A method to analyze visualizations in project management as boundary objects

Revision as of 21:26, 20 September 2015

NEW TITEL; An analysis of project management visualization 'quality' through the boundary object framework

Abstract

many chooses to use visualization as method for contribute to higher value specifically in relation to communication and effective work culture. However, no literature explicitly highlights how visualization contributes to this. This article analyze how project management visualization can actively contribute to creating higher value specifically for communication and effective work culture by using boundary object framework sd the underlying theory.

Introduction

The Project Management Institute have been researching the value of project management and concludes that value tends to be focus around ^[1].

Decision making, communication, effective work culture and alignment of approach, terminology and values – effectiveness of the organization

Specifically in relation to communication and effective work culture, visualization is a commonly used method. From research in team (dynamics?) we know that high diversity in the team have the possibility to create better results and higher value. However, diversity also complicates these two value parameters. How can diverse teams then work most effective and thereby create higher value through the use of visualization? A way to examine communication and collaboration between diverse actors from different social worlds is to use boundary object as a framework. This article will firstly define and discuss visualization and boundary objects. This will lead to XX number of criteria for assessing visualizations as effective boundary objects. Lastly, this article will discuss limitations to??xxx.

Definition of visualization

In project management different forms of visualizations are widely used e.g. gantt or PERT charts. A visualization can be defined as "The process of representing abstract business or scientific data as images that can aid in understanding the meaning of the data"^[2]. In this article I will define a visualization by three minimal criteria ^[3]:

1. Based on data. The purpose of a visualization is (also?) to communicate data, thus the data arrives from something that is not immediately visible.
2. The result must be readable and recognizable. A visualization must enable actors to learn something about the data.
3. Produce an image. Seemingly obvious a visualization must produce an image. In addition the visual must be one of the primary mean of communication, thus it’s not considered a visualization if the image is only a small part of the process.

Boundary Objects

As introduced by Star and Griesemer ^[4].: "Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across inter- secting social worlds". The scope of this article will only be looking at visualizations and thereby not verbalizations or other non-physical boundary objects.

The boundary object framework extent our understanding of visualization as not just a method to communicate data through an image, but on the contrary as objects enabling the necessary social interaction and integration of knowledge across boundaries, which in the end enables knowledge sharing and integration of information within an organization (e.g. Chesley and Wegner, 1999; Grant, 2003 – strategy ****reference). This also enable us to understand that these visualizations are not static objects but are being shaped by the political and social context of their use (reference strategy****)

social worlds different types of boundaries

What is a boundary object

When used effectively a boundary object enable integration of knowledge across boundaries.

Designated versus in use boundary objects

Levina and Vaast (^[5].differentiate between designated boundary objects and boundary objects-in-use. Designated boundary objects are ’artefacts that are designated as valuable for boundary spanning, due to their design and properties’ (Levina and Vaast, 2005, 342 – strategy tools ****). Typical, powerful actors such as top managers designate a specific tool to be used in the project, which may or may not become boundary objects-in-use. Boundary objects-in-use are ’artefact that have meaning and are useful for the work practices of different groups of actors, and which acquire a common identity across groups’ (Star and Griesemer, 1989 – reference ****). For example, within a manufacturing plant, Bechky (2003b reference strategy tools****) found that the designated boundary object was the engineers’ blueprint of a machine. However, prototypes of the actual machine became the actual boundary objects-in-use since they had much more meaning and thereby were more useful for the work being done by assemblers and technicians. Whether it becomes a boundary object-in-use is determined by how an artefact is used. Thus, boundary objects are perceived as useful when they are in use. However, the use can appear within different episodes, such as discussion in the project planning or repeating use throughout the entire project.

Criteria for XXX

Limitations

Limits of the article - only looking at visualizations as boundary objects - limited scope of what the boundary object contribute with

Conclusion

Using boundary object framework enable us to understand visualizations as shaped by the … context their in. Makes us be aware and thereby do this by choice! Not just let it happen Look at ….

References

1. ↑ Researching the Value of Project Management Study. [online] http://www.pmi.org/en/Business-Solutions/~/media/PDF/Business-Solutions/Value_of_PM_Warsaw08.ashx. [Accessed 20. September 2015].
2. ↑ Multimedia and graphics glossary - Visualization. [online] http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/visualization. [Accessed 20. September 2015].
3. ↑ Visualization and Visual Communication. [online] https://eagereyes.org/criticism/definition-of-visualization. [Accessed 20. September 2015].
4. ↑ . Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R (1989) 'Institutional Ecology, "Translations" and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals In Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39', Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387-420.
5. ↑ . Levina, N. and Vaast, E. (2005) 'Strategic Planning as an Integrative Device', Administrative Science Quarterly 49(3): 337-65.