A method to analyze visualizations in project management as boundary objects
EvaSchultz (Talk | contribs) |
EvaSchultz (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
NEW TITEL; An analysis of project management visualization effectiveness through the boundary object framework | NEW TITEL; An analysis of project management visualization effectiveness through the boundary object framework | ||
| − | |||
Using boundary object criteria to improve visualization in project management | Using boundary object criteria to improve visualization in project management | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
| − | + | Visualization is used as an important communication tool in project management. However, by contextualized visualization within a wider scheme of it's creation and it's use, will make this method more valuable. I'Il argue that the use of boundary objects as a framework lends itself to the task. In this article I will begin by defining visualization and boundary objects. Following this, a discussion of visualizations as boundary objects will be made. This leads to the generation of three boundary object criteria. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Using boundary object criteria to improve visualization in project management. | Using boundary object criteria to improve visualization in project management. | ||
| Line 34: | Line 25: | ||
==Boundary Objects== | ==Boundary Objects== | ||
| − | + | To define that a boundary object is one needs to be familiar with the notion of social worlds. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The notion of boundary objects was first introduced by Star and Griesemer in 1989. As they explain:<ref name="boundary objects">. 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.</ref>''"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 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"''. | ||
| + | This must mean that boundary objects are objects that | ||
| + | Star and Griesemer mentions in this quote three important aspects of boundary objects: different social worlds, the properties of being plastic and robust and lastly something about different meanings. | ||
| + | "[Boundary objects] provides a basis upon which actors from different social worlds can achieve a common understanding despite their differing interests and perceptions" Garrety and Badham | ||
| + | Boundary objects have the possibility when used effectively to enable integration of knowledge across boundaries and thereby bridge the gaps between the social worlds. | ||
social worlds | social worlds | ||
different types of boundaries | different types of boundaries | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The idea of boundary objects, first introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James Griesemer in 1989, is a very useful theoretical tool that has been adopted by many disciplines. Looking at complex situations through the lens of boundary objects can help us to understand how the various actors involved can cooperate on a project, despite having different and oftentimes conflicting interests. However, it is important to consider context carefully in order to make proper use of this tool. This chapter is an attempt to synthesize the early theorization of boundary objects put forth by Star and her collaborators with extensions of the concept and a discussion of its limitations. It is my hope to expand this project to include additional applications and resources related to boundary objects and their contexts. http://scalar.usc.edu/works/boundary-objects-guide/boundary-objects?path=index | ||
| + | |||
| + | Both discussions of boundary objects evoke the concept of marginality: boundary objects, like marginal people, exist at the intersection of two (or more) disparate social worlds without fully belonging to any of them (Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 411). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Star, S. (2010). "This is not a boundary object: Reflections of the origin of a concept." Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 601-617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624 | ||
| + | Star (2010), emphasizes the importance of this contextualization. While the fact that boundary objects can be flexibly interpreted is oft-cited, Star argues that less attention has been paid to the specific contexts in which boundary objects come into being. She stresses the fact that boundary objects are created when members of different communities must collaborate, that is they have a specific, common “information and work requirement” but differing interests (ibid, p. 602). | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
==Visualization as boundary objects== | ==Visualization as boundary objects== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Seeing project management visualization as boundary objects enables us to view it more holistically and include the notion of the entire process of creation, use and the physical object itself. | ||
create and communicate overview | create and communicate overview | ||
| Line 57: | Line 59: | ||
| − | 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 | + | 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 actors using them and thereby the context of their use (reference strategy****) |
| − | + | 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 …. | ||
| − | + | process of creation and use - holistically | |
| + | step away! think more holistically | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Decades of research support the notion of heterogeneous project teams preform better and thus produce better results than homogeneous project teams<ref name="How Diversity Makes Us Smarter">Visualization and Visual Communication. [online] https://eagereyes.org/criticism/definition-of-visualization. [Accessed 20. September 2015].</ref>. | |
| + | |||
| + | As a method specifically in project management it's interesting to use the notion of boundary object. | ||
| + | |||
| + | why it makes sense specifically for PM to talk about this way | ||
| + | --> big diversity in teams --> communication is critical | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Criteria Development== | ||
| + | bla bla | ||
===Flexibility=== | ===Flexibility=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Diversity of visualization interpretations=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Integration level=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Levina and Vaast <ref name="BO-in-use">. Levina, N. and Vaast, E. (2005) 'Strategic Planning as an Integrative Device', ''Administrative Science Quarterly'' 49(3): 337-65.</ref>.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’ . 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’ . For example, within a manufacturing plant, Bechky <ref>[''Bechky''] ''Bechky, B. A. (2003b) 'Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction', ''American Journal of Sociology'' 109(3): 720-52'' </ref> 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. | ||
| Line 73: | Line 94: | ||
- only looking at visualizations as boundary objects | - only looking at visualizations as boundary objects | ||
- limited scope of what the boundary object contribute with | - limited scope of what the boundary object contribute with | ||
| − | |||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 23:50, 21 September 2015
NEW TITEL; An analysis of project management visualization effectiveness through the boundary object framework
Using boundary object criteria to improve visualization in project management
Contents |
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
Visualization is used as an important communication tool in project management. However, by contextualized visualization within a wider scheme of it's creation and it's use, will make this method more valuable. I'Il argue that the use of boundary objects as a framework lends itself to the task. In this article I will begin by defining visualization and boundary objects. Following this, a discussion of visualizations as boundary objects will be made. This leads to the generation of three boundary object criteria.
Using boundary object criteria to improve visualization in project management.
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"[1]. It's important to note that visualization is the process and not just the end product. In this article I will define a visualization by three minimal criteria [2]:
- Based on data. One purpose of a visualization is to communicate data, thus the data arrives from something that is not immediately visible.
- The result must be readable and recognizable. A visualization must enable actors to learn something about the data.
- 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
To define that a boundary object is one needs to be familiar with the notion of social worlds.
The notion of boundary objects was first introduced by Star and Griesemer in 1989. As they explain:[3]"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 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". This must mean that boundary objects are objects that
Star and Griesemer mentions in this quote three important aspects of boundary objects: different social worlds, the properties of being plastic and robust and lastly something about different meanings.
"[Boundary objects] provides a basis upon which actors from different social worlds can achieve a common understanding despite their differing interests and perceptions" Garrety and Badham
Boundary objects have the possibility when used effectively to enable integration of knowledge across boundaries and thereby bridge the gaps between the social worlds. social worlds different types of boundaries
The idea of boundary objects, first introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James Griesemer in 1989, is a very useful theoretical tool that has been adopted by many disciplines. Looking at complex situations through the lens of boundary objects can help us to understand how the various actors involved can cooperate on a project, despite having different and oftentimes conflicting interests. However, it is important to consider context carefully in order to make proper use of this tool. This chapter is an attempt to synthesize the early theorization of boundary objects put forth by Star and her collaborators with extensions of the concept and a discussion of its limitations. It is my hope to expand this project to include additional applications and resources related to boundary objects and their contexts. http://scalar.usc.edu/works/boundary-objects-guide/boundary-objects?path=index
Both discussions of boundary objects evoke the concept of marginality: boundary objects, like marginal people, exist at the intersection of two (or more) disparate social worlds without fully belonging to any of them (Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 411).
Star, S. (2010). "This is not a boundary object: Reflections of the origin of a concept." Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 601-617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624
Star (2010), emphasizes the importance of this contextualization. While the fact that boundary objects can be flexibly interpreted is oft-cited, Star argues that less attention has been paid to the specific contexts in which boundary objects come into being. She stresses the fact that boundary objects are created when members of different communities must collaborate, that is they have a specific, common “information and work requirement” but differing interests (ibid, p. 602).
Visualization as boundary objects
Seeing project management visualization as boundary objects enables us to view it more holistically and include the notion of the entire process of creation, use and the physical object itself.
create and communicate overview create common understanding and language (however, difference between common language and shared meanings)
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 actors using them and thereby the context of their use (reference strategy****)
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 ….
process of creation and use - holistically step away! think more holistically
Decades of research support the notion of heterogeneous project teams preform better and thus produce better results than homogeneous project teams[4].
As a method specifically in project management it's interesting to use the notion of boundary object.
why it makes sense specifically for PM to talk about this way --> big diversity in teams --> communication is critical
Criteria Development
bla bla
Flexibility
Diversity of visualization interpretations
Integration level
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’ . 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’ . For example, within a manufacturing plant, Bechky [6] 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.
Limitations
Limits of the article - only looking at visualizations as boundary objects - limited scope of what the boundary object contribute with
Conclusion
References
- ↑ Multimedia and graphics glossary - Visualization. [online] http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/visualization. [Accessed 20. September 2015].
- ↑ Visualization and Visual Communication. [online] https://eagereyes.org/criticism/definition-of-visualization. [Accessed 20. September 2015].
- ↑ . 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.
- ↑ Visualization and Visual Communication. [online] https://eagereyes.org/criticism/definition-of-visualization. [Accessed 20. September 2015].
- ↑ . Levina, N. and Vaast, E. (2005) 'Strategic Planning as an Integrative Device', Administrative Science Quarterly 49(3): 337-65.
- ↑ [Bechky] Bechky, B. A. (2003b) 'Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction', American Journal of Sociology 109(3): 720-52
