Boundary Objects in New Joint Fields: Routines, Bias, and Incompatibilities in Dispersed R&d Settings

In settings where R&D specialists work together on a technical project without physically being together, boundary objects are often used to facilitate understanding and collaboration (Carlile, 2002; Star & Griesemer, 1989). From a practice perspective, boundary objects refer to artifacts that are understood within their local setting, yet have enough common ground to facilitate the shared practice context in dispersed settings. Examples of boundary objects are graphs, designs, documents, intranet, and other entities that can link actors together to allow for collaboration without necessarily having a full consensus on the object (Bechky, 2003; Wenger, 1998). Although the main objective of using boundary objects is to span boundaries between actors from different fields, this objective is often not realized. When different (dispersed) groups of specialists decide to collaborate on a new project, a “new” joint project field may be established. This field, however, might not be so “new” in the sense that the objects with which people have to work are unbiased and neutral enough to be experienced as new joint boundary objects. Previous conceptualizations of boundary objects tend to ignore the influence a boundary object’s “local embeddedness” can have on its functioning as a boundary object in a new joint setting. In this paper, we analyze the influence that locally embedded boundary objects can have on the development of a “new joint field” in dispersed R&D settings. The study focuses on the question what the influence is of a boundary object’s history within a particular practice context (i.e., a specific local R&D unit) on its functioning as a boundary object within a newly established shared practice context (i.e., the context of a shared practice between two or more dispersed R&D units). The basis of our analysis exists of a case study of a collaboration effort between a Canadian and a Dutch R&D department of a multinational organization specialized in print technologies. Based on an analysis of data from 33 face-to-face interviews, and literature on new joint fields, boundary objects, and routines, our contribution is twofold. Firstly, we consider boundary objects as elements of new joint fields and show that the historical use of boundary objects with similar functions in local settings can play a key role in the adaption of boundary objects in new joint settings by different groups. Secondly, we argue that boundary objects’ history and local embeddedness can lead to dispersed R&D workers having a “biased” perception of these objects, and that an awareness of this bias allows us to better understand how these boundary objects can have an effect on the creation of a shared practice context in which joint R&D projects can take place.