This process article reports on the use of Gioia data structures as a visual boundary object in project management research. Gioia data structures work as effective boundary objects that span a research team’s geographical distance in a virtual setting as an artifact for promoting visual collaboration in project management research. We demonstrate the use of boundary objects as generative tools for cross-disciplinary teams to share a common design method. While boundary objects have been used in project management studies, we extend their use to support collaborative research in project management.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136–158.
2.
AnandN.GardnerH.MorrisT. (2007). Knowledge-based innovation: Emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 406–428.
3.
ArcherN.GhasemzadehF. (2007). Project portfolio selection and management. In MorrisP. W. G.PintoJ. K. (Eds.), The Wiley guide to project, program and portfolio management (pp. 94–113). Wiley.
4.
ArsanjaniM. A.ErshadiM. (2022). Avenues to improving the effectiveness of project portfolio management in the construction industry. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 17(4), 259–268.
5.
BasqueJ.BencherkiN.KuhnT. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of the communicative constitution of organization. Taylor & Francis.
6.
BresnenM. (2010). Keeping it real? Constituting partnering through boundary objects.Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), 615–628.
7.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
8.
BrownS. L.EisenhardtK. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.
9.
BrunetM.FachinF.LangleyA. (2021). Studying projects processually. International Journal of Project Management, 39(8), 834–848.
10.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.
11.
CicmilS.WilliamsT.ThomasJ.HodgsonD. (2006). Rethinking project management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 675–686.
12.
CooperR.EdgettS.KleinschmidtE. (2001). Portfolio management for new product development: Results of an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31(4), 361–380.
13.
CorleyK. G.GioiaD. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.
14.
CunliffeA. L. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations, 56(8), 983–1003.
15.
CunliffeA. L.JunJ. S. (2005). The need for reflexivity in public administration. Administration & Society, 37(2), 225–242.
16.
CzarniawskaB.SevónG. (2005). Global ideas: How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy. Copenhagen Business School Press.
17.
DanielE. M.WardJ. M.FrankenA. (2014). A dynamic capabilities perspective of IS project portfolio management. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(2), 95–111.
18.
De ReyckB.Grushka-CockayneY.LockettM.CalderiniS. R.MouraM.SloperA. (2005). The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(7), 524–537.
19.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989a). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
20.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 543–576.
21.
EisenhardtK. M.FurrN. R.BinghamC. B. (2010). CROSSROADS—Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273
22.
EliaG.MargheritaA.SecundoG. (2020). Project management canvas: A systems thinking framework to address project complexity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(4), 809–835.
23.
EwensteinB.WhyteJ. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as epistemic objects. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.
24.
FoxN. J. (2011). Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology, 45(1), 70–85.
25.
GassonS. (2005). Boundary-spanning knowledge-sharing in e-collaboration. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 245b–245b). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.123
26.
GermainO.AubryM. (2019). Exploring processual and critical avenues at the crossroad of entrepreneurship and project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(1), 2–5.
27.
GilbrichC. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Sage.
28.
GioiaD. A. (2004). A renaissance self: Prompting personal and professional revitalization. In StableinR. E.FrostP. J. (Eds.), Renewing research practice (pp. 97–114). Stanford University Press.
29.
GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.
30.
GioiaD.A.CorleyG.HamiltonA. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
31.
GioiaD. A.PriceK. N.HamiltonA. L.ThomasJ. B. (2010). Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 1–46.
32.
GilbertC. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resources versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741–763.
33.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
34.
GrantD.OswickC.HardyC. (2004). The Sage handbook of organizational discourse. Sage.
35.
GrootB.AbmaT. (2021). Boundary objects: Engaging and bridging needs of people in participatory research by arts-based methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 7903.
36.
HardyC.CleggS. (1997). Relativity without relativism: Reflexivity in post-paradigm organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8(s1), 5–17.
37.
HarveyS.PetersonR. S.AnandN. (2014). The process of team boundary spanning in multi-organizational contexts. Small Group Research, 45(5), 506–538.
38.
HicksD.BeaudryM. C. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of material culture studies. Oxford University Press.
39.
IorioJ.TaylorJ. E. (2014). Boundary object efficacy: The mediating role of boundary objects on task conflict in global virtual project networks. International Journal of Project Management, 32(1), 7–17.
KassinisG.PanayiotouA. (2018). Visuality as greenwashing: The case of BP and Deepwater Horizon. Organization & Environment, 31(1), 25–47.
42.
KillenC. P.HuntR. A.KleinschmidtE. J. (2008). Project portfolio management for product innovation. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 25(1), 24–38.
43.
KingN. (2013). Doing template analysis. In SymonG.CassellC. (Eds.), Qualitative organizational research (pp. 426–451). SAGE.
44.
KoskinenK. U.MäkinenS. (2009). Role of boundary objects in negotiation in project contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 31–38.
45.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
46.
LangleyA.AbdallahC. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. In BerghD. D.KetchenD. J. (Eds.), Building methodological bridges (pp. 201–235). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
47.
LangleyA.RavasiD. (2019). Visual artifacts as tools for analysis and theorizing. In ZilberT. B.AmisJ. M.MairJ. (Eds.), The production of managerial knowledge and organizational theory: New approaches to writing, producing and consuming theory (pp. 173–199). Emerald Publishing Limited.
48.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
49.
LesterJ. N.ChoY.LochmillerC. R. (2020). Learning to do qualitative analysis. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 94–106.
50.
MaguireS.PhillipsN. (2008). “Citibankers” at Citigroup: A study of the loss of institutional trust after a merger. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 372–401.
51.
MaitlisS. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49.
52.
MarheinekeM.VelamuriV. K.MösleinK. M. (2016). On the importance of boundary objects for virtual collaboration: A review of the literature. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(9), 1108–1122.
53.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis. SAGE.
54.
NagR.CorleyK. G.GioiaD. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 821–847.
55.
NicoliniD.MengisJ.SwanJ. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.
56.
NiedermanF.MüllerB.MarchS. T. (2018). Using process theory for accumulating project management knowledge: A seven-category model. Project Management Journal, 49(1), 6–24.
57.
Parmentier-CajaibaA.Cajaiba-SantanaG. (2020). Visual maps for process research: Displaying the invisible. M@n@gement, 23(4), 65–79.
58.
PeirceC. S. (1997). Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking: The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. SUNY Press.
59.
PrattM. G.SonensheinS.FeldmanM. S. (2020). Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 1094428120927466.
60.
RavasiD. (2017). Visualising our way through theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2), 240–243.
61.
RindovaV.DalpiazE.RavasiR. (2011). A cultural quest: A study of organizational use of new cultural resources in strategy formation. Organization Science, 22(2), 413–431.
62.
SergiV.CrevaniL.AubryM. (2020). Process studies of project organizing. Project Management Journal, 51(1), 3–10.
63.
ShannonC. E.WeaverW. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
64.
SmythH. J.MorrisP. W. G. (2007). An epistemological evaluation of research into projects and their management: Methodological issues, International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 423–436.
StarS. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology,& Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
67.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. 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.
68.
StiglianiI.RavasiD. (2012). Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1232–1259.
69.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. SAGE.
70.
StubbenS.OlesenT. S.BreumN. B.LiengardS.GlavindM.KokotasT.ThuesenC. (2019). Project Canvas: The tool for doing projects. DTU Department of Management Engineering.
71.
SwedbergR. (2016). Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(1), 5–22.
72.
TharchenT.GarudR.HennR. L. (2020). Design as an interactive boundary object. Journal of Organization Design, 9(1), 1–34.
73.
VedelJ. B.GeraldiJ. (2020). A “stranger” in the making of strategy: A process perspective of project portfolio management in a pharmaceutical firm. International Journal of Project Management, 38(7), 454–463.
74.
WaringT.WainwrightD. (2008). Issues and challenges in the use of template analysis: Two comparative case studies from the field. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 85–94.
75.
WellsH.SmythH. J. (2015). An agile approach to the real experience of developing research methodology and methods. In PasianB. (Ed.), Designs, methods and practices for research of project management (pp. 243–261). Gower.
76.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
77.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.
78.
ZaitsevA.TanB.GalU. (2016). Collaboration amidst volatility: The evolving nature of boundary objects in agile software development. In ECIS (Research Paper 172).
79.
ZottC.HuyQ. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105.
