Upload
others
View
12
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
"The universe is corporeal; all that is real is material, and what is not material is not real "not material is not real.‐Hobbes, 1651, The Leviathan
"Virtuality aims only for prostitution, for the extinction of the real by its double.“y
‐ Baudrillard, "Illusion, Desillusion, Ästhetik"
d h l d lDesign, Projects, and Physical and Virtual Materiality ‐Nick
Review of Virtual Organizing ‐ James
Research Challenges and Road Ahead ‐ Kalle
ff l Social Studies of DesignDifferent specialties
Collaborate & design
Social Studies of Design:Bucciarelli 1994; Buchanan 1992; Dougherty 1992;Ancona & Caldwell 1992; Collaborate & design
Often across distances
Ancona & Caldwell 1992; Carlile 2002; 2004; Boland et al 1994; Bergman et al 2002; Argyres 1999;
Using Digital technologies
Bardhan 2007; Thomke2006; Perry & Sanderson 1998; Kellogg et al 2006; Star & Griesemer 1989;
To design – create – build something
Star & Griesemer 1989; Henderson 1991; Majchrzaket al 2000; Malhotra et al 2001; Rosenman et al. something ;1996; Perry et al. 1998
ff lDifferent specialties
Collaborate & design
Communities of Practice
NetworksCollaborate & design
Often across distancesVirtual Teams
ICT C i ti &
Using Digital technologies
ICT – Communication & Coordination
Boundary Objects
To design – create – build something
Boundary Objects
The Design Artifact
somethingDiffusion
“Doubly distributed” Multiple modelsp Shifting organizational forms “Rolling” networks Cascading innovations Binate diversity
Sources: Yoo et al 2007; Boland et al 2007; Berente et al 2007; Yoo et al 2008; Berente et al 2008
Vi t l Virtual – “being actually such in almost every respect” (nearly);‐ “existing in essence or effect gthough not in actual fact” (?)
Materialworldly substantial tangible ‐worldly, substantial, tangible,
corporeal, usable
Virtuality – Digitalness or Remoteness
Continuum 1: Digital vs. Physical MaterialityMateriality
Continuum 2: Co‐Located vs. Remote
DigitalDigital and Physical
Physical
Co‐located GSSSynchronous collaboration
Traditional studio orkcollaboration work
lAsynchronous Blueprints,
Remote Virtual TeamsAsynchronous collaboration
Blueprints, memos, etc.
DigitalDigital and Physical
Physical
C l t dGSSR h i
Synchronous collaboration; P ti M&T
Traditional studio kCo‐located Resource sharing
/communicationPerspective M&T;Boundary Objects
workPre‐ Industrial
Asynchronous
RemoteVirtual TeamsCommunication
Asynchronous collaborationPLM; Repositories &
Blueprints, memos, etc.Industrial / bureaucratic
workflowbureaucratic
DigitalDigital and Physical
Physical
C l t dGSSR h i
Synchronous collaboration; P ti M&T
Traditional studio kCo‐located Resource sharing
/communicationPerspective M&T;Boundary Objects
workPre‐ Industrial
Asynchronous
RemoteVirtual TeamsCommunication
Asynchronous collaborationPLM; Repositories &
Blueprints, memos, etc.Industrial / bureaucratic
workflowbureaucratic
f1. Virtuality as a context of collaboration2. Virtuality and virtualization of work as an
f d loutcome of digitalization3. Consequences of virtualization of work on
kwork organization4. Virtuality as a capability of infrastructures or
l llarge scale IT systems5. Virtual worlds as a new context of work
What we know: More and more prevalent form of collaboration Enables distributed network of minds 24/7 work
What we don’t know: Co‐located virtual collaboration Multi‐tool & multi‐task collaboration
What we know: Nature of work is changing Virtualization affects social mechanisms Virtual enhances material in some work
What we don’t know: Effect of virtualization over time Entanglement and the role of physical materiality in virtualization
What we know: Open Source and Remote work Benefits of virtual organizing Role changes
What we don’t know: Productivity differences Effect on individual affect
What we know: Tension between global and local action Standardization and compatibility Resource sharing necessity
What we don’t know: Field‐specific infrastructures Resource sharing strategies Multi‐ or cross‐organizational management g gapproaches
What we know: Difference between virtual and physical reality Immersivity of virtual worlds Real effects of virtual worlds
What we don’t know: Lasting value and effects
Will f th t t f i t lit d Will focus on the content of virtuality and virtualization of work as an outcome of digitalization.
Address specifically: Effect of virtualization over time?E t l t d th l f h i l t i lit i Entanglement and the role of physical materiality in virtualization?
h ff h b l d l f l d What affects the balance and evolution of virtual and physical entanglement in project‐based design organizations with varying levels of centralization and o ga at o s t a y g e e s o ce t a at o a denvironmental volatility?
DigitalDigital and Physical
Physical
C l t dGSSR h i
Synchronous collaboration; P ti M&T
Traditional craft hCo‐located Resource sharing
/communicationPerspective M&T;Boundary Objects
approachPre‐ Industrial
Asynchronous
RemoteVirtual TeamsCommunication
Asynchronous collaborationPLM; Repositories &
Blueprints, memos, etc.Industrial / bureaucratic
workflowbureaucratic
Ch ll P it f h h Challenge 1: Paucity of research on how affordances of digital artifacts (new forms of virtual materiality) interact with the physical virtual materiality) interact with the physical materiality of organizations.
Challenge 2: Virtual capabilities are enabled and constrained not only by the affordances of the digital artifacts, but also by path dependent institutional and environmental factors including institutional and environmental factors including organizational control and environmental volatility.volatility.
Digital artifacts enable and constrain different types of Digital artifacts enable and constrain different types of interactions between the virtual and physical materiality of design work. For example one can use e mail with one’s laptop or mobile For example, one can use e‐mail with one s laptop or mobile
phone in nearly any physical location, while the use of a BIM capability may require a work station with a large screen and enough computing power that can be only accessed in specific g p g p y pphysical sites and work environments.
There is a mutual dependency between physical technological capabilities and virtual affordances, and they constantly interact with physical material practices they constantly interact with physical material practices (i.e. where and how certain tasks processed either in face‐to‐face context, and which non‐digital tools are mobilized in that context etc) in that context, etc).
f f f Study enactment of distinct forms of digital artifacts as they are appropriated over time,
d h h b l d hand how they become entangled with physical material practices as to form unique
b f l d k b lcombinations of virtualized work capabilities in design work.
b d l f d Go beyond simple view of new dispersion in space and time while thinking about virtual organizing
A l f i i i d h h Analyze sequences of activities and how they combine material, virtual elements during the design processdesign process
Capture the process enactment and then analyze differences and distances between analyze differences and distances between different processes using string (gene) sequencing techniquesq g q
Focus on performative aspect but how it relates to ostensive and material aspects of d ld l d lk ffdesign process (Feldman, Pentland, Volkoff)
Ostensive process models (e g Aalst et al 2003 Russell et Ostensive process models: (e.g. Aalst et al 2003, Russell et al 2005) used to specify prescriptively (a should‐be‐model) how a design process is expected to be enacted. to determine the scope of acceptable process variation to determine the scope of acceptable process variation, define the computational model (state‐machine) offering
process support (what affordances to do when), determine appropriate constraints for consistency (e g determine appropriate constraints for consistency (e.g.
deadlocks) and performance (e.g. timing) Limitations: transaction oriented, poor recognition of
material aspects, prescriptive, no notion of affordances, p , p p , ,variation only recognized as state space of the state machine or through exceptions
Benefits: formal foundation, tools available, visual
O i ti l d l i ti l Organizational process models: organizational processes as a grammar (Pentland 1995, Pentland & Feldman 2005, Feldman & Pentland5,2003, Pentland & Tueter 1994) model sequence of design steps and abstract into a process grammargrammar
Limitations: granularity and ad hoc nature of process models; no recognition of the material, poor analysis of affordances little formal poor analysis of affordances; little formal analysis, no visual models, no tool support,
Benefits: performative v.s. ostensive, idea of a pgenerative grammar (c.f. Organizational DNA)
O i ti l d l i ti l Organizational process models: organizational processes as event sequences (Abbot 1990) model design processes as a sequence of events g p qand compares their differences using string sequencing techniques (See e.g. Sabherval and Robey 1995)Robey 1995)
Limitations: rough granularity and ad hoc nature of process models; no recognition of the material poor analysis of affordances no visual material, poor analysis of affordances; no visual models, no tool support,
Benefits: performative, idea of formal analysis p yof sequences as to allow their comparison
D l i h d i i Develop using method engineering a process modeling (visual) notation that can be used to capture process modeling steps as they are to capture process modeling steps as they are enacted
Develop formal meta‐model of the process Develop formal meta model of the process “genes”, i.e. activities, their properties and relationships as they are observedp y
Use computer tool to capture, verify process models and generate “task sequence
f lrepresentations” for sequence analysis
Develop a formal meta‐model
Process metamodel
Use the meta‐Use the meta‐model based tool
to capture process
Formal process
description
Carry out Formal sequence analysis
sequence analysis
T Ti L
A ti l t t ti t d l
Activity Actorde Is carried out
1,1
A partial tentative metamodel
y1,m 1,m
ecom
0,m 0,m 0,mAf
1,m0,1
Individual GroupT l
pose
Involves1,11,1
f
1,m
Individual GroupToold
1,1 1,10,m 0,m1,m
Virtual Material Design object
A t i t ti f d i ti iti
Activity Location Time Actor: group
Design object
Tool Affordance
A string representation of design activities
group objectDesign x Michigan
Shnaghai1.1.2010‐31.3.2010
Design team x architecture Cad/CAM Review
Activity Location Time Actor: Design Tool AffordanceActivity Location Time Actor: individual
Design object
Tool Affordance
Design y Michigan 2.1.2010‐312.3.2010
Designer x architecture Cad/CAM Modification
Feed into string sequence analyzer to analyzea) differences between subsequencesb) Differences / distances between whole subsequencesc) Observe which tasks/ sequences are virtually entangledc) Observe which tasks/ sequences are virtually entangledd) Compare why/ how differences in sequences relate to the Level of entanglement
S l i Sequence analysis assumes All sequences could be made similar and what is the effort of making them similareffort of making them similar
Effort measured by the▪ The number of deletions, substitutions and additions needed
k h lto make the strings equal▪ The cost of making the operations▪ Seeks the minimum cost set of operationsp
Several methods and algorithms (dynamic programming) to do so with different set of constraints and input parametersconstraints and input parameters
M i h h ll Main research challenges Appropriate generic vocabulary that is essential / theoretically grounded to describe similarities y gand differences between processes (especially virtuality, design objects etc)
Structure and granularity of processes and their Structure and granularity of processes, and their string representations
Combining different levels of analysisRisks in data collection Risks in data collection
Appropriateness of available sequencing techniques to do the jobq j
Focus on organizational control : allocation and exercise of organizational control : allocation and exercise of rights to make decisions about the structure or the process of the design;
environmental volatility : design parameters, architectural principles and the level of uncertainty related to design decisions.related to design decisions.
To what extent these factors explain differences in observed process structures and the level of ff k h i il ?effort to make them similar?
Figure 1. Types of Project Based Organizations
Power Structure
Less Centralized More Centralized
ility Stable Networked Stable Hierarchical
ntal
Vol
ati Less Volatile Organization
(Mortenson)Organization
(Parker-Hannifin)
D i
viro
nmen
More Volatile
Dynamic Networked
Organization
Dynamic HierarchicalOrganizationIntel network
Env (Ford IT) Intel network
architecture)
Stable hierarchical organi ations i t lit Stable hierarchical organizations: virtualityemphasized by the need to render design efficient through formal factory like process g y penforcement; decisions traceable, formalized, codified, etc. using version control, project mgtm tools computer based process templates mgtm tools, computer based process templates and so on.
Stable hierarchical organizations : task sequences highly structured with less iteration sequences highly structured with less iteration and high level of virtual enactment
Example fluid control engineering in Parker‐p g gHannifin
Stable Networked Organization: local decision making Stable Networked Organization: local decision making, does not require more physical interactions in order to “get on the same page” and come to consensus when perspectives may differperspectives may differ.
Stable Networked Organization: interplay between physical and virtual methods of working and organizing –meeting physically to discuss organizational routines, meeting physically to discuss organizational routines, working virtually to accomplish tasks, but coming back together again for realignment and clarification; virtual capabilities involve “rolling edge”, heterogeneous tools, p g g , g ,collaboration tools and work spaces, and less factory like process template
Example: Construction engineering at Mortenson
D i Hi hi l O i ti l l Dynamic Hierarchical Organization: local, hierarchical decision making; and efficient localized process formsp Dynamic Hierarchical Organization: local design teams have strong and formally enforced virtual capabilities for design control (softwarevirtual capabilities for design control (software tools, distributed tools); yet their enforcement and integration difficult at global level; significant amo nt of sing irt al collaboration tools acrossamount of using virtual collaboration tools across different design units Example: Intel network product architecturesp p
Dynamic Networked Organization: challenges to coordinate and control both local and global design decisions and outcomes
Use of extensive and global standardized design capabilities low; most virtualization happens at the level of individuals, coordination relies of physical and virtual communication tools
l d ( i ) Example Ford IT (enterprise group)
Table 2. Traits, Balance, and Interplay
OrganizationalTrait
Balance of Materiality
Frequency of Interplay
S bl Vi l LStable Virtual LessDynamic Physical MoreHierarchical Virtual LessHierarchical Virtual LessNetworked Physical More
Study involves series of longitudinal process focused case Study involves series of longitudinal process focused case studies around key elements (Langley 1999, Yin 2003, Eisenhardt 1989).
Each case study will involve first a longitudinal diachronic Each case study will involve first a longitudinal diachronic analysis of the evolution of the patterns of virtualization (measured using the new notation we develop) (Barley & Tolbert 1997).Tolbert 1997).
We will also explore the reasons for their emergence as an oscillating movement from one form of intertwining to another and their diffusion across different projects. p j
The study covers all issues outlined above using structured interviews, document analysis, observations and archival research.
E d ib i Expected contributions Clear or stir the mess around virtuality and materialitymateriality Offer concrete ways to analyze entanglement and impact of virtualizationimpact of virtualization Innovative way of integrating SE research on modeling, ethnographic field work and organizational process studies
Involves high risks but may offer significant insightsinsights