwhatpeopledo,whatpeoplesayandwithwhomtheyinteractdaily.Ourobjectivewastounderstandlearningdynamicsasasocialphenomenoninitsnaturalcontextthroughanin-depthana-lysisofonecasestudy(RoyerandZarlowski,2001).Thereby,wenegotiatedaprivilegedaccesstothisfieldwiththetopmanagementoftheISDepartment.Ourresearcherstatuswasknownfromactorsobservedduringtheimmersionphaseinthecompanybutourroleasprojectmanagementassistant,waspredominantduringdailyformalinteractions(project

meetings,formalpresentations,workinginco-presence)andinformalinteractions(coffeebreak,lunchtime,informalmeetings)withactorsrelatedtotheprojects(projectmana-gers,ITexperts,topmanagement,projectclients,consultants,workcolleagues,suppliersandhierarchicalmanagers).Thisrolewassufficienttolegitimateourpresenceintheorgani-zationasa“co-worker”withoutinfluencingthepracticesofactorsinasignificantway.Infact,wewereinchargeofperipheraltasks(organizemeetings,searchforms,readdocuments,etc.)relatedtooneoftheprojectsanalysed.Asdemonstratedbyresearchesfrompracticetheoryfield,thisinterpretativeapproachissubstantivetogainfamiliaritywiththecontextandtocapturecollaborativeprocessesinemer-genceandthecirculationoftacitknowledge,particularlythosethatareembeddedinactors’subjectivedimensionsofpractice(Gherardi,2010).

AspannedsamplewasconstructedprogressivelybyobservingandmappingthesocialinteractionsofbothITProjectManagersregardingtheirpracticeduringtheimple-mentationoftheirprojects.Thepeoplenetworkanalysisoffersarichunderstandingaboutindividuals,groupsandorganizationsrelations(Angot,Josserant,1999).First,wesetuptheworkcontextoftheHosting Website Project (goal,stakeholders, technologies, rules, informalrela-tionships,etc.),therebyidentifyingtheconnectionwiththeworkcontextoftheConverging Configurators Project (samestrategicgoalfromusers,sameclient,thefirstIT

FIGURE 1

The learning dynamic through the interaction between project, community of practice and the organizational structure

Community of practice (Emergent Area)

Project (Prescribed Area)

Transition AreaInterface actors

boundary objects, common repertories

Global level

Locallevel

STRUCTURE(Rules and Resources)

Produces and modifies

Enablesand constrains

Project Managers Spanning Practice

• Physical boundary

• Mental boundary

• Social boundary

Transition Area

ACTIONMobilization and exploration

knowledge within and between groups


ProjectManageristhepersoninchargeoftheProjectManagerofthisproject)and withacommunity of practice composed of project managers (bothITProjectManagersaremembersofthisCoP)thatemergedinatechnologicalcompetencecentre.Theseformalandinformalunitscom-posedthreeinteractionzones(Z1,Z2andZ3respectively)observedinthisresearch.ThesezonescomprisethedifferentactorsinvolvedwiththeITProjectManagers,includingthesampleof8ITProjectManagersfromtheCoP.10ProjectManagerswereinthecentreofourobservations(8fromtheCoPand2fromthebothITprojects).Thefigure2showsthespannedcharacterthatrepresentstherichnessofthesample.

Theinvestigationoftheseinteractionzoneswasguidedbyagenerallistoftopicsdrawnfromtheliteratureareasreviewedearlier(seefigure1).Wecarriedoutadetailedin situ observationtocapturethenarrationofpracticesin

differentsituationsrelatedtotheprojects(Rouleau,2006)andsharetheprojectteams’routine.Everydailyobservation(actions,discourses,interactions,behaviour)wasrecordedinanotebook.Weenjoyedtheflexibilityoftheethnographicalapproachtocombinedifferentdatacollectiontools.Ourparticipantandcontinuousobservationwascompletedwithtwoindividualsemi-structuredinterviewswitheachProjectManager(20interviewsintotalatthebeginningandthemiddleoftheobservationperiod)andacollectivesemi-structuredinterviewwiththe10ProjectManagersmembersofthecommunityofpractice(attheendoftheobservationperiod).Individualinterviewswereapproximatelyonehourandahalfinlengthandthecollectiveoneswere3hours.Allinterviewsweretape-recordedandtranscribed.Themainthemesusedininterviewguidelineswere:thefeaturesofprojects,thedifficultiesandsolutionsimplemented(goals,stakeholders,management,contextualsituations,humanresourcesmobilised,experienceandknowledgedeveloped,

FIGURE 2

A Spanned Sample through boundaries of projects and a community of practice

Z2 - Converging Configurators

Project

Domino Technology Competence Centre

Business Network, Intranet and Training Service

IS DepartmentISBU Trade and Distribution

Internet of Brands Service

Ü Client of projects (users – important power for decision making)

Z1 - Hosting WebsiteProject

� Project Managers (dedicated project resource)

u IT external workers (subcontractors – dedicated project resource)

® Internal workers (IT experts, internal consultants – puncture resource in projects)

Ë Informal contributors (colleagues, users – informal resource in projects)

Z3 - CoP


artefactscreated/explored),thefeaturesofthecommunityofpractice(members,roleofthemembers,knowledge,routines,history,artefactscreated/explored,linkwiththeprojects,ISDepartmentsupport),theperceptionofthestruc-tureISDepartment(strategy,rules,resources,culture,mana-gerial tools, relationship with hierarchical people).Backgrounddata,includingtherelevantorganizationalandprojectcontext,werealsoconsulted.Thiscombineddatacollectionmethodfacilitatestheemergenceofnewinsightsandenhancetheexternalvalidityoftheresearch.

Aswell,ourresearchdesignallowsustovarystrategiesofinterpretation(RoyerandZarlowski,2001).Westructuredchronologicallythehugevolumeofdataintoamonographaccordingtothecategoriesrequiredinqualitativeresearch(Pettigrew,1992):thecontent,thecontextandtheprocess.Byusingtheguidelinesfromgroundedtheory(Glaser,Strauss,1967),werefineddataanalysisthroughaniterativeco-evolvementbetweenexaminationsofdataanddevelopmentoftheoreticalinterpretations.Inexploringtheembeddedpracticesrelatedtothetwodifferentprojects,wewereabletocreatemaximisationandminimisationtacticsofmanyfactorsbyidentifyingsimilaritiesanddifferencesthroughthelearningdynamicsanalysed(Glaser&Strauss,1967).Thereplicationlogicappliedtothesedifferentzonesofinteractionsensurestheexternalvalidityoftheorization(Eisenhardt,1989).Theopportunitiestoverifytheplausibilityofourinterpretationsrespondedtothecriteriaofcredibilityandauthenticityofqualitativeresearch(Miles,Huberman1994).Inaddition,thefocusonthesocialdimensionandprocessesofferedanin-depthaccountofknowinginpractice(Orlikowski,2002)andrespondedtotheneedtodesignmethodologiestoexploreworkcontradictions(Engeström,2006).

The Empirical Perspective: observing practice and structure in the IS Department

the is depARtment context thRough oRgAnizAtionAL contRAdictions

Attachedtothe“InnovationQualityDepartment”,theISDepartmentisexpectedtocontributetothecompany’sinno-vationandstrategybymanagingevolutionsinISforalloftheinternationalgroup’sactivities.

Theintroductionof“newIT”ledtoacertainnumberofchangesintheISDepartment:internalizationofITprojects,growthofITdevelopments,significantcustomerdemands,andchallengingnewknowledgeandskills.TomeettheseneedsandtofacilitatethedevelopmentofbusinessknowledgefortheITworkers,aneworganizationwasdeployedin2000.TheISDepartmenthasbeenorganizedinISBusinessUnits(ISBU).Thegreatestnumberofthe1000ITworkersoftheISDepartmenthasbeenregroupedaccordingtothe5businessunits(BU)fromtheFrenchcarmanufacturer:Productand

Process, IndustrialManufacturing,HumanResourcesManagementandPurchasing,FinanceCorporation,TradeandDistribution.ThetwoITprojectsandthecommunityofpracticewestudiedwerelocatedin2ofthe3differentunitslocatedattheISBUTradeandDistribution.TheITprojectswerelocatedinthe“InternetofBrandsService”andtheCoPwaslocatedinthe“BusinessNetwork,IntranetandTrainingService”.Thethirdunitwas“MarketingandCRMService”.

OthercomplementaryactionsweredeployedinlinewiththisorganizationalstructureinordertoreinforcetheprojectmanagementpolicyandstandardisepracticeswithinITprojects.TheISDepartmenttriedtoencouragetheinternaldevelopmentofskillsandcontrolthecomplexityofdata-processingprojectsbysteppingupitsformalrulesviaanincreaseinthenumberofvalidationandfollow-upstagesintheprojectprocess.Thismadetheprocesslinearandrequiredconsiderableformalizationoftheactivitiescarriedoutduringtheprojects.Variousactionswereimplementedtothisend:creationofstandardformstofillin(specifyingthetechnicalandfunctionalprojectinformationdetails),creationofpar-tnershipcontractsbetweenthevariousparticipants(speci-fyingtheroleofeachparticipantinvolvedintheprojectandthestagestoberespected),puttingthedocumentsproducedatthetimeoftheprojectsonline,creationofaconsultationbodyandqualitymethodsaimedatcoordinatingtheteamsinthecourseoftheprojectandatre-utilizingthesuccessesofprecedingprojects.Whilethesestepmayattimesappeardifficulttofollow,theyweredesignedtobeadaptabletoalltheprojectsdevelopedintheISDepartment.Trainingfocusedontheseruleswasobligatoryforallnewprojectmanagers.Inthiscontext,internalqualityconsultantsactedastheguarantorofrulesandtheuseofactivity-formalizationtools.

AlloftheseactionsadoptedbytheISDepartmentthe-reforereinforcedITprojectboundaries.Ontheotherhand,projectteamsneededamoreflexiblecontexttoworkinsoastoappropriatenewtechnologiesandpractice.Thecom-munityofpracticethusemergedfromtheseworkcontradic-tions.Differentknowledgemanagementinitiativesbasedonasocialperspectiveofknowledgetransferwereintroducedbythehierarchy(workgroupsfocusedonintegratingnewIT,presentationofprojectsdevelopingspecifictechnologies,reportingmeetings…).Theseinitiativescentredmoreonthenewtechnologies(deviceknowledge)ratherthanontheevolutionofprojectpractice(strategicknowledge)andISDepartmentrulesandresources(proceduralknowledge)required.Mostoftheknowledgecentre’sinteractionwithactorsinanIScontextfailedtobeseriouslytakenintoaccount.ThecommunityofpracticerepresentedapoolofotherformsofknowledgeforITprojectmanagers.

the emeRgence of An it community of pRActice

Acommunityofpracticewasidentifiedwithinthisstronglyformalizedandhierarchicallyarrangedcontext,whichwasattheoriginofaLotusNotestechnologyskillshub(called


DominoCompetenceCenter)createdontheinitiativeofonemanager.ThisformalunitwascreatedinthebeginningoforganizationalchangeintheISDepartment.Themanagerbroughttheparticipantstogetheronaprojectplatform,see-kingthetransferofoldtonewtechnologiesusinganexternalconsultantwithabrieftotakepartintheITprojectsandtotransferthistechnologyknowledge.Theorganizationalunitadopteda“learning by doing” approachinsofarasitsobjectivewastodevelopLotusNotesskillsviatheimplementationoftheprojects.Theunit,initiallycomposedof15ProjectManagers,(includingthe10thatwestudied)wascharacte-rizedbyfreedomofitsmemberstoorganizethemselvesautonomouslyandtoexchangeinformationandknowledgeaboutongoingprojects.Distinctiveoperationrulesandrou-tinesweregraduallycreatedintheISDepartment.ExternalconsultantsandinternalITexpertsparticipatedpunctuallyonthedailylifeofthisunit,duringtheimplementationofvariousITprojects.

AstheISDepartmentgraduallydevelopedthetechno-logicalskillsrequired,theProjectManagersjoinedotherdepartments.FiveofthemleftforotherdepartmentslocatedinothersitesintheParisRegionandinthesamebuilding,eightofthemintegratedthe“BusinessNetwork,IntranetandTrainingService”,andtwoothers(PierreandFrançoise)joinedthe“InternetofBrandsService”.Forthosethatstayedinthesamebuilding,inspiteofthegroup’sspreadthroughouttheorganization,informalmeetingsandritualsthathadbeendevelopedcontinuedtotakeplaceduringbreaks,atcoffeemachines,duringmealsandinoffices.Theircommonhistorythuscreatedasociallinkthatwentbeyondtheformalboun-dariesoftheskillshub,andacommunityofpractice(CoP)wasborn.Thischangeledtoanevolutionintheknowledgefieldofitsmembers,whichwasextendedtoInternettech-nologies.Subjectsofdiscussioncoveredtechnologicaldeve-lopments,theproject’simplementation,andevolutionsintheISDepartmentandITfieldsingeneral.

Thespecificlanguagedevelopedbythegroupindicatedtheirmembership.Infact,newcomerstotheISDepartment,externalconsultantsandinternalITExpertsoftenfeltexclu-dedfromtheinformalmeetings.

Thisinformalgroupthusboreallthehallmarksofacommunityofpractice:acommonhistorycreatedduringthecreationoftheskillshub,commonknowledgewhichisthatofthecontextandtheintegrationofInternettechnologiesframework,thesharedrepertoryinherenttoaspecificlan-guage,anddailyritual.

Beforepilotingthe“WebsiteHostingProject”inthe“InternetofBrandsService”,Pierrehadplayedanimportantroleinthisorganizationalunit’sdevelopment.HewasaprincipalfoundingparticipantandwasalsotheonlyonewithpriorexperienceofLotusNotestechnology.Inlinewiththehubcoordinator’saimtosupportskillsdevelopmentbysocialization,hesharedanddevelopedtheteamspirit.Insharinghisknowledgespontaneously,heencouragedsharingbetweentheotherpeopleinvolvedintheproject,andalso

builtlegitimacyamongtheothernewcomers.Afterleavingthehub,hecontinuedtotakepartintheCoP’sinformalmeetings.

TheConvergingConfigurationTechnologiesProjectManager,Françoise,wasrecruitedtodevelopanITprojectwithinthehub.ShewasdirectlylinkedtotheCoPmembers,andshegraduallyadoptedtheCoP’slanguageandroutinesuntilshewasfullyintegrated.InspiteofhersubsequentmovetoInternetofBrandsServicetopilotthisproject,shealsoremainedamemberoftheCoP.

TheCoPthusincludedtheProjectManagersofboththeITprojectsstudied.WeshallnowpresentthedynamicscreatedwithineachprojectandtheirinteractionwiththeCoPandthestructuralleveloftheISDepartment.

Analysing reflexive learning dynamic through spanned zones of interaction

BothinternetprojectsstudiedwerepartoftheimplementationoftheglobalstrategyoftheISDepartmentthataimedtocentralizeandmutualiseITresources.Theideawastocontrolthetechnologicalheterogeneitygeneratedbymultiplelocalwebsitedevelopmentswithinthecorporatesiteandinterna-tionalsubsidiaries.Aworkgroupprogramwascreatedatthesametimeasthelaunchofbothprojects.Theprogramwastodefinean“implementingandusercharter”stipulatingtherules(technologychoice,billingtointernalusers,uses,obtaining licences,etc.) forweb technologyadoption.Sometimestheinternetprojectservedasa“learningreser-voir”fortheworkgroups,offeringrepresentativesituationsintermsofnewwebtechnologyadoption.Sometimestheprojectswererestrictedbyruleswhenitwasformalizedpriortocertainactivitiesintheproject.Asmentionedtherespon-sibleoftheprogram,becauseofthetime-laginthetwostructures’activities,theworkgroupswererarelyinapositiontooffernewknowledgetointernetprojectsgivingafeelingofpracticesevolutionnotcontrolled.

“Theygoonfasterthenus!Wesaythatwewillhostawebsitewithspecificcharacteristics,butthedayafterthewebsitewon’tbethesame!”(verbatimfromtheresponsibleoftheworkgroupprogram).

The Website Hosting Project and the ConvergingConfiguratorsProjecthadthesameclients(representedbymanagersfrom5headquarters’BusinessDepartments:InternetProjectsDepartment,ExportDepartment,EuropeanDepartment,AfricanDepartmentandAsianDepartment).ThelearningchallengetotheISDepartmentwasdisregardedbytheproject’sclient.Forthem,ITprojectteamsmustbeabletorespondtotheirstrategy:masterandimplementITdevelopmentsallowingthemtocentraliseandbetterdeter-minesalespoliciesandcommunicationactionsimplementedbyinternationalsubsidiaries.

Bothprojectswerelaunchedatthesametimeandhadinitiallythesameleadtime(6months).However,theyhad


their owncontext (goals, technologies, stakeholders).Thereforewepresentandanalyseeachzoneofinteractionsrelatedtoeachprojectseparately,followedbyadiscussionwhereweofferacomparativeanalyticaloverview.

zone 1: LeARning dynAmics in the website hosting pRoject AReA of inteRAction (z1) An embedded is woRK context focused on sociAL inteRAction compLexity

TheaimofWebsiteHostingProject wastohostalltheinter-nationalsubsidiarieswebsitesofthecompany(approximatelyahundred)withinthecorporateITinfrastructure.Thedeci-siontocarryoutthisprojectwastakenduringaninformalmeetingbetweentheCEOandtheCIO.Becauseofthisatypicalorigin,differentsituationsbecamesourcesofambi-guityintheprojectandhighlighttheneedsintermsofknowledgemanagementwithinthisworkcontext:

• Poorinteractionsacrossmultipleboundariesatthelocal/globallevel:Pierrewastheonlyresourceenti-relydevotedtotheproject.TheInternalConsultantand the Technical Manager in charge of theworkgroupsprogram,werepunctualresourcesoffi-ciallyallocatedbytheISDepartment.Inaddition,Pierrewasincontactwithawiderangeofparticipantsincorporateandsubsidiarycompanieswhowerenotentirelydedicatedtotheproject(attheheadoffices:theUserProjectManagerandthefiveBusinessManagers,ateachofthehundredsubsidiariesconcer-ned:theCEO,themarketingdirector,thewebmasterandthewebagency).Inconsequenceofthesemulti-stakeholderswithdifferentperceptionsoftheprojectandtheISDepartmentactivities,Pierrehaddifficul-tiestocrossthesemultipleboundariesandpersuadeothersoftheinterestoftheproject.Thisfactornega-tivelyaffectedthehorizontalcooperationandthecollectivesensemakingwithintheproject.

• Deviantuseofaboundaryobjectintheprescribedarea:projectimplementationwasbasedonaprimarystudythatunderestimatedthecostandtheeffectsoftheprojectwithintheorganization.Thedifferentparticipantsgraduallydiscoveredthetechnological4andorganizational5complexityduringtheproject’simplementation,andtheclientsrefusedtheexcessivemodificationsintermsofcost,timeandquality.ThissituationgavetheISDepartmentapoorimagewithinthecompany.Theparticipantstendedtousethestudyasaboundary-objecttoputpressureonPierreinlinewithaformalcustomer/supplierrelationshipatthelocallevel.

• Anominatedboundaryspannerwithoutresources:theundervaluationofresourcesfortheprojectinten-sifiedtheISDepartment’sproblemintermsoflegi-timacy,especiallyforPierre.Hehadneithertheautonomy,northeauthorityneededtopursuetheproject.Inaccordancewiththeprojectmanagementpolicy,Pierrehadtoformalizeinreportsallhisactionsindetailinordertovalidatethemwiththeclients.However,respectingtherulesdidnothelphimmanagethedifficultiesinvolvedinproducingandobtainingtheresourcesneededfortheproject’simplementation(technicalandfunctionalknowledgeaboutwebsitesandmorewidelyaboutwebtechno-logies,websitehostingskills,informationaboutmarketingconstraintsinthesubsidiariesusingweb-sites,etc).

TheseambiguoussituationshighlightthecomplexityoftheITworkcontextincatalyzinginteractionbetweenthedifferentactorsthroughboundaries.WewillnowshowhowPierreattemptedtomobilizeknowledgeandtransformrulesandresourcestoovercometheproblemsofcooperationbetweentheparticipantsinZ1.

Enacting knowledge from practice and transforming Resources and Rules: a learning dynamic focused on a formalization mode

Threemainfactorsinfluencedthemobilizationandexplo-rationofknowledgeintheprescribedarea:

• Giventheabsenceofaprojectteam,theproject’simplementationwasmarkedbythestrongindividual“responsibilisation”ofPierre.Theothernon-dedi-catedparticipantsdidnotrespectthetaskschedulesorprovidetheinformationrequired.However,theruleswereformalized,widelydisseminatedandpre-sentedasaconditionoftheproject’ssuccess.Thisledtoprojectdelaysandmutualincomprehensionbetweenthedifferentstakeholders.Newprojectmana-gementtoolswerethenimplementedbytheinternalconsultantinordertocontrolthequalityofthepro-ject6.TheexplorationofthisproceduralknowledgedidnotenablePierretodevelopcooperationandnewcoordinationrules.

• Pierreusedthemonthlymeetingstopresentthepro-ject’sprogresssoastoraisetheparticipants’aware-ness of the difficulties linked to technologicalincompatibilitiesandnon-cooperationaspects.

“Itrytomakethemunderstand[the stakeholders of the project]thisprojectrepresentsthedevelo-pmentofanewactivitywithintheISDepartement.

4. OnesetofresultsoftheITworkgroupprogramshowedtheincom-patibility between different technologies used on the subsidiarieswebsitesandthedifficultytointegratethemintheexistingcorporateITinfrastructure.Theyrecommendedphasingoutsomewebsitesinordertochangethetechnologyused.

5. For example: rules of invoicing the hosting, the signing or thebreakingof technology license, the rulesofwebsitemanagementandtechnologicalchoices.

6. Wereferredtoriskmanagement tools,progressreportsandacostcontroltooltoassessthenumberofdaysworkedwithintheproject.


Wehaveneverbeenawebsitehoster.Iftheclientsdon’tcollaborate,wecannotdeveloptheneces-saryknowledgeallowingustocarryoutthepro-ject!”(verbatimfromPierre).

Thesemeetingswereintendedtocreateacollectiveinterpretationoftheprojectandtotransferdevicesandstrategicknowledge.However,theywereperceivedasoppor-tunitiestojustifytheproject’sdelay.Inaddition,themeetingswiththeISDepartmentparticipantstookplaceseparatelyfromtheproject’scustomerparticipants.Thiscurbedthestakeholders’cohesionandfailedtopromoteknowledgeexploration.Inaddition,Pierrewasunabletoincreasehislegitimacytomobilizetheresourcesrequired.

• Theproject’sformalizedstructurebecamea“guide-rail”fortherolesinitiallydescribedintheprojecttools.Therolesremainedrootedanddidnotallowforanyadaptationtotheproject’sfrequentchanges.Pierrefrequentlyactedtoincreasehislegitimacywithregardtohiscustomersbutthisdidnotreducethe tension. He decided to reinforce the ISDepartment’sprojectpolicyrulesandrequestedtheparticipationofthetopmanagementtosupporthisdecision.Hetriedtoachievelegitimacybyreinforcingpracticesthatwerealreadyrecognizedasformsofaction.

Inthisconstrainingcontextwhichledtonumerouspro-blemsbetweentheparticipants,Pierretriedtobringnewknowledgeoutoftheboundariesoftheprescribedareaoftheproject.Twomainactionsillustratethisattemptintheemergentarea:

• Duringtheannualmeetingbetweenthewebmastersfromthedifferentsubsidiaries,Pierrehadaccesstomanydevicesandagreatdealofstrategicknowledgeaboutwebsitesandsubsidiariesworkcontext.Bypresentingtheproject’sdifficulties,heindirectlygrabbedtheparticipants’interest.Asthewebmastersexpressedtheirinterestinmorecooperationintheproject’simplementation,theprojectmanagerdecidedtoinvitethemtotheprojectmeetings.However,thefunctionaldepartmentmanagersrefusedtoacceptthisnewcoordinationandcooperationrule.Theyfeltthatthewebmastersshouldnottakepartindecisionsconcerningthesubsidiarycompanies’technologicalchoicesandtheirconfidentialbusinessactivities.

• PierrefrequentlytookpartintheCoP.However,hewasunabletomobilizeresourceswithinthisinformalunitbecausethememberswerenotfamiliarwiththespecificcontextofhisproject.Pierrehadmoreexpe-riencethantheotherCoPmembers.Heoftentrans-ferrednewknowledgeratherthanmobilizingit.ThelearningdynamicbetweentheprojectandtheCoPcouldnotbeobservedinthisfieldofinteractionbuttookplacemorewidelyinthecollectiveactionoftheISDepartment.Bysharingthestoriesoftheirprojects,

themembersoftheCoPofferedPierrenewpointsofreferenceconcerningthepracticeofITProjectManagers.

Wenowturntotheanalysisofthesecondcase.

zone 2: LeARning dynAmics in the AReA of inteRAction in the conveRging configuRAtoRs pRoject (z2) An embedded is woRK context compLexity focused on mutuAL Recognition of LAcK of KnowLedge

TheaimofthisITprojectwastomergetwodifferentconfiguratorsinauniqueITsolution.Thiswebtechnologyallowswebsiteuserstoconfigureacar(color,design,acces-sories,etc.)andsimulateitsfinancebythecompany.TheFrenchcarmanufacturecouldthenofferitspotentialclientstheoptiontopersonifytheircarbeforebuyingit.The“Frenchconfigurator”andthe“Englishconfigurator”hadagoodperformancerecordandfunctionalcomplementarities.Howeverthetechnologiesusedhaddifferentproperties.TheheadofficesofthethreebusinessDepartments(ExportDepartment,EuropeanDepartmentandInternetProjectDepartment)thereforewantedtomergethemandtheninte-gratethemintotheinternationalsubsidiaries’websites.Subsidiariesin23countrieswouldimplementtheuniqueconfiguratorsubsequently.

SourcesofambiguityinthisITworkcontextincludedmainlythelackofknowledgewithintheprojectteamandtheprivilegedrelationshipbetweenFrançoiseandherhie-rarchicalresponsible,Pierre:

• Richinteractionsacrossmultipleboundariesatthelocallevel:TheprojectteamincludedFrançoiseasISDepartmentProjectManager,anITInternalExpertandanExternalConsultantengagedbytheproject’sclient.Whiletheroleoftheconsultantwastoprovidestrategicknowledgeaboutthebusinesscompanyandtospecifytheprojectrequirements,theexpertwasthere to provide general Internet technologyknowledge.Inaddition,theITworkgroupprogramwasmobilizedtoputforwardproposalsforthepro-ject’sdevelopment.TheITprojectteamfirstlyfacedthedifficultyofmakingtheprojectexpectationsexplicit,notablytheimplementationofthedesignfeatures.ItwasonlythesecondITprojectthattheyoungProjectManagerhadbeeninchargeof.Sheneededtodevelopdeviceknowledge(Internettech-nologies,configurators,integrationwithinexistentIS,technicalaspects,etc.),proceduralknowledge(rulestoensurecoordination,agreementprocessesforoperationset-ups,thefunctionaldepartment’soperatingmode)andstrategicknowledge(evolutionofprojectrequirements,mobilizationofresources)tocarry through theConvergingConfiguratorsProject.Thirdly,theTechnicalExperthadlittleexpe-rienceof theconfigutator technologies,andthe


ExternalConsultant’sknowledgewasinsufficienttodefinetheprojectrequirements.

Theprojectteamthereforeoperatedviaexperimentationthroughanintensecommunicationprocessacrossboundariesatthelocallevel.Whiletheprojectteammembersprogres-sivelydiscoveredthetechnicalspecificitiesofbothtechno-logies,theycameupwithproposalstoimplementauniqueITsolution.Thissituationgeneratedcoordinationproblemsandmisunderstandingoftheproposalsputforward,butalsoindicated themutual recognitionof the team’s lackofknowledge.

• Anautonomousnominatedboundaryspanner:TheaffinitybetweenFrançoiseandPierreindividualswentbeyondtheirhierarchicalrelationship.PierreallowedFrançoisetoadapttheformalprojectmana-gementpolicytoherstrategicviewinordertodealwithconflictingrelationshipsbetweenbusinessmana-gers.AssaidFrançoise,thisautonomyofferedhermoreflexibilitywithintheprojectandmotivatedhertolookfornewresourcesbyrelationalactions:

“It’sadvantageouspassingthroughmyhierar-chicalresponsiblebeforecontactingotherpeoplebecausehe’sapersonwhoencourageshisteamsanditcanavoidcertainmisunderstandingsrelatedtotheimplicitrulesfromrelationalactions”(ver-batimfromFrançoise).

TheadaptationdevelopedencouragedFrançoisetodeviaterulesfromtheprojectmanagementpolicyfromtheISDepartment.Aswewillshowbelow,thisinitiativecreatedambiguoussituationswiththeBusinessManagers.

Enacting knowledge from practice and transforming Resources and Rules: a learning dynamic focused on a socialization mode

Themobilizationandexplorationofknowledgeinthisinte-ractionareaismarkedbyanintensespannedactivitybetweentheprescribedareaandtheemergentarea.Françoise’sabilitytoseizeemergentopportunitieswithinandacrosstheprojectboundariesallowedthisinteraction.Sheprivilegedsociali-zationwithintheteam(meetingstovalidateactionsortodiscusstheprojectprocess,informaldiscussions)ratherthantheformalizedmodeimposedbytheISDepartment.

Giventhelackofknowledgewithintheprojectteam,thisstrategycreatedcohesionbasedonmutualtrust.However,thiswasnotenoughtodeveloptheknowledgeneeded.FrançoisethereforecalledonacolleaguewhowasontheboundaryoftheCoP.HedidnottakepartintheinformaldiscussionsasfrequentlyastheotherCoPmembers,buthewasrecognizedasamemberandsharedtheircommonreferences.Hehadalreadycarriedoutaprojectbasedontheconfiguratortechnology.Inadditiontosharingstoriesabouttheirrespectiveprojects,Françoisequestionedhimorconsul-tedhimabouttechnicalandmanagerialaspectsregardingtheevolutionsorthedifficultiesencounteredduringthe

project’simplementation.Thetrusttheotherteammembersplacedinherenabledhertocombinethisknowledgewiththeexistentknowledgewithintheteamwithtotalautonomy.

Infact,inonesituation,whentheprojectwasrunningbehindschedule,shedeviatedfromcertainIDSprojectpolicyrulesinordertospeeduptheproject.Formalizationofactionsontherequiredformswasneitherveryregularnorverydetailed.Moreover,shedidnotvalidatethemsystematicallyaswasnormallyrequired.Thisdeviationregardingtherulesistheexpressionofa“defensiveposition”inacontextofchange(Abbott,1995).Françoisecreatednewrulesandputmorefocusonacooperativelogicinsteadofthe“client/supplierlogic”embodiedbytheprojectpolicy.

InsteadofthepositiveresultsofspannedlocallearningtotheConvergingConfiguratorsProject,thelearningdynamicispartiallyestablishedatthelocal/globallevel.ThetrustbetweenFrançoiseandherlinemanagergavehergreaterautonomyandboostedherabilitytoexploredevice-related,proceduralandstrategicknowledgeacrosstheboundariesofherworkcontext.TheCoPhadakeyroleinthecollectiveactionasitimprovedtheITprojectperformance.Françoiseincreasedthenumberofformalmeetingsasshewentalongwitchallowedhertogatherandcombinenewknowledge.Theseface-to-faceinteractionsrepresented“interpretationoccasions”allowinghertoconstructwithherteamanewfieldjoiningITandbusinessknowledge.Paradoxically,herautonomyalsocausedtensionwiththebusinessmanagers.Therepeatedinteractionsweremisinterpretedbybusinessmanagersbecauseofformalization.Withtheclient’sincreasedmistrusttowardstheISDepartmentbecauseoftheHostingWebsiteProjectdelays,theclientswerewaryoftheknowledgethathadbeengatheredand the implementationof theConverging Configurator Project, and they criticizedFrançoisefornotrespectingtheformalizationandvalidationstagesduringtheproject.BoundaryObjectscreateda pos-terioribytheprojectteamhadpowerlegitimacyoverclientsofproject.

Discussion: perspectives for knowledge management from two contrasting learning dynamics in an embedded IS work context

Thepresentstudyoffersanexploratoryaccountoflear-ninginorganizationsthroughacomparativeanalysisoftwospannedzonesofinteractioninanISDepartment.Inspiteofhavingthesamestructureintheorganizationalcontextandempiricalsimilaritiesbetweentheprojects,thestructuralapproachandthesocialboundaryperspectiveprovideduswithtwocontrastinglearningdynamics.Thesignificationandlegitimizationprocessesaredifferentaccordingtothedegreeofdominationaspectsinprojects.Thepractice-basedlensisusefultounderstandproject-basedsituationsandstructuresinorganizations.ThefindingsshowhowProjectManagersdeveloptheirsocialworkcontextbymobilisingknowledgethroughphysical,mentalandsocialboundaries


(Gottetal,1993).Theanalysisoftherecursiverelationshipatthelocallevelofactionandthegloballevelofstructuresallowsustoidentifyfacilitatingandinhibitingfactorsinthelearningprocessandcontributetore-thinkingtheconver-gencebetweenITprojectmanagementgovernance(Lindkvist,2004)andknowledgemanagement(Srikantaiah,etal.,2010).

RenewingtechnologiesstructuresactivitiesinIScontextbutITprojectgovernanceshouldintegratestronglyrelationaldimension(networking,collaborativerelationships)throughrulesandresourcesallowingthesignificationandthelegi-timizationofnewpracticesinordertofacilitatethecirculationandtheaccumulationofknowledgeinorganisations.Thisapproachconsiststotakeintoaccounttechnologiesassocialartefacts(Orlikowski,2002)inmanagementpracticesandpolicies.Weturnnowtothespecificityoftheserulesandresourcesandtheireffects.

Autonomy And LegitimAcy As fAciLitAting fActoRs to expLoRe KnowLedge thRough boundARies in An is context

Thefirstzoneillustratesa“learningprocessbyreactionandformalization”andshowshowtheprojectmanagersfounditdifficulttoovercomesocialboundaries.Theresourceofdominationusedbytheprojectclientthroughahighlyfor-malizedrelationshipreducedtheProjectManager’sautonomy.Artefactsmobilizedwithintheproject(contract,forms,planningtools,reportsandwrittenaccounts)reinforcedthephysicalboundariesandlimitedtheProjectManager’scapa-citytomobilizestrategicknowledgewithinandwithouttheprescribedarea.HislackofautonomyandthenegativeISDepartmentrepresentationfromtheBusinessManagerswereinhibitingfactorsinthelearningprocessandreinforcedtheconstrictivecharacterofthestructurewithregardstoaction.Theimbalanceoftherulesofauthoritywiththerulesofcoordinationandcooperationcreatedaviciouscircle:thetenserthesituations,themoretheywereformalized,andthemoreformalizationtherewas,thetenserthesituationsbecamebetweentheparticipants.Significationprocessisthaninhi-bited(Giddens,1984).

ThevariousfactorsthatimpactedonPierre’spracticecreatedanimbalancebetweenthephysical,mentalandsocialboundaries,theformerbeingreinforcedtothedetrimentoftheothertwo.Thesocialboundariesbecameimpermeable,despitethenumerousinteractionsbetweenactors.Theclients’supremacykepttheProjectManagerfromcrossingphysicalboundariestomobilizenewresources.TheorganizationalrigiditiesoftheISDepartmentgeneratedtheoppositeeffect.Topmanagementonlyreactedwhentheprojectsituationbecomeextremelytenseandactionwouldotherwisehavebeenblocked.Theythusrestoredtheproject’sprogressbyimposingthelimitedandfragmentedparticipationofthestakeholders.

Thelearningprocesswasthustriggered“byforce”inreactiontotheProjectManager’smobilizationofknowledge.Theeffectsofdominationavoidtheprocess“disembedding”and“re-embedding”knowledge(Giddens,1990),“itstickswherepracticeisnotshared’(BrownandDuguid2001).Actually,Knowledgecreationremainednestedatprojectmanagerlevel.Inthiscase,theCoPprovidedmoralsupportintermsofprofessionalidentityandITProjectManagerpracticeinthecontextofcontinualISDepartmentchange.However,thisknowledgecreationwasnotenoughtoensuregoodprojectperformance.Theprojectfinishedoneyearlate.Globally,theISDepartmenttopmanagementteambecameawareoftheimpactoftheworkcontext’sspecificfeaturesontheprojectperformance.Theorganizationallearninggeneratedfromthislocaldynamicledtothecreationofanewrule(nowITprojectmanagersarephysicallyplacedinbusinessdepartmentduringtheprojectimplementation)andanewresource(atechnicaltransitoryplatform,7createdduringtheimplementationofthe“WebsiteHostingProject”,couldbewidelyusedasanewISDepartmentartefact.

Thesecondzoneillustratesa“learningprocessbyemer-gentcooperation”,andshowstheProjectManager’sabilitytoovercomeprojectboundariestomobilizeknowledgeintheCoP.Physical,mentalandsocialboundariesarecrossedbytheboundaryspannertomobilizeandcreatenewresourcesfortheproject.Despitethedominationeffectformulatedbythecustomers,theProjectManagerseizedemergentlearningopportunities,integratednewdevice-related,proceduralandstrategicknowledgeintotheproject,andthusspedupthelatter.Thecolleague“adopted”bytheProjectManagerbecameaninterfaceactortotransferknowledgeacrosstheCoPandITprojectboundaries.Thislearningdynamic,facilitatedbytheITProjectManager’sautonomy,madethemental,physicalandsocialboundariespermeable.Sheusedherlegitimacywithprojectteammembersandherhierarchicalmanagertopromoteknowledgeexplorationwithintheproject.Theexperimentationappliedbytheprojectteamhelpedthemtoresolveadverseissuesintheprojectperformance,inspiteofhavinglessexperiencethantheotherprojectmanager.Paradoxically,theISDepartmenttendedtoreinforceitsstructuralrigidities.

Bothzonesofinteractionshowtheimportanceoftheco-constructionofboundaryobjectsthroughlocal/globallevelinordertobecomeartefactsinpracticeandrecognisedbythestructure.Legitimatinga posterioriaboundaryobjectcreatedinpracticeintheprescribedareaorintheemergencearea,orwithinthetransitionarea(betweenbothareas)ishardest,inparticularifboundaryspannershavenotthesupportoftopmanagementinthestructurelevel.

Table1presentsthelearningoutcomes,theknowledgeattributesgeneratedandthefacilitating/inhibitingfactorsidentifiedineachlearningdynamic.

7. ThistechnicalspaceallowsintegratingtemporaryITintestphase,beforethephaseofindustrializationwhenITisdefinitivelyinstalledinexistingIS.


foR An integRAted sociAL peRspective to suppoRt KnowLedge mAnAgement in An is context

TheanalysisweputforwardoffersbetterinsightsintotheimpactoftheISworkcontext’scomplexitiesindailyITprojectteampractice.Thisperspectivecanfuelknowledgemanagementsystemsbasedonsocialapproachesinordertobetterincorporatethefacilitatingandinhibitingfactorsofthelearningdynamic.Ratherthancreateaseparatesystem,itimpliesimprovingintegrationintheorganization’sdailyoperationsthroughtheexistingcoordinationandcooperationmechanisms.Itisessentialtotakeacriticallookatorgani-zationalrigiditiesandprojectmanagementpolicytoavoidtheviciouscirclewherebythemoreambiguousthesituation,themoreformalizationisreinforced,therebyinhibitingbroaderlearningdynamicsbasedoncooperation.Theins-trumentationof“socializationspaces”or“interpretativespaces”(Weick,1990)asresourcesforlearningisapriorconditiontoenhancingsharedcognitionandpositivelytrans-forminglocalrules.Thisworkcontextrequiresthenegotiationofproceduralknowledgeinordertorestorethepermeabilityofsocialboundariesandconstructthecooperativerelationshipneededtosuccessfullycompleteaprojectontime.

Inacontextofpermanentchange,knowledgemanage-mentsystemscanhelpdeveloptheidentity,cultureandglobalstructureofcompanies.Thischallengecannotbeachievedwithaknowledgemanagementsystemfocused

onlyonacodificationapproach(Mansour,Gaha,2009).Threepotentialstartingpointscouldbedeveloped.Firstly,theknowledgesystemshouldtoworkontheISDepartment’slegitimacywithrespecttobusinessdepartments.Theprojectteammadetoomucheffortatlocallevelregardingtheevo-lutionoftheperceptionofISDepartmentandthisaffectedtheperformanceoftheITprojects.Itshouldtobemanagedbyanotherentity.

Secondly,wealsoneedtobeawareofcertaindeviationsinprojectmanagement.Companiesmaybetemptedtoallo-catefewerhumanresourcessolelydedicatedtocertainpro-jects.Thereisatrendtowards“splitting”theworkcontext,leadingtothefragmentationofcollectivelearning.Whenaprojectmanageronlyworkswithactorsassignedtocompletetasksona“one-off”basis,thereislessopportunitytodevelopcollectivelearning.

Finally,theknowledgesystemshouldtodevelopanongoingsearchforabalancebetweentheproject,CoPandtheorganizationalstructure,withaspecialattentiontoprojectmanagerssuchasknowledgeworkers(Horibes,1999).Thisrelationship,constructedbyprojectmanagers,hasapositiveimpactonprojectperformance.OurstudyshowsthatthecreationofinformalresourcesandrulesconditionstheconstructionoflocalstrategiesbyITprojectteams.Itimpliesacoordinationmechanismthatencouragesnetworkactivities,particularlywithinformalcommunities.Topmanagement

TABLE 1

Analyzing two Learning Dynamics across IS Department Boundaries: Recapitulative Findings of the Research

Learning dynamics Learning outcomes

Attributes of knowledge generated Facilitating factors

Inhibiting factors

IT project performance

Learning process by reaction and formalization

Reinforcementofformalproject

boundariesStrongpermeabilityoflearningatproject

managerlevel

Knowledgenegotiationattheexpenseoftechnical

andinnovativeknowledge(roleofISDepartmentandITprojectmanager)

Active“troubleshooter”withwider

organizationallegitimacy

Legitimacyoftheprojectmanagerinthe

CoP

Projectmanager’s

lackofautonomy

Learning process by emergent cooperation

Deviationofformalrulesinthestructure

(ISDepartment)Knowledge

transferacrossISDepartment

boundaries

Technicalandmanagementknowledge

Autonomyoftheprojectmanagerintheproject

Legitimacyoftheprojectmanagerinthe

CoPAvailabilityof

knowledgeaboutongoingprojectinthe

CoP

Sanctionsbythe

structure(topmanagement)


canthenplayanactiveroleasa“knowledgeambassador”inordertohelpproblematicITprojectsituationsbedealtwithsuccessfully.Bymakingtheorganizationalstructuremoreflexible,theycanensuretheporosityofboundariesandtheexplorationofnewknowledgewithinandbetweenprojectsandalsoinrelationwithinformalcommunities.Thesepointsareworthexploringinmoredepthtoimproveintegratedknowledgemanagementsystemstructureandefineamoreorganicprojectmanagementpolicy(Koskine,2004).Withregardtofutureresearch,wesuggestthattheinvesti-gationofpowerfactorsintheintegrationofembeddednessinorganizationallearningdynamicsisausefulavenuetofollow.

Conclusion

Thepresentpaperoffersanintegrativeapproachtoexaminelearningdynamicsintherecursiverelationshipbetweenproject,communityofpracticeandorganizationalstructure.LiteratureinKnowledgeManagementunderlinestheinterestforintegrativeapproaches(Carlile,2004;Montgomery,Oliver,2007).Bycombiningsocialperspectivesfocusedonproject-basedlearning,practice-basedlearningandboundaryliterature, our findings highlight embeddedness andknowledgeattributesinISworkcontexts.Weshowedthepositiveeffectofcommunitiesofpractice,asarepertoryofspecificknowledge,ontheperformanceofprojectsimple-mentedinanenvironmentoffast-pacedtechnologicalchange.

BytakingintoaccountthepracticeofITProjectManagersasboundaryspanners,ourfindingsemphasizetheroleofpowerinamoregloballearningprocess.TheautonomyandlegitimacyofITManagersandtheformalizationdegreeofthestructureclearlyaffectthepermeabilityofboundariesinrecursivelearningdynamics.Thisperspectivesuggeststheneedtobroadenembeddedanalysisfromthelocallevelofactiontothegloballeveloftheorganizationalstructure.Thestructuralapproachallowsustoexaminethetransitionfromoneleveltoanotherandprovidesamulti-levelandnon-linearresearchdesign.However,thedialecticaltensionsbetweenextremepolessuchasformal/informal,local/global,individual/collectiveareintegratedinthedeeperanalysisoftwocontrastinglearningdynamicsthroughmental,physicalandsocialboundaries.

Thus,wehaverespondedtothecallbyscholarsformoreempiricalresearchonboundaries(Montgomery,Oliver,2007)inordertocontributetotheKMliteraturefocusedontheemergenceofboundaryspanningcompetenceinpractice(Levina,Vaast2005).Asweunderlinedwithmanagerialrecommendationsinthediscussion,thefacilitatingandinhibitingfactorsidentifiedcanbefurtherdevelopedforanintegratedsocialperspectiveofknowledgemanagement.Ourfindingsshouldbeconfirmedbyfurtherresearchinotherareaswhereknowledgeacquisitionisrequiredtokeepuptechnologicalchange.

ReferencesAbbott,A.(1995),“Thingsofboundaries:Definingthebounda-

riesofsocialinquiry”,Social Research62/4:857-882.

Angot, J., Josserand, J. (1999), “Analyse des réseaux sociaux”,inThietardR.-A.,Méthodes de recherches en gestion,Dunod,Paris:397-421.

AyasK.,ZeniukN., (2001), “Project-BasedLearning:BuildingCommunities of Reflective Practitioners”, Management Learning,Vol.32,No.1:61-76.

Bresnen,M.,Goussevskaia,A.,Swan,J.(2004),“EmbeddingNewManagement Knowledge in Project-Based Organizations”,Organization Studies,25(9):1535–1555.

Bootz, J.-P. (2009), “Les communautés d’apprentissage:Structuration de la littérature, illustrations et perspectives”,Gestion2000,juillet–août:175-193.

Brown. J. S.. and Duguid. P., (1991), “Organizational Learningand Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View ofWorking.LearningandInnovation”,Organization Science (2:1):102-111.

Bourdieu,P,(1998),Practical Reason: Qn the Theory of Action, StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,CA.

Carlile, P. R. (2002), “A pragmatic view of knowledge andboundaries:Boundaryobjects innewproductdevelopment”,Organization Science,13(4):442-455.

Carlile,P.R.(2004),“Transferring,Translating,andTransforming:An Integrative Framework for Managing KnowledgeAcrossBoundaries,”Organization Science (15:5):555-568.

Castro Gonçalves, L. (2010), Les dynamiques d’apprentissage collectif développé au sein d’un contexte SI: l’équilibration entre projet et communauté de pratique. Le cas de la Direction des Systèmes d’Information de PSA Peugeot Citroën.EditionsUniversitairesEuropéennes.

CastroGonçalves,L. (2007), “La face cachéed’une“commun-autédepratiquetechnologique”,Revue Française de Gestion,vol.33,n°174,mai2007:149-169.

CastroGonçalves,L.,Grimand,A.,Mounoud,E.,Vandangeon-Derumez, I. (2007), “A case study on knowledge sharing:the Information System Department of aFrench car-makingcompanyfacedwiththegrowthofIT”,InternationalJournal Automotive Technology and Management,7(1): 1-16.

Ciborra,C.(1992).“Fromthinkingtotinkering:Thegrassrootsofstrategicinformationsystems”.TheInformationSociety,Vol.8,No.4:297-309.

Cohen,D.(1998),“TowardaKnowledgeContext;reportontheFirstAnnual U.C. Berkeley Forum on Knowledge and theFirm.”,California Management Review,40(3):22-39.

Cohendet,P.,Diani,M.(2003),“L’organisationcommeunecom-munauté de communautés: croyance collectives et cultured’entreprise”,Revue d’économie politique,5(113):697-720.

Cook,S.D.N.,Brown,S.-J. (1999), “Bridgingepistemologies:Thegenerativedancebetweenorganizationalknowledgeandorganizationalknowing”,Organization Science10(4):381-400.

Daft,R.L.,Weick,K.E.(1994),“TowardaModelofOrganizationsasInterpretationSystems”,Academy of Management Review,vol.9,n°2:284–295.

Deltour, F., Sargis Roussel, C. (2010), “L’intégration des con-naissancesparleséquipesprojetsERP:deuxétudesdecasenPME”,Systèmes d’Information et Management,1(15):1-16.


Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), “Making, Fast Strategic Decisionsin High-Velocity Environments”, Academy of Management Journal,32(3):543-576).

Engeström,Y., (2006), “FromWell-Bounded Ethnographies toInterveninginMycorrhizeaActivities”,Organization Studies,27(12):1783-1793.

Gherardi,S.(2010),Telemedicine:Apractice-basedapproachtotechnology,HumanRelations,64(4):501-524.

Giddens,A., (1990), The consequences of modernity, Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity,Press.

Giddens,A.(1984),The constitution of society: Outline the theory of structuration,PolityPress,Cambridge.

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, AldinePublishingCompany, Chicago.

Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K. (1993), “Appealing Work:An Investigation of How Ethnographic Works Convince”, Organization Science,4/4:595-616.

Gott,S.P.,HallE.P.,PokomyR.A.,DibbleE.,GlaserR.(1993),“A naturalistic study of transfer:Adaptive expertise in tech-nical domains” in Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition and Instruction, Detterman D. K. and Sternberg R. J. (eds),258–288.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Groleau,C.,(2000),“Lathéoriedelastructurationappliquéeauxorganisations:lecasdesétudessurlatechnologie”,Journées de recherche Structuration et Management des organisations,march.

Hansen,M.T. (2002),“Knowledgenetworks:Explainingeffec-tiveknowledgesharinginmultiunitcompanies”,Organization Science,13(3):232-248.

Hatchuel,A.,(1992),L’expert et le Système,Economica.

Hernes,T.(2004),“Studyingcompositeboundaries:Aframeworkofanalysis”,Human Relations,57:9-29.

Horibes, F. (1999). Managing knowledge workers. NewYork:Wiley.

Hsiao,R.-L.,TsaiS.D.-H.,LeeC.-F.,(2006),“TheproblemsofEmbeddedness:KnowledgeTransfer,CoordinationandReuseinInformationSystems”,Organization Studies,27(9):1289-1317.

Koskine, K. U., (2004), “Knowledge management to improveproject communication and implementation”, Project Management Journal, 35(2):13–19.

Lave,J.,(1991),“Acquisitiondessavoirsetpratiquesdegroupe”,Sociologie et sociétés,vol.XXIII,n°1:145-162.

Leonard-Barton,D. (1995),Wellsprings of Knowledge,HarvardBusinessSchoolPress,Boston,Massachussets.

Levina, N., Vaast, E. (2005), “The Emergence of BoundarySpanning Competence in Practice: implications forImplementation and Use of Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly,Vol.29No.2:335-363.

Levina, N., Xin, M. (2007), “Comparing IT Workers’Compensation across Country Contexts: Demographic,Human Capital, and Institutional Factors”, Information Systems Research,Vol.18,No.2:193–210.

Lindkvist,L.(2004),“Governingproject-basedfirms:Promotingmarket-like processes within hierarchies”, Journal of Management and Governance8:3–25.

March,J.G.,Olsen,J.P.,(1976),Ambiguity and choice in organi-zations,ScandinavianUniversityPressPublication,408p.

Mansour,N.,Gaha,C.(2009),“L’échecd’unprojetdegestiondesconnaissances:casd’uneentreprisedeconseil”,Management International,13(4):91-146.

Miles, M. B., and Huberman,A. M. (1994), Qualitative Data Anaiysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage Publications,ThousandOaks.CA.

Montgomery, K., Oliver,A. L., (2007), “A fresh look at howprofessions take shape: dual-directed network dynamics andsocialboundaries”,Organization Studies,28(05):661-687.

Orlikowski,W., (2002), “Knowing in practice: Enacting a col-lective capability in distributed organizing”, Organization Science,13(3):249-273.

PawlowskiS.D.,Robey,D.(2004),BringingUserOrganizations:KnowledgeBrokeringandtheWorkofInformationTechnologyProfessionals,MISQuarterlyVol.28No.4:645-672.

Pettigrew,A. (1992), “Thecharacter and signifianceof strategyprocess research”, Strategic Management Journal, vol.13:5-16.

Romelaer, P., (1998), “L’apprentissage dans les organisations”inGestion et théorie des jeux, l’interaction stratégique dans la décision, J. Thépot Editor,Vuibert, Collection FNEGE:173–190.

Rouleau, L., (2006), “Comprendre la fabrique de la stratégie àpartirdespratiques”,inLa fabrique de la stratégie. Une per-spective multidimensionnelle,GolsorkiEditor,Vuibert.

Royer, I., Zarlowski, P. (2001), “Research Design” in, Doing Management Research, a Comprehensive Guide, Thietard,R.-A.etal.,London,Sage:111-131.

Scarbrough, H., Swan J., Laurent S., Bresnen M., Edelman L.,NewellS., (2004), “Project-BasedLearning and theRoleofLearningBoundaries”,Organization Studies,25(9):1579–1600.

Srikantaiah, K.T., Koenig, M.E.D., Hawamdeh, S. (2010),Convergence of Project Management and Knowledge Management,TheScarecrowpress,UK.

Sulanski,G.(1996),“Exploringinternalstickiness:Impedimentsto the transfer of best practice within the form”, Strategic Management Journal.

Swanson, E. B. and Ramiller, N. C., (1997), “The organizingvision in information systems innovation”, Organization Science,8(5):458-474.

Weick, K. E., (1990), “Technology as equivoque: sensemakinginnewtechnologies”,inPSGoodmanetal(eds),TechnologyandOrganizations,Publishers.

Wenger,E.,(1998),Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity,CambridgeUniversityPress.

Documents

Learning Dynamics across Boundaries of IS Context: A ...42 Management international / International Management / Gestión Internacional, Vol 16, numéro spécial Considered in our