Boundary objects have been shown to play an important role in sharing knowledge in and across firms. However, little research has examined whether boundary objects can facilitate emergence of common knowledge across national cultural boundaries. To examine this, we observed 1,428 design review interactions involving U.S. and Indian engineers. We quantitatively analyzed 419 interactions involving engineers and boundary objects and then qualitatively analyzed 67 instances of boundary object–mediated negotiation. We found that boundary objects can play a central role in negotiating complex design knowledge. We then induced a propositional theoretical model of boundary object–mediated negotiation in global design project networks.
AcostaC., LeonJ. V., ConradC., & MalaveC. O. (2010). Global engineering (1st ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
2.
AdairW. L. (2008). Go-go global: Teaching what we know of culture and the negotiation dance. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(4), 353–370.
AnantatmulaV., & ThomasM. (2010). Managing global projects: A structured approach for better performance. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 60–72.
5.
BolandR. J., LyytinenK., & YooY. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631–647.
6.
BourgaultM., DrouinN., & HamelÉ. (2008). Decision making within distributed project teams: An exploration of formalization and autonomy as determinants of success. Project Management Journal, 39(S1), S97–S110.
7.
BresnenM., GoussevskaiaA., & SwanJ. (2005). Organizational routines, situated learning and processes of change in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 27–41.
8.
BryantP. T. (2006). Decline of the engineering class: Effects of global outsourcing of engineering services. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 6(2), 59–71.
9.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.
10.
CarlileP. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.
11.
CarlileP. R. (2005). Artifacts and knowledge negotiation across domains. In RafaeliA., & MahwayM. P. (Eds.), Artifacts and organizations (pp. 101–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
CarnevaleP. J., & PruittD. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 531–582.
13.
ChanE. H. W., & TseR. Y. C. (2003). Cultural considerations in international construction contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(4), 375–381.
14.
ChinowskyP., DiekmannJ., & GalottiV. (2008). Social network model of construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(10), 804–812.
15.
CorbinJ. M., & StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
16.
Di MarcoM., TaylorJ., & AlinP. (2010). Emergence and role of cultural boundary spanners in global engineering project networks. Journal of Management in Engineering, 26(3), 123–132.
17.
Dirckinck-HolmfeldL. (2006). Designing for collaboration and mutual negotiation of meaning—Boundary objects in networked learning. In BanksS., HodgsonV., JonesC., KempB., McConnellD., & SmithC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006.
18.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
19.
EmersonR. M., FretzR. I., & ShawL. L. (2001). Participant observation and fieldnotes. In AtkinsonP., CoffeyA., DelamontS., LoflandJ., & LoflandL. (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 252–268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
GalU., LyytinenK., & YooY. (2008). The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infrastructures, and organizational identities: The introduction of 3D modeling technologies into the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 290–304.
21.
GeorgeJ. M., JonesG. R., & GonzalezJ. A. (1998). The role of affect in cross-cultural negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4), 749–772.
22.
HansenD., ShneidermanB., & SmithM. A. (2010). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world.San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
23.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
24.
HartmannT. (2011). Goal and process alignment during the implementation of decision support systems by project teams. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1134–1141.
25.
HindsP. J., & MortensenM. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.
26.
HofstedeG. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 362–365.
27.
JavedT., MaqsoodM. E., & DurraniQ. S. (2006). Managing geographically distributed clients throughout the project management life cycle. Project Management Journal, 37(5), 76–87.
28.
KilduffM., & TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
KiniD. U. (2000). Global project management—Not business as usual. Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(6), 29–33.
30.
KopelmanS., & OlekalnsM. (1999). Process in cross-cultural negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 15(4), 373–380.
31.
KorkmazS., & MessnerJ. I. (2008). Competitive positioning and continuity of construction firms in international markets. Journal of Management in Engineering, 24(4), 207–216.
32.
KoskinenK., & MäkinenS. (2009). Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 31–38.
33.
LarsonA. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 76–104.
34.
LeeC. P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16(3), 307–339.
35.
LevinaN., & VaastE. (2008). Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 307–332.
36.
OkhuysenG. A., & BechkyB. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463–502.
37.
PhelpsA. F., & ReddyM. (2009). The influence of boundary objects on group collaboration in construction project teams.Group 2009: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 125–128.
38.
PhengL., & LeongC. H. Y. (2000). Cross-cultural project management for international construction in China. International Journal of Project Management, 18(5), 307–316.
39.
PowellW.W., KoputK. W., & Smith-DoerrL. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 116–145.
40.
PrykeS. (2005). Towards a social network theory of project governance. Construction Management and Economics, 23(9), 927–939.
41.
ScottJ. P. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview.New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
43.
StraussA. L., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44.
TaylorJ. (2007). The antecedents of successful 3D CAD implementation in design and construction networks. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(12), 993–1002.
45.
TaylorJ., & LevittR. (2007). Innovation alignment and project network dynamics: An integrative model for change. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 22–35.
46.
WhettenD. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29–55.
47.
WhyteJ., EwensteinB., HalesM., & TiddJ. (2007). Visual practices and the objects used in design. Building Research and Information, 35(1), 18–27.
48.
YanowD. (2004). Translating knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management, 15(S1), S9–S25.
