Nick Berente James Gaskin Kalle Lyytinen

Nick Berente
James Gaskin
Kalle Lyytinen
"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"
Design, Projects, and Physical and Virtual d h
l d
l
Materiality ‐ Nick
Review of Virtual Organizing ‐ James Research Challenges and Road Ahead ‐ Kalle
Different specialties ff
l
Collaborate & design
Often across distances
Using Digital technologies
To design – create – build something
Social Studies of Design:
Social Studies of Design
Bucciarelli 1994; Buchanan 1992; Dougherty 1992;
Ancona & Caldwell 1992; Carlile 2002; 2004; Boland et al 1994; Bergman et al 2002; Argyres 1999; Bardhan 2007; Thomke
2006; Perry & Sanderson 1998; Kellogg et al 2006; Star & Griesemer 1989; Henderson 1991; Majchrzak
et al 2000; Malhotra et al 2001; Rosenman
;
et al. 1996; Perry et al. 1998
Different specialties ff
l
Collaborate & design
Communities of Practice
Networks
Virtual Teams
Often across distances
Using Digital technologies
To design – create – build something
ICT – Communication & ICT C
i ti & Coordination
Boundary Objects
The Design Artifact
Diffusion






“Doubly distributed”
Multiple models
p
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

Virtual Vi t l – “being actually such in almost every respect” (nearly);
‐ “existing in essence or effect g
though not in actual fact” (?)

Material
‐ worldly, substantial, tangible, worldly substantial tangible corporeal, usable

Virtuality – Digitalness or Remoteness

Continuum 1: Digital vs. Physical Materiality

Continuum 2: Co‐Located vs. Remote
Digital
Digital and Physical
Physical
Co‐located
GSS
Synchronous collaboration
Traditional studio work
ork
Remote
Virtual Teams
l
Asynchronous collaboration
Blueprints, memos, etc.
Digital
C l
Co‐located
t d
Remote
Digital and Physical
Physical
Synchronous GSS
collaboration; Traditional studio R
Resource
sharing h i Perspective M&T;
P
ti M&T workk
/communication Boundary Pre‐ Industrial
Objects
Virtual Teams
Communication
Asynchronous collaboration
PLM; Repositories & workflow
Blueprints, memos, etc.
Industrial / bureaucratic
Digital
C l
Co‐located
t d
Remote
Digital and Physical
Physical
Synchronous GSS
collaboration; Traditional studio R
Resource
sharing h i Perspective M&T;
P
ti M&T workk
/communication Boundary Pre‐ Industrial
Objects
Virtual Teams
Communication
Asynchronous collaboration
PLM; Repositories & workflow
Blueprints, memos, etc.
Industrial / bureaucratic


Virtual
M t i l
Material
Virtuality as a context of collaboration
f
Virtuality and virtualization of work as an outcome of digitalization
fd
l
3. Consequences of virtualization of work on work organization
k
4. Virtuality as a capability of infrastructures or l
large scale IT systems
l
5. Virtual worlds as a new context of work
1.
2.

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
g
approaches

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 focus on the content of virtuality
Will f
th t t f i t lit and d virtualization of work as an outcome of digitalization.

Address specifically:
 Effect of virtualization over time?
 Entanglement and the role of physical materiality in E t
l
t d th l f h i l t i lit i virtualization?

What affects the balance and evolution of virtual and h
ff
h b l
d
l
f
l d
physical entanglement in project‐based design o ga at o s t a y g e e s o ce t a at o a d
organizations with varying levels of centralization and environmental volatility?
Digital
C l
Co‐located
t d
Remote
Digital and Physical
Physical
Synchronous GSS
collaboration; Traditional craft R
Resource
sharing h i Perspective M&T;
P
ti M&T approach
h
/communication Boundary Pre‐ Industrial
Objects
Virtual Teams
Communication
Asynchronous collaboration
PLM; Repositories & workflow
Blueprints, memos, etc.
Industrial / bureaucratic


Challenge 1: Paucity of research on how Ch ll
P it f h h affordances of digital artifacts (new forms of 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 organizational control and environmental volatility.

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
For example one can use e mail with one’s laptop or mobile 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
gp
y
p
physical sites and work environments.

There is a mutual dependency between physical technological capabilities and virtual affordances, and 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). Study enactment of distinct forms of digital f
f
f
artifacts as they are appropriated over time, and how they become entangled with dh
h b
l d h
physical material practices as to form unique combinations of virtualized work capabilities b
f
l d
k
bl
in design work.
 Go beyond simple view of new dispersion in b
d
l
f
d
space and time while thinking about virtual organizing

Analyze sequences of activities and how they A l f i i i d h h combine material, virtual elements during the design process
 Capture the process enactment and then analyze differences and distances between different processes using string (gene) q
g
q
sequencing techniques
 Focus on performative aspect but how it relates to ostensive and material aspects of d
design process (Feldman, Pentland, Volkoff) ld
l d lk ff

Ostensive
Performative
Material

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



Organizational process models: organizational O
i ti
l d l i ti
l processes as a grammar (Pentland 1995, Pentland & Feldman 2005, Feldman & Pentland
5,
2003, Pentland & Tueter 1994) model sequence of design steps and abstract into a process grammar
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
p
v.s. ostensive, idea of a generative grammar (c.f. Organizational DNA)



Organizational process models: organizational O
i ti
l d l i ti
l processes as event sequences (Abbot 1990) model design processes as a sequence of events g p
q
and compares their differences using string sequencing techniques (See e.g. Sabherval and 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
y
of sequences as to allow their comparison
Develop using method engineering a process D l i h d i
i modeling (visual) notation that can be used 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 p
y
relationships as they are observed
 Use computer tool to capture, verify process models and generate “task sequence representations” for sequence analysis
f
l

Process metamodel
Develop a formal meta‐model
Formal process description
Use the meta‐
model based tool to capture process
Formal sequence analysis
Carry out sequence analysis
T
d
e
c
o
m
p
o
s
e
d
T
i
L
A partial tentative metamodel
A ti l t t ti t
d l
1,1
Activityy
1,m
0,m
1,m
A
f
Involves
1,m
0,m
0,1
1,1
Individual
T l
Tool
1,1
0,m
Virtual
Actor
Is carried out
1,m
0,m
1,1
Material
1,m
Design object
0,m
1,1
Group
A visual enacted process model
A i l t d d l
A string representation of design activities
A t i t ti f d i ti iti
Activity
Location
Time
Actor: group
Design object
Tool
Affordance
Design x
Michigan
Shnaghai
1.1.2010‐
31.3.2010
Design team x
architecture
Cad/CAM
Review
Activity
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 analyze
a) differences between subsequences
b) Differences / distances between whole subsequences
c) Observe which tasks/ sequences are virtually entangled
d) Compare why/ how differences in sequences relate to the Level of entanglement

Sequence analysis assumes
S
l i  All sequences could be made similar and what is the effort of making them similar
 Effort measured by the
▪ The number of deletions, substitutions and additions needed to make the strings equal
k h
l
▪ The cost of making the operations
▪ Seeks the minimum cost set of operations
p
 Several methods and algorithms (dynamic programming) to do so with different set of constraints and input parameters






Main research challenges
M i h h ll
Appropriate generic vocabulary that is essential / theoretically grounded to describe similarities yg
and 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 analysis
Risks in data collection
Appropriateness of available sequencing q
j
techniques to do the job
Focus on
 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.

To what extent these factors explain differences in observed process structures and the level of effort to make them similar?
ff k h i il ?
Figure 1. Types of Project Based Organizations
Power Structure
Env
vironmen
ntal Volatiility
Less Centralized More Centralized
Less Volatile
More Volatile
Stable Networked Stable Hierarchical
Organization
Organization
(Mortenson)
(Parker-Hannifin)
Dynamic
Networked
Organization
(Ford IT)
Dynamic
D
i
Hierarchical
Organization
Intel network
architecture)



Stable hierarchical organizations: virtuality
Stable hierarchical organi ations i t lit
emphasized by the need to render design efficient through formal factory like process g
y
p
enforcement; decisions traceable, formalized, codified, etc. using version control, project mgtm tools, computer based process templates tools computer based process templates and so on.
Stable hierarchical organizations : task sequences highly structured with less iteration and high level of virtual enactment
Example fluid control engineering in Parker‐
p
g
g
Hannifin



Stable Networked Organization: local decision making, local decision making does not require more physical interactions in order to “get on the same page” and come to consensus when perspectives may differ.
perspectives may differ
Stable Networked Organization: interplay between physical and virtual methods of working and organizing –
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
Dynamic
D
i Hierarchical
Hi
hi l Organization:
O
i ti local, l l hierarchical decision making; and efficient localized p
process forms
 Dynamic Hierarchical Organization: local
design teams have strong and formally enforced
virtual capabilities for design control (software
tools, distributed tools); yet their enforcement and
integration difficult at global level; significant
amo nt of using
amount
sing virtual
irt al collaboration tools across
different design units
 Example:
p Intel network product
p
architectures

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
 Example
l Fordd IT (enterprise
(
i group))

Table 2. Traits, Balance, and Interplay
Organizational
Trait
S bl
Stable
Dynamic
Hierarchical
Networked
Balance of
Materiality
Vi
Virtual
l
Physical
Virtual
Physical
Frequency of
Interplay
L
Less
More
Less
More




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 analysis of the evolution of the patterns of virtualization (measured using the new notation we develop) (Barley & 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.

Expected contributions
E
d ib i
 Clear or stir the mess around virtuality and materiality
 Offer concrete ways to analyze entanglement and impact of virtualization
 Innovative way of integrating SE research on modeling, ethnographic field work and organizational process studies

Involves high risks but may offer significant insights