Middle Range Theorizing About Information Technology Impact: a Study of 3D Cad

Home , Abstraction (sociology), Theories of technology

MIDDLE RANGE THEORIZING ABOUT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

IMPACT: A STUDY OF 3D CAD IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION WORK

PRACTICES

RYAN JORY BAXTER

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Kalle Lyytinen

Information Systems Department

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

May 2008

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of

______Ryan J. Baxter candidate for the ______degreePh.D. in Management *.

Kalle Lyytinen (signed)______(chair of the committee)

Paul Carlile ______

Richard Boland ______

Youngjin Yoo ______

______

(date) ______January 14, 2008

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.

To my wife, Karen, an eternal source of encouragement, strength, and patience helping

me to remember that which is of greatest worth. We did it!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 6 ABSTRACT ...... 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 2.0 REFLECTIVE LEVEL: TRADEOFFS IN THEORIZING ...... 12 2.1 REVIEW OF MIDDLE RANGE THEORY AND THEORIZING ...... 15 2.2 STRATEGIES FOR MIDDLE RANGE THEORIZING...... 17 2.3 RISKS AND BENEFITS OF MIDDLE RANGE THEORIZING ...... 23 2.4 APPLICATION OF MIDDLE RANGE THINKING FOR IT IMPACT RESEARCH ...... 25 3.0 PRIOR IT IMPACT RESEARCH ...... 26 3.1 CAUSALITY: GENERAL, CONTINGENT AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL ...... 27 3.1.1 General and contingent causality ...... 27 3.1.2 Phenomenological Causality ...... 32 3.1.3 Identifying a Middle Range for Causality of IT Impact ...... 35 3.1.3.1 Causal Agency ...... 35 3.1.3.2 Logical Structure ...... 36 3.1.3.3 Level of Analysis ...... 37 3.1.4 Illustrations of Middle Range Moves ...... 38 3.2 THE NATURE OF THE IT ARTIFACT ...... 42 3.2.1 Juxtaposing Different Philosophical Assumptions of IT Artifact Conceptualizations ...... 47 3.2.2 A Middle Range Conceptualization for Theorizing About the IT Artifact .... 58 3.3 CONCEPTUALIZING THE OUTCOMES OF IT IMPACT ...... 60 3.4 SUMMARY OF IT IMPACT LITERATURE ...... 69 4.0 IT IMPACT: 2D TO 3D CAD IN ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING, AND CONSTRUCTION ...... 71 4.1 EARLY CAD IMPACT LITERATURE: GENERAL AND SIMPLE EXPLANATIONS TO EXPLAIN PRODUCTIVITY ...... 72 4.2 THE PRACTICE TURN IN CAD RESEARCH ...... 75 4.3 KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF CAD IMPACT ...... 77 4.4 CAD FACILITATING COORDINATION ...... 79 4.5 THE ROLE OF CAD FROM A PRACTICE-BASED VIEW OF KNOWLEDGE ...... 80 4.6 SITUATING A STUDY OF 3D CAD IMPACT IN RADICAL ARCHITECTURE ...... 82 4.7 AN APPROACH TO STUDYING 3D CAD IN AEC ...... 84 4.7.1 Conceptualization of 3D CAD in AEC...... 86 4.7.2 Conceptualization of AEC Work Practice ...... 87 4.8 SUMMARY OF MIDDLE RANGE THEORIZING IN 3D CAD IMPACT WITHIN AEC ..... 89 5.0 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING TRADITIONAL AEC PRACTICE AND THE USE OF 2D REPRESENTATIONS ...... 90

5.1 HOW THE FIVE W’S AND H RELATE TO WORK PRACTICES AND CAD TECHNOLOGY 95 5.2 DYNAMIC LINKAGES OF AEC WORK PRACTICE DIMENSIONS ...... 100 5.3 THE CURRENT STATE OF CONSTRAINT IN AEC WORK PRACTICE ...... 104 6.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 106 6.1 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES ...... 106 6.2 DATA SOURCES ...... 107 6.3 DATA COLLECTION ...... 108 6.4 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 109 6.4.1 Coding Strategy ...... 111 6.4.1.1 Coding Specifics ...... 112 6.4.1.2 Process Strategy – Direct Interpretation ...... 113 7.0 FINDINGS ...... 114 7.1 KEY CONTEXTUAL FACTORS ...... 114 7.1.1 Traditional Relational practices ...... 114 7.1.2 Legal Issues ...... 115 7.1.3 Economic Constraints ...... 116 7.1.4 Localized Dependencies ...... 116 7.1.5 Unique and Complex Designs ...... 117 7.1.6 3D CAD use in Architecture ...... 117 7.1.7 3D CAD use by Gehry...... 117 7.1.8 Summary of Key Contextual Factors ...... 118 7.2 3D CAD AFFORDANCES ...... 118 7.2.1 3D Visualizing ...... 119 7.2.2 Modeling ...... 119 7.2.3 Predicting ...... 120 7.2.4 Collision detection ...... 121 7.2.5 Increased accuracy ...... 121 7.2.6 Dimensional control...... 121 7.2.7 Isomorphic model...... 122 7.3 3D CAD FEATURES ...... 122 7.3.1 XYZ coordinate system ...... 122 7.3.2 Bezier and B-spline calculations ...... 123 7.3.3 3D object properties ...... 123 7.3.4 Parametric ...... 123 7.3.5 Interoperability ...... 124 7.4 SUMMARY: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FEATURES AND AFFORDANCES ...... 124 7.5 WORK PRACTICE CHANGES ...... 126 7.5.1 General Relational and Specific Coordinating Practice Changes ...... 126 7.5.1.1 Increase in Collaboration ...... 129 7.5.1.2 Frequency of Communication...... 130 7.5.1.3 Centralization in Coordination ...... 130 7.5.1.4 Sequence Shifting ...... 131 7.5.1.5 Increase in Design Participation ...... 131 7.5.1.6 Increase in Scope of Involvement ...... 132

7.5.1.7 Intra-firm coordination ...... 132 7.5.2 Representational Practice Changes ...... 133 7.5.2.1 Design Assist ...... 136 7.5.2.2 Digital Sharing ...... 136 7.5.2.3 Minimum use of 2D Drawings ...... 137 7.5.2.4 Increase in Consistency of Data ...... 137 7.5.2.5 Tighter Tolerances ...... 137 7.5.2.6 Making Design Changes Later ...... 138 7.5.3 Material Work Practice Changes ...... 138 7.6 MATERIAL PRACTICE CHANGE: CONCRETE WORK BY VRL INC...... 139 7.6.1 Review of VRL Vignette ...... 145 7.7 MATERIAL PRACTICE CHANGE: FRAMING WORK BY KB, INC...... 147 7.7.1 Review of KB Vignette ...... 151 7.8 MATERIAL AND COORDINATING PRACTICE CHANGE: 3D SURVEYING BY JWB CO. 152 7.8.1 Review of JWB’s Experiences ...... 155 7.9 SUMMARY OF WORK PRACTICE CHANGES IN THREE CASES ...... 156 8.0 DISCUSSION ...... 158 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 163 9.1 THREE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER FOR IT IMPACT ...... 165 9.2 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA ...... 170 10.0 REFERENCES ...... 173

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.2a – Description of Middle Range Theory by Weick……………………… 22

Figure 3.1.4a – Markus and Robey’s (1988) Three Dimensions of Causal Structure 39

Figure 3.2a - Definitions from Orlikowski and Iacono’s (2001) five clusters of how the IT artifact is treated……………………………………………………………… 43

Figure 3.2.1a - Two dimensions of characterizing how prior research has conceptualized of IT features………………………………………………………... 48

Figure 3.2.1b - Comparing Woolgar and Grint and Kling to four views of the IT

artifact………………………………………………………………………………... 51

Figure 3.2.1c - Four views of the IT artifact with relationships to Boundary

Objects and Actor-network theory…………………………………………………... 53

Figure 3.2.1d - Four views of the IT artifact with middle range concepts:

relationships to affordances and IT features/capabilities……………………………. 58

Figure 3.3a - Bakos (1987) model of IT Impact ……………………………………. 61

Figure 3.3b - Figure of Mooney et al.’s (1996) conception of IT Impact…………… 64

Figure 3.3c - Multiple meanings of the term practice in IS and Organizational

Studies……………………………………………………………………………….. 66

Figure 4.2a - Recreation of Majchrzak et al.’s Figure 8.2, p. 162, The impact of

CAD on productivity………………………………………………………………… 74

Figure 4.3a. IT Features of 3D CAD – Baba and Nobeoka (1998) ………………… 77

Figure 4.3b - IT Capabilities of 3D CAD – Baba and Nobeoka (1998)…………….. 78

Figure 4.3c - IT Capabilities of 3D CAD – Yap et al. (2003) ………………………. 79

Figure 4.5a – Figure of types of 3D CAD Impact from Yoo et al. (2006)…………... 83

Figure 5.0a – Relationships between Why, What, Where, When, and How in

describing the AEC industry………………………………………………………… 93

Figure 5.0b – Key stakeholders in AEC projects……………………………………. 95

Figure 5.1a – Relationship between representational information and the means and methods for construction…………………………………………………………….. 97

Figure 5.1b – AEC Work practice dimensions and their relationships to stakeholders in an AEC project……………………………………………………… 102

Figure 5.2 – Dynamic illustration of how constraints between AEC work practice dimensions might change. …………………………………………………………... 103

Figure 7.4 – Dependence and Enhancing Relationships between 3D CAD features and affordances……………………………………………………………………… 124

Figure 7.5.1a – Typical Relational Roles in AEC Projects………………………….. 127

Figure 7.5.1b – Gehry Project Coordination Practice Differences………………….. 128

Figure 7.5.2 – Comparison of Uses of Representations between Traditional AEC

and Gehry Project over time…………………………………………………………. 134

Figure 7.5.3 – Relationship between representational information and the means

and methods for construction………………………………………………………... 138

Figure 8.0 –Broad illustration of 2D vs. 3D initial use and full 3D CAD parametric

use and the relationships to the AEC work practice dimensions……………………. 160

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank my advisor, Kalle Lyytinen, for his patience in allowing me to explore broadly and guiding me in the process of intellectual discovery. Many thanks to my committee members, Richard Boland, Paul Carlile, and Youngjin Yoo for their time, effort, direction and guidance. I also appreciate the friendship, conversations, and debates with my fellow colleagues during my time at Case, especially Nick Berente, Jessica

Carlo, Uri Gal, Sean Hansen, Danail Ivanov, Nikhil Srinivasan, and David Tilson.

My wife, Karen, has been amazing in supporting me in this exploration. She definitely didn’t know that this was the path we would be following, yet, she has sacrificed greatly in her time, personal interests and comforts for our family. Without her consistent encouragement, I could have not done this on my own. My children, Trevan,

Kaden, Kyla, and most recently, Audrey, have lost out on many bedtime stories and playtime – Daddy’s very long paper is finally done! To my parents, I thank you for never doubting and always encouraging me in anything I chose to do. So many others, family and friends, have encouraged and supported us in many different ways in this long process. Thank you for your love and prayers. I am humbled, that despite my shortcomings, I have been blessed beyond measure by my Heavenly Father.

Middle Range Theorizing About Information Technology Impact: A Study of 3D Cad

Impact on Construction Work Practices

ABSTRACT

Ryan Jory Baxter

A challenge in theory building is how to balance the tradeoffs among general, accurate, and simple explanations. From this perspective, the study of information technology (IT) impact tends to emanate from two positions: one that emphasizes sweeping generalizability and another that sets priorities on highly detailed, accurate accounts.

Both paradigms have struggled in making conceptual leaps, either from detailed ethnographies to grand theory or from general causal claims to specific contexts. Is it possible that such leaps mask the possibility of other ways of studying IT impact related phenomenon? A similar line of thinking can be followed from the sociologist, Robert

Merton, who argued that social scientists ought to focus in the middle range conceptual space between grand theories and empirical generalizations. I apply the logic of middle range theorizing to IT impact research and in particular the study of 3D CAD in the

Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry. Middle range logic is used to formulate a theoretical accounting of both the objective features and subjective interpretations of 3D CAD. Middle range thinking also shapes the conceptualization of work practice by framing it in various dimensions of relational activities that map to the

core objectives of AEC professionals. The use of these dimensions helps to resolve previous views of 3D CAD as both a source of disruption and beneficial coordination

among AEC firms. Further the use of work practice dimensions supports future middle

range theory development by linking detailed work practice accounts into the core

aspects of AEC work practice. The empirical data illustrate how 3D CAD is entangled

with building practices of shaping, laying out, and assembling the materials.

Normatively, this work implies that practitioners involved in rolling out new technologies

consider both a process and a practice-based view which includes the intersection of

subjective-contextual and objective-technological elements. Value from middle range

thinking in scholarship comes from being able to justify and shape novel views that

accommodate a theoretically integrative view of IT impact. Further, the development of

middle range theorizing for IT impact provides an approach for linking and extending the

findings to similar contexts and domains.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Understanding the impact of information technology (IT) on individuals, organizations, and society has remained a foundational topic in information systems (IS) research (Benbasat & Zmud 2003) since the field’s inception (Leavitt & Whisler 1958).

Pragmatically, unless the potential impacts of IT are known and at least in some sense predictable there can be little hope to control or moderate consequences of IT during its design, implementation, or management. In spite of the significance of the topic, understanding how and why IT impacts take place has remained elusive. Theoretically the challenge is that “the transformations in the organizational life through computing are so multifarious as to encompass the most disparate cause-effect relations in different contexts” (Attewell & Rule 1984, p. 1190). Given this situation it is likely that significant advancements in understanding the impact of complex IT phenomena would not take place solely by increasing the representative amount of data under study. Whether through more intensive ethnographies or new data sets, the fundamental tradeoffs within theory development and testing need to be considered when seeking for knowledge advancements in this domain. With this in mind, I look at studying IT impact from what I will call active and reflective levels.

The active level refers to a conventional study of IT impact which includes coming up with a particular problems and questions, and then setting out to add knowledge to that domain through accepted methods. I draw upon multiple case studies to assess the impact of 3D computer-aided design (CAD) technologies in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. The AEC industry is a loosely structured,

heterogeneous and functionally interdependent1 network of individuals, organizations,

and communities of practice that collaborate on a temporary project based tasks. 3D CAD technologies, primarily developed and advanced in the aerospace and automotive industries, have increased in adoption and use within architectural design practices. 3D

CAD technologies offer distinctive methods and outcomes to building design and development when compared with 2D-based systems. I specifically look at the work of

Frank Gehry’s radical architecture and cutting edge use of CATIA™ software. In a

Gehry project I chronicle how three firms respond to and adapt 3D CAD into their

practices. As the nature of the study is primarily inductive and explorative, the objective is to develop propositional statements that illuminate the nature of change related to the introduction of 3D CAD.

The need for a reflective perspective in conjunction with the 3D CAD study emerged from the recognition that IT impact research has been approached from numerous perspectives, including methodologies, theories, conceptualizations of

constructs, and levels of analysis. The diversity seems to be the result of the pervasive

nature of IT impact as well as much of the work stemming from the IS discipline formed

during the last 50 years. Such diversity calls for a comprehensive review of the literature.

Comprehensive literature reviews are excellent examples in which deeper reflections that frequently produce frameworks to help sort out philosophical and methodological positions. These may not, however, reflectively explore the higher level choices and tradeoffs associated with theory building. Applying the reflective lens means considering

1 Functionally interdependent refers to the inter-organizational structure, in which the completion of a process or product depends upon each organization for different inputs to the process of design and construction. This does not mean that each organization performs in a sequential order, but rather may operate throughout a project. 10

these sorts of choices and tradeoffs. The purpose of the reflective level is to provide an

evaluative reference for assessing the tradeoffs made throughout the active level of

research.

Several scholarly review various aspects of the IT impact account, such as the

nature of causality (Markus and Robey 1988) or the conceptualization of the IT artifact

(Orlikowski and Iacono 2001), still, scholarship has yet to comprehensively reflect on the

choices and tradeoffs in IT impact research. I frame choices about IT impact research

around Weick’s (1979) notions of theoretical tradeoffs between general, accurate, and

simple explanations. Scholars of IT impact research have generally sought general or

accurate explanations. As these positioned are reflective of quite different philosophical

and methodological positions regarding causality and human nature making inroads to

cross pollinate and cumulatively build scholarship have not been successful. In a visual

sense there is a conceptual gap between accounts anchored in general explanation and

those anchored in accurate explanation. To explore this tension, I review the notion of

middle range theory first discussed in sociology by Robert Merton (1968). Merton

proposed middle range theory as an alternative to either focusing on grand theory building or micro-level empirical analysis. I review Merton and other’s interpretation of middle range theory and how it might help to provide an alternative view of IT impact theory building.

In these first three chapters I will primarily focus on development of the reflective level including an approach to studying IT impact. In chapter four I will introduce the

purpose and objectives of the study of 3D CAD impact and apply ideas generated in the

reflective level developed hereafter to guide the study.

2.0 REFLECTIVE LEVEL: TRADEOFFS IN THEORIZING

Weick (1979) proposed that theory building is bound by a desire to formulate explanations that need to satisfy three conflicting criteria: explanations must be general,

accurate, and simple. Being cognizant to this insight we recognize in IT impact research

two distinct theoretical genres that do the balancing differently: one that emphasizes sweeping generalizability (e.g., Leavitt & Whisler 1958), and another that prioritizes highly detailed, accurate accounts of IT impact (e.g., Orlikowski 1992). Those prioritizing generalizability normally begin with broad accounts of studied phenomena by focusing on “large scale” effects of IT —e.g., centralization vs. decentralization—that result from the adoption of IT in general (e.g., George & King 1991). As this line of research has progressed theoretical debates have revealed more nuanced aspects of IT use and its impact (e.g., Aral, Brynjolfsson, & Van Alstyne 2006; Ray, Barney, & Muhanna

2004; Ray, Muhanna, & Barney 2005). Those advocating accuracy have sought to explain organizational changes brought by IT through highlighting the criticality of the context and human agency in producing the IT impact (e.g., Orlikowski 1993). Often this stream emphasizes the human agency to demonstrate that features offered by IT for a particular reason are in fact, mutable, negotiable, and recursively implicated (e.g., Robey

& Boudreau 1999).

These divisions in theoretical emphasis also permeate the underlying conceptual

structures fundamental to a comprehensive IT impact explanation: 1) the assumed nature

of causality, 2) the conceptualization of the IT artifact, 3) and the conceptualization of the

IT impact. IS scholars have struggled with each of these areas as is evident from the

literature: the nature of IT related change (e.g., Markus & Robey 1988), the nature of the

IT artifact (e.g., Orlikowski & Iacono 2001), and the range of outcomes of IT impact

(e.g., DeLone & McLean 1992). While these are seemingly the most critical elements for

those hoping to exposit the nature of IT impact, they are often treated separately, implicitly, or not at all.

Not all IS research, however, has followed the stylized assertions just made. For

example, DeSanctis’ and Poole’s (1994, 2004) Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST)

exemplifies an interesting attempt to seek a different and new balance of theoretical

tradeoffs. In fact, DeSanctis’ and Poole’s approach differed from most established

approaches during its inception in that it advocated neither general theoretical explanations nor purely accurate theoretical accounts of IT impact. In contrast, they tried to increase or maintain generalizability, but yet aspired to honor accuracy of the explanations. Their work illustrates a conceptual middle-ground rather than making conceptual leaps from detailed ethnographies to grand theory (e.g., Structuration theory) or from general causal claims to specific contexts (e.g. IT productivity paradox). Their work also illustrates the challenge in theorizing: how can we build theories that can be both general and accurate?

This is, not surprisingly, a classic challenge in theory building in social sciences, which a prominent sociologist, Robert Merton (1968) has described as the move to the

middle—the need for middle range theory. As Merton describes, middle range theories

are not simply attempts to yield broad, singular conceptual explanations of social phenomena, nor are they simply clever and insightful inductive generalizations about a rich set of data. Rather, middle range theorizing resides between these extremes: it builds coherent theory through continued and detailed empirical study by seeking to harmonize it with emerging larger theoretical views. Middle range explanations do not advance grand unifications of independently created ideas, but rather carry with them a proposal

“that balances or contains the prior” ideas (Salancik 1980, p. 409). Middle range theories thus assume that at a theoretical level, no single paradigm or theory will adequately explain the potentially diverse and broad ranging effects of a complex phenomenon like

IT design, adoption, and use (Ang & Pavri 1994; Attewell & Rule 1984). A middle range view has, perhaps, more practical consequence as it is unlikely that neither a grand theory nor highly contextualized and nuanced accounts are easily translated into the concerns of designers and managers striving to achieve adequate control, moderation, and understanding of IT impact.

Though middle range theorizing has remained somewhat vague and loosely defined, the concept has attracted attention in many disciplines including management and organizational studies (Bourgeois 1979; Pinder & Moore 1980; Weick 1989), library science (Poole 1985), accounting (Laughlin 1995), nursing (Liehr & Smith 1999), and archaeology (Raab & Goodyear 1984). A common theme across these disciplines when applying ideas of middle range theory is to constantly seek a balance with the local theories and knowledge needs with general accounts of social phenomena. So far, in the

IS research middle range theory has been only briefly mentioned in passing (e.g., Carroll

& Swatman 2000) but has not been carefully explored as an evaluative reference for

improving our theorizing. Part of this negligence may be due to the fact that research of

IT phenomena within organizations may already be considered middle range because it

meets the most common indicator of middle-range - limited in scope. Yet, middle range

theorizing can be handy for other reasons than limiting theoretical scope. As I employ it, middle range theorizing, in fact, highlights the ongoing tension that comes with the need

to recognize and reconcile multiple theoretical viewpoints necessary to account for

complex and emergent phenomena—a typical challenge faced by the IS scholars. In this

regard middle range theorizing helps assess our current understanding of a particular

phenomenon (e.g., Laughlin 1995) and carve out new “middle range” concepts that

interweave multiple positions into a new theoretical configuration. In the following

section I will set forth a view and strategies of middle range theorizing.

2.1 Review of Middle Range Theory and Theorizing

Robert Merton introduced the idea for middle range theory building in the late

1940s:

“I believe that our major task today is to develop special theories applicable to limited ranges of data—theories, for example, of class dynamics, of conflicting group pressures, of the flow of power and interpersonal influence in communities—rather than to seek here and now the “single” conceptual structure adequate to derive all these and other theories. To say that both are needed is to be correct and banal; the problem is one of allocating our resources. I am suggesting that the road to an effective conceptual scheme will be the more effectively built through work on special theories, and it will remain a largely unfulfilled plan, if one seeks to build it directly at this time” (Merton 1948, p. 166).

Following Merton’s (1968) later work on the subject, Pinder and Moore (1980, p.

1-2) define three characteristics of middle range theory:

1. They do not attempt to deal with all social phenomena. Rather, they are each concerned with one or a few phenomena; 2. They tend to be (ultimately) linkable to each other; and 3. They are abstract enough to transcend simple description but concrete enough to generate testable hypotheses.

Thus, middle range theorizing is limited in scope, able to spawn testable hypotheses, but remains abstract enough to be generalized and related to other theoretical inquiries. Similarly, Bourgeois’ (1979) envisioned that middle range theorizing results in the development of “relational statements that range from discursive essays to highly formalized propositional or conceptual inventories” (p. 445). These descriptions portray a wide variation of what could be considered middle range. Bluedorn and Evered (1980) claimed that middle range theories can be analyzed along a continuum of theoretical scope. Scope of theory refers to the number of problems that a theory can handle (ibid citing Hage 1972). For example, grand theories handle a broader scope than empirical generalizations. This suggests a potentially large variation in the scope for middle range theories. Because of this many scholars suggest that middle range theorizing is more aptly described as occupying a relative, rather than an absolute space in its concepts and their relationships (Bluedorn & Evered 1980; Bobko 1980; Laughlin 1995; Pondy 1980).

Taken to the extreme this can lead to many challenges as noted by Bobko:

“Logically, therefore, all theories are middle range theories, since no theory can account for the infinity of variables impinging on organizational behavior. Thus, an open systems theory could be considered a middle range theory that focuses on a subset of philosophical, metaphysical, anthropological, and social scientific notions. The definition of middle range theory is therefore a relative one. What may be a middle range theory for one investigator may be overabundant chaos for another investigator, or conversely” (Bobko 1980, p. 102). In recognition of this relativity, one approach to middle range theory development

is to identify competing theoretical view points and create a mid-range conceptual space

between the extremes (e.g., Laughlin 1995). This suggests that while a middle range

theory may be relative and elusive, the dynamic process of formulating such perspectives may be more valuable given that a scientific domain should be constantly advancing and changing. Thus, it becomes middle range theorizing as a process of theorizing (Bluedorn

& Evered 1980): For example, Pondy (1984) advocates such an approach:

“I would like to propose that we think of theories as stages in the process of inquiry, themselves processes, so that we should be speaking of middle range theorizing. In this sense, the middle range strategy is a strategy of inquiry that makes use of an intermediate process of theorizing that connects low level empirical facts or generalizations with more abstract conceptualizations” (Pondy 1980, p. 64, emphasis added) Emphasizing middle range theorizing as a strategy of inquiry leaves open the

possibility of variability of middle range theories that Bourgeois (1979) envisioned—

“relational statements that range from discursive essays to highly formalized

propositional or conceptual inventories” (p. 445), depending on where one is at the

theoretical inquiry.

2.2 Strategies for Middle Range Theorizing

Given the relativity of middle range theories I focus on strategies that lead to their

effective generation. These strategies can draw both from deductive and inductive logic,

17 although those preferring the latter have suggested that their approaches constitute middle range theory development (cf., Glaser & Strauss 1967). While Merton did not layout any specific procedure to theory building, one can assume that the formulation of more general theories is more natural from the bottom up (i.e., inductively) rather than from top down (i.e., deductively). Middle range theory building, following Merton, does seem to imply that deductive logic be employed after some limiting of the scope of inquiry and identifying concepts and constructs that are grounded in the phenomena under observation. This approach is in contrast to beginning with a grand theory.2

The primary strategy in middle range theorizing is to limit the scope of inquiry.

Pinder and Moore (1979) discuss three ways to limit the scope:

1. Develop specific theories to deal with each particular phenomenon of interest (e.g., communication). 2. Limit the sample frame of analysis by sorting individuals, groups, or organizations into categories for subsequent analysis. This strategy of forming taxonomies has also been attempted a number of times. 3. Combine the first two, developing limited range theories concerned with particular phenomena in the context of limited classes of organizations. (Pinder and Moore 1979, p. 101).

Of these strategies, the typology/taxonomy approach has been used widely in organizational theory (c.f., Pinder & Moore 1979), and in a variety of disciplines that have applied Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) grounded theory methodology.

2 These characteristics of middle range theorizing fit well with the concepts of case based theory building with rich empirical data noted by Eisenhardt (1989). 18

Another strategy of middle range theorizing is to identify the multiple

perspectives and positions of a phenomena. According to some scholars these multiple

perspectives might be integrated and synthesized (Bourgeois 1979; Laughlin 1995; Lee

1991). While taxonomies synthesize analysis units by association, the sort of synthesis

sought here refers primarily to the theoretical synthesis of ideas. Another purpose of

identifying multiple perspectives is to understand phenomena simultaneously from

multiple, possible conflicting perspectives without necessarily achieving full integration

(Bobko 1980). “The rubric of middle range theory forces an awareness of these partially

overlapping, orthogonal, or even conflicting multiple images” (Bobko 1980, p. 104). This

is not far from recent debates about the need for engaging in multiple conflicting

methodologies to gain a better appreciation of a complex phenomena (e.g., Mingers

2001). While data triangulation seeks to improve internal validity of any causal effect, in

this view, middle range theorizing is about theoretical triangulation and, serves to portray

multiple perspectives (Bobko 1980). The goal is to understand better, not necessarily as to reach a complete resolution. The main benefit of this type of middle range theorizing is that employs a logic how conflicting perspectives play out while inquiring about complex phenomena (Bobko 1980). A plausible argument for recognizing multiple perspectives of a phenomenon without full integration is that, “It is just cognitively very difficult to take several disparate and independently created ideas and unify them into one grand idea.

What more likely happens is a third independent idea develops that balances or contains

the prior two” (Salancik 1980, p. 408-409). Thus, middle range theorizing is employed to

tease out “hidden” spaces between existing perspectives that flow from alternative

theoretical and paradigmatic positions. These “mid-range” spaces are seen as shadows of

existing theoretical spaces rather than just gaps that needs to be filled. The notion of

shadows recognizes that mid-range spaces emerge from multiple, overlapping theoretical

positions and may not be recognized from a single paradigmatic perspective. Thereby,

middle range thinking, opens up the possibility to consider theoretical tradeoffs in new ways (Weick 1980). Rather than just recognizing differences, one tries to resolve tensions by incorporation, compromise, or re—negotiation of concepts and constructs. DeSanctis and Poole’s AST does this by retaining the general approach of Giddens’ (1984)

Structuration theory as a lens and attempting to make a concrete conceptualization of

GSS technologies. Lurking in the shadows of multiple perspectives they create a

conceptual structure to describe IT and incorporate it logically into Structuration theory.

Of course, such creations do not come without a cost of compromise. Some, for example,

have argued that AST departs to significantly from Giddens’ original formulations of

Structuration (Rose 1998). However, despite these observations, AST has yielded a great

deal of continued scholarship and more importantly it provides a transparent connection

of how they arrived at their mid-range conceptual space.

I began this section by motivating a need for middle range theory by recognizing

that streams of IT impact differ by how theoretical tradeoffs are made (Weick 1979).3

Using the idea of theoretical tradeoffs we can interpret Merton’s call for middle range theorizing as recognizing the need to strike a fruitful balance between grand theory and accurate and local explanation. Weick (1980) opined on the connections between

3 Weick (1979)applies Thorngate’s (1976) postulates of commensurate complexity to conclude that “it is impossible for a theory of social behavior to be simultaneously general, accurate, and simple” (Weick 1979, p. 35). While generalizability is often a hallmark of good scientific research, many scholars have pointed out challenges when other theoretical goals (simple or accurate) are being ignored. A focus on the accurate theory for example emphasizes the need to understand more deeply the underlying causal description. Weick argues that the best research strategy to focus on a particular domain is to play out alternative and different theoretical tradeoffs over time through middle range theorizing. 20

theoretical tradeoffs and middle range theory as well. What he recognized was that middle range theories provided a way to examine theoretical tradeoffs during theory

building in which grand theories are pushed to become simultaneously more accurate,

and simple. Thus, middle range theory represents a partial accommodation of these goals.

In other words, middle range theories might be able to achieve simultaneously general,

accurate, and simple explanations. Figure 2.2a shown below, replicates Weick’s diagram and discussion about this point.

The Commensurate Complexity Image (Weick 1980, p. 398-400)

Warren Thorngate (1976) has argued that it is impossible for a scientific explanation to be simultaneously general, accurate, and simple. Any explanation that meets two of these criteria will violate the third. I have found it useful to examine the nuances of this assertion by representing its three components in terms of three positions on a clock face with General represented at twelve o'clock, Accurate at four o'clock, and Simple at eight o'clock. An explanation that is simultaneously general and accurate (it would fall at the two o'clock position) is as far from simplicity as it is possible to get. In accomplishing generality and accuracy in an explanation an investigator has paid the price of simplicity and runs the risk that his or her work will be criticized as impene- trable, inaccessible, and obscure. Other tradeoffs represented by strategies of inquiry at six o'clock or at ten o'clock create similar patterns of assets and liabilities.

With the aid of this representation we can describe middle range theory in two different ways. First, it can be argued that any movement of an explanation away from twelve o'clock is a movement toward middle range theory. Any explanation that falls at six o'clock, a combination of simplicity and accuracy, is the empirical generalization referred to by Evered and Bluedorn. Viewed in this way, middle range theories will be criticized either because they are excessively complex (the investigator has moved away from the twelve o'clock position in a clockwise direction) or because they are inaccurate as explanations of specific problems (an indictment that is produced by counterclockwise movement away from twelve o'clock). A tacit prescription implied by this is that the investigator who moves away from twelve o'clock simultaneously toward both four and eight o'clock is in a stronger position than an investigator who moves in only one of the two directions. It might also be argued that an investigator who moves completely around the clockface will have produced a more valuable contribution to the field than a person who covers a smaller portion of the clockface. If we modify thee two-dimensional character of the clockface and make it three-dimensional, we can see a second way to pose the issue of middle range theory.

Viewed in this manner, empirical generalizations con- sist of explanations that have either relatively pure generality, accuracy, or simplicity, or compromise any two of these characteristics while ignoring the third. As we move in the third dimension, however, we see that it becomes increasingly possible to accommodate all three characteristics in an explanation. Partial accommodation comprises middle range theory and Grand theory involves explanations that fully accommodate all three. Viewed two-dimensionally, grand theory is a logical impossibility. Viewed three- dimensionally, it remains a significant undertaking, but it can be accomplished.

Figure 2.2a – Description of Middle Range Theory by Weick

What Weick (1979) pushes for is that these objectives can be achieved over a program of study, rather than a single study. However, while such endeavors may be difficult to achieve in a single study, they will be much more difficult without explicit

recognition of the types of theoretical tradeoffs by scholars may enable more cross-

pollination and theoretical integration.

To summarize, challenges in theory building arise from commensurate complexity noted by Weick (1979). As introduced here middle range theorizing offers some strategies for recognizing and balancing theoretical tradeoffs in building theories of

by seeking out ways to limit the scope, recognize and synthesize multiple theoretical

view points, and accommodate theoretical tensions. The objective of these strategies is to

develop theories that convey both more general and reasonably accurate explanations

while minimizing the anticipated theoretical complexity. Further, viewing conceptual

spaces opened by middle range theorizing as moving targets forces scholars to constantly

question the prevailing theoretical tradeoffs. Mid-range theory building does not

necessarily emerge from a single study, but the successful inter-connection of programs

of study may be better developed when theoretical tradeoffs are more transparent. By

making the underlying theoretical tradeoffs more explicit and the resulting choices more

transparent there is a higher likelihood of achieving theoretical advancements in coming

up with more generalizable theories of IT impact.

2.3 Risks and Benefits of Middle Range Theorizing

The challenge with middle range theorizing is that it seems almost too obvious as

a strategy, especially for studying IS related phenomena. One can respectably argue that

most of IS research is already middle range because of its limited scope of inquiry. For

example, IS research studies tend to draw upon and modify theories developed outside

the field that are already not of the grand theory type or that become limited in scope

once they are modified in the context of IS phenomenon. Further, IS scholars are usually

more interested in developing theories that apply to their field rather than trying to make

grand theory developments as a result of their work. Yet, as a process and logic, middle

range theorizing may be an important tool for considering the conceptual space between studies that are premised on the either/or tradeoff between generalizability and accuracy.

If we consider that the underlying tradeoff that grand theory is concerned with is

generalizability, and the underlying tradeoff that empirical generalizations are concerned

with is accuracy, then there is still room to develop a logic and process that seeks to

balance or contain these two. Further, it may be that middle range theorizing provides a

logic to simultaneously balance simplicity, accuracy, and generalizability (Weick 1980).

While simultaneously achieving accurate, general, and simple explanations may be overly optimistic, it may be that middle range thinking will at a minimum provoke new or different insights into existing research topics that have become entrenched in certain theoretical tradeoffs. The current trend seems to be a form of anchoring and adjusting from a certain perspective. It seems reasonable that middle range thinking will operate as an alternative research logic rather than overcoming all tradeoffs associated with theorizing (Weick 1979; Weick 1974). What is more likely is that a partial, yet synthetic view will emerge where tensions between perspectives are at least acknowledged, if not resolved.

In addition to these broader concerns, middle range theorizing is also inviting for theory development because it draws upon multiple perspectives both inductively and

deductively to form relatively modest propositions about certain phenomena. By

remaining close to the data one can refine and improve the internal validity without the expectation of generalizing to some grand theory or framework. Beres and Price recognize such benefits:

“Two effects follow from the nature of middle range theory. First, identifying the range of a theory focuses attention on the scope and limits of a set of generalizations. Second, advocating middle range theorizing gives legitimacy to the study of partial aspects of the complex organization phenomenon” (Beres & Price 1980, p. 258).

Employed as a theorizing process, it emphasizes the synthesis of multiple perspectives into a new approach that may be better than simply carrying out research in two separate perspectives, and later trying to integrate them (Salancik 1980, p. 408-409).

2.4 Application of Middle Range Thinking for IT Impact Research

This study applies middle range thinking to theory building of IT impact. The broad questions guiding this review are:

• What is middle range theory of IT impact? • What is the approach to developing middle range theory of IT impact? • What are the benefits of a middle range approach compared to existing research logics in IS?

In the following IT impact literature review, potential strategies for applying a middle

range approach are explored. These include executing strategies discussed above such as

limiting the scope, creating taxonomies relating to variables or context, and recognizing

and possibly synthesizing multiple perspectives. The middle range approach is adopted

25 based on the need to work out improved conceptions by beginning with the stylistic interpretation that IT impact scholars either anchor themselves in studies that focus on detailed accounts of IT use (e.g., Orlikowski 2000) or high level proxy views of IT as an investment (e.g., Brynjolfsson & Hitt 1998).

3.0 PRIOR IT IMPACT RESEARCH

In this review I survey the literature and propose a middle range conceptual space for various dimensions of IT impact. Since the IS field’s inception (Leavitt & Whisler

1958) understanding the impacts of IT on individuals, organizations, and society has remained a seminal topic in IS research (Benbasat & Zmud 2003). In general, the IT impact literature has been torn by choices between simple, accurate, and general theorizing and no satisfactory solution has been achieved (Weick 1979). One reason for this is the rapid and continuous change in IT and its capabilities, while another one is the poor level of theorizing about technology in the social sciences (King & Lyytinen 2004).

To substantiate how these choices have been made in the past we need to delve carefully into the explicit or implicit theoretical assumptions made by IS scholars. We need to evaluate in particular their conceptions about 1) causality, 2) nature of IT artifact, and 3) the nature of IT impact. I emphasize these three assumptions about IT Impact because they represent the basic components of any IT impact story that addresses the following questions:

1. How/Why is this impact taking place?

2. What is it that is impacting?

3. What is the outcome of the impact?

Next, I will briefly explore how IS research has treated the three components of

the IT impact story, and how these have been shaped constantly by the need to balance

different theoretical tradeoffs in theory building.

3.1 Causality: General, Contingent and Phenomenological

Three streams are apparent in their differing treatment of causality4 in IT impact

studies. Causality is shortly defined as the way of connecting the causing element (IT)

with the outcome (the IT impact). I describe general, contingent, and phenomenological

(mutual dependency / emergence) interpretations.

3.1.1 General and contingent causality

In the general reading of causality, IT as a cause is understood in a truly general

way: IT as ‘a thing’ is the primary cause and affects another thing —‘an entity’—and its

properties viewed as the target of cause – the effect. These are normally properties of

organizations or persons like productivity, organizational structure, power relationships,

or trust. IT is regarded to be a sufficient and necessary effective cause that leads to a

4 While debates of causality have been ongoing for centuries by philosophers, simply put, a cause can be defined as “a variable that produces an effect or result” (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell 2002, p. 505). Causal description identifies that a cause exists between two variables (e.g., A causes B), and causal explanation is concerned with describing how A causes B (ibid).

direct change in organization and its processes. The research community recognizes also

situations where the impact is either direct or indirect (e.g. mediated), or where the

impact aligns or misaligns with the designer’s or sponsor’s intentions (e.g., Benbasat &

Zmud 2003). Moreover, the effect can be classified as first, or second order change

depending on whether we follow impacts during the initial adoption, or the impacts of

consequent use (Rogers 1984; Sproull & Kiesler 1991).

Many early IT impact studies applied general theoretical models, but often with contradictory outcomes (Robey 1981). For example, IT was found to either cause centralization or decentralization. Confounding explanations were also observed: either

IT or power relationships, or both caused centralization. Therefore, since the early 1980’s

IS scholars have sought to improve causal theory of IT impact by improving its accuracy.

In this search they have adopted strategies of middle range theorizing by introducing

taxonomies of antecedents or taxonomies of contexts in which IT is being used. These

have lead to a family of contingency models.

Contingency theories refine the general theoretical stance by stating “that the

effect of one variable on another depends upon some third variable, W (moderator). Thus,

the effect of X on Y when W is low differs from the effect of X on Y when W is high”

(Donaldson 2001, p. 5).5 Contingency views in IS research narrow the inquiry by

5 Contingency theories emerged studies that primarily focused on factors that influence the structure of organizations (For a review see Donaldson 2001). The main idea is that “organizational effectiveness results from fitting characteristics of the organization, such as its structure, to contingencies that reflect the situation of the organization (Burns & Stalker 1961; Lawrence & Lorsch 1967; Pennings 1992; Woodward 1965)” (Donaldson 2001, p. 1). In order to maintain effectiveness organizations adapt to these contingencies (ibid). The question of whether technology has an effect on organizational structure has been debated significantly in the same context (e.g., Child & Mansfield 1972; Donaldson 1976, 2001; Whisler, Meyer, Baum, & Sorensen 1967; Woodward 1965).

focusing on subsets of organizations or classes of technology thus shifting the argument

towards middle range theorizing by limiting the scope of the theory by adding a

taxonomy. For example, IS studies can look at different classes of systems including

office automation, enterprise systems, decision support systems, or other functional

systems (e.g., accounting systems). Socio-technical theory (Leavitt 1965a, b) has also

shifted IS researcher’s scrutiny away from simple cause and effect analyses. Socio— technical models identify contextual factors that moderate the scale and scope of the IT impact. Analyses of these contextual variables, such as environmental uncertainty, nature of technology, size of the organization, management objectives, or political strategies,

(Robey 1981) have led to increasingly sophisticated use of contingency models. While these studies a move away from general theory of IT impact which views technology as efficient single cause and begins to add elements of the organizational context or class of

IT to theorizing they still assume a general and a causal descriptive account of IT impact within the prescribed scope of the theory. In doing so they are not generally accurate as they lack the detailed empirical chain that identifies ‘why’ IT generates a particular impact.

IT productivity studies around the productivity paradox of IT (e.g., Brynjolfsson

1993) exemplify well the progression of theories of causal impact towards middle range theorizing. Early productivity studies applied generic causal explanations of IT impact by

evaluating changes in IT spending on the national, industry, or firm level and their

correlations with chosen performance measures at the firm, industry, or the society level.

When such explanations led to increasingly contradictory results researchers started to

adopted contingency—based explanations where firm performance was contingent upon

the types of available IT, and organizational skills, managerial competency,

complementary assets, and the re-organization of work (Bharadwaj 2000; Brynjolfsson &

Hitt 1998, 2000) that moderated the impact. Applications of these contingency—based

models increased the accuracy of the explanation, but from the same epistemological

perspective. Researchers had control in greater detail of the categorizations of antecedent

and the types of circumstances in which IT was being used that lead to increasingly

refined measures of IT impact. For example, work practices and organizational

processes6 are now recognized as important contingencies that shape the IT impact on organizational productivity (Brynjolfsson & Hitt 1998, 2000). Yet, due to a lack of detailed causal explanation these studies convey descriptions of correlations: the increased productivity is due to changes in business and organizational processes (e.g.,

Brynjolfsson & Hitt 2003). The studies also use coarse proxies to characterize the IT artifact – the antecedent—by relying on IT spending and investment indicators. The studies also suffer from problems of incorrect inference by adopting contingent variables at different levels of analysis than the used measures of IT antecedents. For example, a new corporate wide IT system is often expected to cause centralization (George & King

1991) without analyzing separately how the system influences differently individual, group or organizational levels.

Recently, scholars have emphasized the value of IT use measures such as the amount of CPU usage or the number of records accessed (Devaraj & Kohli 2003). These

6 Brynjolfsson and Hitt equate organizational design structures with practice – decentralized and centralized decision making. They also equate policy with work practice (e.g., incentive pay) with work practice. As will be discussed later, these are different than the work practices of how people get things done in their work or more process based work practices. 30 measures offer a more detailed, technical quantification of IT use, but do not explain the causal processes that would tie quantifications of use to specific outcomes. What is apparent across the use of contingency variables is that the causal logic is often grounded in an organizational imperative (Markus & Robey 1988): users channel the deterministic effects of IT investment to the desired outcomes by manipulating contingency variables.

One obvious concern is that these abstracted views of IT do not adequately capture the interdependent use of IT systems. They may identify firm level economic benefits, but struggle in providing causal explanation what systems, capabilities or features caused the effect together with other organizational features. These views seek still first for generalizability and only secondarily for increased accuracy.

In general, both deterministic and contingency—based theories of IT impact exemplify variance theories (Markus & Robey 1988; Mohr 1982) which map variances in the antecedent organizational and technological states to variances in the subsequent states. These theories, in general value simplicity: they offer stylized accounts of social behaviors which reveal static states and their interactions, but largely ignore the contexts and processes which bring about those states, or how changes across levels can bring about emergent properties in the analyzed units. This weakness of variance theories offered early on an impetus to forge a different ground to theoretically account for the IT impact (Hirschheim 1986; Kling 1980; Robey 1981). A common thread among these multiple explorations has been the recognized need to expand IT impact theorizing and move it towards richer forms of middle range theorizing that integrates multiple viewpoints of what IT is, and how it is conceived to be impacting, and takes into account both the context and the content of the IT use in the theoretical language (Ang & Pavri

1994; Attewell & Rule 1984). One recent approach to expand contingency—based theories has been to infuse them with process data and vocabularies (Langley 1999)7.

Even in light of these improvements the view of causality within contingency—based models has remained untouched and advanced theorizing has not sought to explore shadows offered by different interpretations of causality. Yet, the very nature of causality has been questioned since the late 1980’s by phenomenological approaches. These approaches draw upon sociological theories of work, organizations, and technology

(Barley 1986) and shift our analysis towards new forms of middle range theorizing that advocates the value of multiple and conflicting theoretical viewpoints, the use of theoretical shadows, and balancing the tradeoffs from new vantage points.

3.1.2 Phenomenological Causality

General and contingent views of causality have been widely eschewed by those seeking detailed descriptive explanations of how IT impact actually takes place (See for example Orlikowski 2000). In the early 1990s several studies of IT impact were framed using Structuration theory as an alternative (e.g., Barley 1986; DeSanctis & Poole 1994;

Orlikowski & Robey 1991; Orlikowski 1992; Walsham & Sahay 1996). Structuration theory, originally developed by Giddens (1984) remains one of the grand phenomenological and ontological syntheses of social order in late 20th century. It

“challenges the intellectual hegemony of functionalism, proposing alternative forms of

social analysis and avoiding dualist logic” (Pozzebon 2004, p. 250) and proposes a

7 Langley (1999) suggests that variance and process data can be complementary and expand our ability to theorize with complex data. 32

phenomenological approach to causality in social studies8. The dualistic logic avoided by

Structuration theory is present in all deterministic causal explanations of IT impact reviewed above (Markus & Robey 1988).

Structuration theory emphasizes, in contrast to assuming causal and directed

interactions between social entities or non—social entities (e.g. technology), reciprocal,

constitutive and feedback based dependencies between agency and social structure

(Giddens 1984).Social structure is understood in a broader sense to cover also material

features of our environment like technology. The main question is how any social order is

possible and what keeps it coherent, or changes it. This is in stark contrast to assuming as

in causal explanations that social order is readily given and available for scholarly

analysis. By doing so it opens possibilities for new forms of middle range theorizing that

allows for multiple and conflicting explanations of emergent social order and behaviors.

It provides high level abstractions about an emergence of “causal” interactions between

agency and structure (and structure and structure) generated by the ongoing practice of

structuring. The structuring is the actual ongoing production and reproduction of both

human agency and structure. The following example highlights structuring as it takes

place across multiple levels during the IT impact:

“With respect to the impact of CASE tools on system developers, the findings suggest that it is not CASE tools alone that determine the reaction of the system developers. Rather, three types of attributes—individual, organizational, and technological—appear to significantly influence system developers' response to CASE tools (Orlikowski 1993, p. 335). “

8 Pozzebon (2004) lists Bernstein (1983), Bhaskar (1989), Bourdieu (1977), and Fay (1996) as scholars that challenge the dualistic and functional explanations of social order. In IS research structuration theory appears to be the most used approach. 33

On the surface these individual, organizational, and technological attributes

appear like normal contingency variables, but, in phenomenological lingo, they are

regarded as mutually dependent and constitutive. Human action is both constrained and

enabled by social structure, while human action, in turn, produces and reproduces social

structures (Giddens 1984). These distinctions are important because they reconcile the

either/or dichotomy between the agency (i.e., micro) of the individual within the context

of larger social forces (i.e., macro). Accordingly, there is no solid foundation to anchor the cause and effect chain to some primary structural or functional element as everything—both antecedents and the effects of IT impact—are mediated by agency.

Structures like computing capabilities have no independent status outside the agency.9

Operationalizing the phenomenological approach to causality demands process accounts

of structuring that rely on longitudinal data that can reveal the recurring and patterning

impact of agency over structure over time.

The strength of phenomenological causality is that it reveals the sorts of

interactions between structures and agency while IT gets deployed in organizations. It

draws attention to the longitudinal structuring process as opposed to one way causal descriptions. A weakness is that phenomenological causality is not appropriate for predicting effects given the cause. Rather it offers a sensitizing device to understand how agency and structure interact. Another weakness is that these phenomenological views make it difficult to break free from a relativistic and context centric understanding of IT

9 This is a strong point for those that share a social constructivist understanding of IT. However, for others this is seen as a weakness in that the theory lacks predictive power. It should be noted that Giddens does not aspire to build traditional theories focused on generalizability. He sees clarification and ontological explanation as a more important theoretical aspiration (See Giddens 1984, p. xix - xx).

impact. Less emphasis is given to understanding potentially probable impacts of IT

because ontologically such impacts are filtered through the theoretical schema.10

3.1.3 Identifying a Middle Range for Causality of IT Impact

Developing a middle range conceptualization for the nature of causality in IT

impact requires that different positions be compared in order to understand what position

might be taken up that recognize and possibly integrates these positions or advocate new

approaches. I utilize Markus and Robey’s (1988) three dimensions of causal structure to

compare the theoretical differences of causality described above. The three dimensions

that they use, causal agency, logical structure, and level of analysis, are briefly introduced

and discussed in the next three sub-sections.

3.1.3.1 Causal Agency

“Causal agency refers to the analyst’s beliefs about the identity of the causal agent, the nature of the causal action and the direction of causal influence among the elements in a theory” (Markus & Robey 1988, p. 585).

Markus and Robey identify three broad types of causal agency: technological

imperative, organizational imperative, and emergent perspective. The technological imperative focuses on the deterministic impact of IT within an organization, with little regard to human intervention. The organizational imperative emphasizes that organizations have “almost unlimited choice over technological options and almost unlimited control over the consequences” (Markus & Robey 1988, p. 587). “The emergent perspective holds that the uses and consequences of information technology emerge unpredictably from complex social interactions. …Prediction in the emergent

10 In Structuration theory this might be structure, agency, facilities, interpretive schemes, and norms. 35

perspective requires detailed understanding of dynamic organizational processes in

addition to knowledge about the intentions of actors and the features of information

technology” (1988, p. 588-9). While the organizational imperative is opposed to the

external determinism of the technological imperative, it is still deterministic in that all consequences can be controlled by the proper socio-technical management of the impact of IT. General and contingency causal positions assume the one of the imperative positions. The phenomenological positions described assume an emergent position and tend to cast the emergence into larger social structuring patterns that portray emergence at a local level of analysis.

3.1.3.2 Logical Structure

“Logical structure refers to the time span of theory (static versus dynamic) and to the hypothesized relationships between antecedents and outcomes: whether causes are related to outcomes in an invariant, necessary and sufficient relationship (variance models), or in a recipe of sufficient conditions occurring over time (process models)” (Markus & Robey 1988, p. 584).

In the logical structure dimension, Markus and Robey primarily draw upon

Mohr’s (1982) differentiation between process and variance theory. Variance theories focus on specifying necessary and sufficient independent variables and their invariant causes on dependent variables. Process theories focus on the conditions that lead to an outcome but these may not be sufficient to actually cause the outcome. Rather than focusing on variables with a full range of values, process theories emphasize “discrete or discontinuous phenomena, that might be called ‘changes of state’” (Markus & Robey

1988, p. 591). General and contingency causal positions typically assume a variance theoretical perspective while phenomenological positions assume the process oriented

view. Typically the implication of using the variance based approach is that the elements

(i.e., antecedents or outcomes) are variables that take on a range of values while in process-based approaches employ discrete conceptualizations of any precursors or

outcomes – “changes of state” (Markus & Robey 1988, p. 591). This is one of the main

reasons that Markus and Robey agree with Mohr (1982)that variance and process dimensions of logical structure do not mix well. They suggest that that keeping the variance and process views is a more fruitful approach. More recently, however, Langley

1999) has suggested that moving from process data to more variable data mixed with process is one strategy of improving the generalizability and theoretical replication (e.g.,

Barley 1986).

3.1.3.3 Level of Analysis

“Level of analysis refers to the entities about which the theory poses concepts and relationships – individuals, collectives, or both” (Markus & Robey 1988, p. 584).

Levels of analysis refers to the level at which the inquiry takes place or at what level the units of analysis in a study are considered, including individual, group, organizational, and societal. Markus and Robey (1988) point out two common problems: problems of inference and ideological biases (Pfeffer 1982). Problems of inference arise when researchers collect data at one level and then infer to different levels of analysis.

Ideological bias refers to the differences between approaches to studying micro and macro behaviors, in which they rarely acknowledge one another. For example, macro perspectives utilize macro variables to explain results without considering any micro level behaviors (Markus & Robey). Here, Markus and Robey advocate carefully and deliberately moving across and mixing levels of analyses in order to capture the complex

37 relationships between individual IT use within organizational settings. Moving across levels of analysis is typically been reserved to the phenomenological positions while most general and contingency based positions have emphasized a single level of analysis. IT productivity scholarship as a whole is an exception to this trend in that studies have moved from broad economy-wide impacts, to the organizational level and then to individual use variables.

3.1.4 Illustrations of Middle Range Moves

Using Markus and Robey’s 1988 dimensions the following figure is constructed to illustrate the theoretical space of causality of IT impact. The three types of causality mentioned above – general, contingent, and phenomenological are positioned within each of the dimensions to illustrate where they typically reside. The following figure depicts the three dimensions of causal structure.

Figure 3.1.4a – Markus and Robey’s (1988) Three Dimensions of Causal Structure

Although, Markus and Robey do not prescribe a particular strategy as better than others they do note the under-representation in the literature of process level work that takes an emergent position with mixed levels of analysis. They identify that the this approach may provide a more accurate portrayal of the phenomena under study while the conventional approach of variance, imperative, and single levels of analysis will likely be more parsimonious and simple. In their concluding remarks two of their points are in line with the middle range view offered here.

1a. “When assumptions about causal agency, logical structure, and levels of analysis are addressed explicitly, subsequent decisions about research strategy and technique will be better informed” (Markus and Robey 1988, p. 596, emphasis added). 1b. “Researchers interested in the consequences of information technology for organizations should make clear and conscious choices regarding the causal structures of their theories. These choices are at least as important as more technical research issues, perhaps more so. The discussion of causal structure in this paper should facilitate choice and critical thinking both for researchers and for those who apply research findings” (Markus and Robey 1988, p. 596, emphasis added). 2. An example of a mixed-level theory of information technology and structure is seen in Barley's (1986) work. The introduction of a new computer-based technology into a work setting (macro-level) affects the skills and competencies of the people in the work unit (micro-level). Interactions among people at different levels of skill create patterns of seeking and giving advice (micro-level). Ultimately, these patterns become institutionalized as formal organizational structure (macro-level). Barley's insights on the relationship between technology and structure depend on moving carefully across levels of analysis” (Markus and Robey 1988, p. 594, emphasis added). These first two quotes (1a, 1b) drive home a key purpose of middle range theorizing which is to define one’s conceptual approach to a research topic by understanding not only the ongoing positions (e.g., general, contingent, and phenomenological), but also to understand the underlying structure and figure out how to

make clear where one has positioned their work. The second point emphasizes that

middle range theorizing as exemplified by Barley’s (1986) classic work involves ongoing

movement across the theoretical structure. In this case, they emphasize his movement to

incorporate multiple levels of analysis. However, Langley (1999) also uses Barley’s work

to illustrate how one can take process level data and temporally bracket it into a variance

like structure, yet another form of middle range movement.

Lastly, DeSanctis and Poole’s (1994) formulation of AST represents a middle

range approach in terms of causal structure worth reviewing here. They break from the

40 phenomenological approach showing signs of middle range theorizing. They identified multiple views about the causal nature of IT impact as they highlighted both the decision making and institutional views of IT impact. This echoes of an important struggle in their development of AST because the way in which this assumption is resolved essentially sets the stage for how to operationalize the IT artifact and what types of impacts can be expected. On one hand the decision view emphasizes deterministic and contingency— based logic of IT. On the other hand the institutional view focuses on the contextual environment and strategic choice in technology impact and the potential for ongoing structuring (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). This ongoing tension between these views offers a way to introduce middle range theorizing that seeks to examine the shadows cast by these two positions.

To address this tension in theorizing AST blends “Structuration models of technology—triggered change to consider the mutual influence of technology and social processes” (DeSanctis and Poole 1994, p. 125). Likewise they observe: “a more complete view would account for the power of social practices without ignoring the potency of advanced technologies for shaping interaction and thus bringing about organizational change” (ibid, p. 124). In this way they seek to overcome the lack conceptualization of technology in Structuration theory and promote new ways of middle range theorizing without at the same time abandoning the sense that technology, context, and human choice are interwoven and mutually shaping.

Some opponents of AST criticize DeSanctis and Poole for this choice as they see it as a departure from Giddens’ original conceptualization that structure always remains virtual and moves with the agency, and cannot therefore be embedded into external

technology (Jones 1999). Though this is indeed the orthodox reading of Giddens’ position, DeSanctis’ and Poole’s choice in formulating AST puts in front of us precisely the challenge that everyone faces when balancing the tradeoffs between enhancing accuracy of the explanation of a phenomenon and generalizability of research in the context of phenomenological explanation of causality. The broad view of technology offered by Structuration theory demanded that DeSanctis and Poole find a new way to

theorize about the nature of causality in relation to use of IT artifacts, which would help

articulate what types of things IT artifacts can be other than just being “virtual” structures

in agent’s heads. Therefore, the AST way to prioritize accuracy above generalizability

differently is no less valid than the one proposed by Jones which seeks to improve

generalizability over accuracy if one seeks to formulate through middle range positions

how to explain the IT impact in emergent social order.

3.2 The Nature of the IT Artifact

As indicated above, the choices in causal structure are closely associated with the

conceptualization of the precursors and the outcomes in the IT impact story. However,

each of these goes deeper than simply determining whether to treat these

conceptualizations as variables vs. changes in state. Recently there has been growing

interest among IS scholars how to improve the incorporation of the IT artifact into their

theorizing (e.g., Markus 2005; Orlikowski & Iacono 2001). Several scholars concur that the conceptualization of IT artifact must recognize the technical, cultural, social, and historical dimensions of IT use and at the same time emphasize both the agency

(Orlikowski & Iacono 2001) and unique features of IT artifacts (Markus 2005).

Though some early research (Kling 1991a) recognized the lack of both social and technical considerations of IT, Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) put teeth into these indictments by surveying one decade of articles in Information Systems Research

(1990—1999) about how scholars had theorized about the IT artifact. They identified five clusters how IT artifacts have been theorized. Figure 3.2a briefly describes these five clusters (percentage of articles from survey is in parentheses).

The nominal view (24.8%): technology is referred to by name but is essentially absent. In these studies, “[t]he conceptual and analytical emphasis is elsewhere, typically focused on a range of topics of broad interest to the IS field” (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001, p. 128).

The computational view (24.3%): the various computational views are less interested in the interaction between people and technology and more interested in “the features of the technology to represent, manipulate, store, retrieve, and transmit information, thereby supporting, processing, modeling, or simulating aspects of the world” (ibid, p. 127). Most of the computational related studies are model based, focusing on specifying mechanisms “that facilitate the representational and modeling work of the researcher” (ibid, p. 127).

The tool view (20.3%): technology is a stable artifact designed for a specific purpose. Technology is understood in its capacity to substitute for labor, alter social relations, and improve productivity and information processing features.

The proxy view (18.1%): Technology is captured through some “surrogate” measure (ibid, p. 124). Surrogates include human perceptions of IT, technological diffusions, and capital investments in IT.

The ensemble view (12.5%): counters against the tool and proxy views preferring to highlight the multitude of socio-technical context in which IT artifacts are situated, and emphasizes the “ways in which technology is enmeshed in the conditions of its use” (ibid, p. 127). In these cases technology is neither an independent nor dependent variable but its impact is through reciprocal relationships within context (ibid.).

Figure 3.2a - Definitions from Orlikowski and Iacono’s (2001) five clusters of how the IT artifact is treated.

These findings may be surprising since several scholars (Kling 1991a; Kling &

Scacchi 1982; Markus & Robey 1988) had already discussed the need to articulate more carefully the social and technical aspects of IT artifact. The consequence of the lack of

theorizing about IT artifacts is that it has left “much of our understanding of IT artifacts to the technology vendors and the mass media journalists and pundits who cover them”

(Orlikowski & Iacono 2001, p. 133, citing Iacono and Kling 2001). Ten years earlier,

Kling stated that “key national discourses about technology are shaped by commercial interests, except when there are strong counter—movements. The level of social analysis in debates about computerization is often quite shallow” (Kling 1991a, p. 380).

These arguments criticize the deterministic and contingency views for ignoring the nature of the artifact by using proxies of IT (e.g., investment in IT), and also phenomenological analyses of IT in that they ignore the artifact altogether. Orlikowski and Iacono summarize the challenge in this way: “If, as IS researchers, we believe that information technology can and does matter—in both intended and unintended ways—we need to develop the theories and do the studies that show our colleagues how and why this occurs,” and that “we begin to develop some useful theories—both for ourselves and for researchers in other fields who will want to learn from our examinations and explanations of IT phenomena” (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001, p. 132).

Their suggestions are in line with a middle range strategy by calling for new typologies by seeking out “multiple conceptions and theories of technology” and advocating multiple, possibly conflicting views by arguing “not to develop the theory of

IT artifacts” (ibid, p. 131—132). Their strategy is encourages the connection between

local observations inductively to broader emergent theoretical vision as Orlikowski suggests:

“…explicit theorizing about specific technologies with distinctive cultural and computational capabilities, existing in various social, historical, and institutional contexts, understood in particular ways, and used for certain activities. …to conceptualize IT artifacts as embedded in specific social and historical contexts requires that the detailed practices of their use be recognized and integrated into extant theories. Thus, how people engage with various technological artifacts in the course of working, learning, communicating, shopping, or entertaining themselves must become a central theoretical concern [Orlikowski 2000]” (2001, p. 131—132, emphasis added).”

These lead to their following principles to improve IT artifact theorizing:

1) Consider the technological features of artifacts within their various contexts as

they are appropriated.

2) Consider the detailed practices in which IT artifacts are appropriated.

3) Recognize that IT artifacts are “multiple, fragmented, partial, and provisional”

– not monolithic. IT may vary not only in contexts but also as it more able to

interdependently interact in a socio—technical environment.

4) Consider the longitudinal effects on IT artifacts and devise theories that

capture and make sense of the processes of emergence and evolution of IT

artifacts at a multi—contextual as well as technological level.

These suggestions emphasize connections between the detailed nuanced investigation and that they be “recognized and integrated into extant theories” (ibid, p.

132). What they possibly ignore, however, is that there may be successful middle-range strategies of limiting the scope, creating typologies or classifications that may create

45 opportunities to make the links between the micro details and extant theories more transparent without destroying simplicity (i.e., preserving parsimony).

While they do note that “there is no single, one-size-fits-all conceptualization of technology that will work for all studies” (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001, p. 131), they lean toward endorsing the ensemble view. “Given the kind of emergent IS phenomena we are witnessing today (open source software, electronic commerce, virtual teams, globally— distributed work, new challenges to privacy and intellectual property rights, etc.) there clearly is scope for more work to be done from an ensemble view” (ibid, p. 130).

However, the theoretical tradeoff accepted by adopting the ensemble view is to foreground the critical role of context in explaining IT impact associated with similar technologies (Markus 2005). The approach thus overlooks situations in which we are interested in about the impact of “different technologies in generally similar (that is, not systematically different) contexts” (Markus 2005, p. 10). Although, the call is to open the black box of IT, the call is in a fairly specific way that privileges a certain ontological view of IT. Given that the IT artifact has not been well theorized in most IT impact studies (Orlikowski and Iacono) we have little in the way to guide us in incorporating

‘technological features’ or ‘computational capabilities’ into our theorizing about IT impact. While we ought to incorporate flexibility of IT artifacts in socio-technical contexts in our theorizing, we cannot ignore the distinct role that specific technological features of IT artifacts play in shaping how IT can be used and how this use generates impacts in the organizational contexts.

3.2.1 Juxtaposing Different Philosophical Assumptions of IT Artifact

Conceptualizations

Developing a middle range conceptualization of a current research area requires

that different positions be compared in order to understand what position might be taken

up that recognize and possibly integrates these positions or advocate new approaches. In

this section I introduce a categorization framework that helps to position

conceptualizations of the IT artifact, albeit at a high level, to help sort out possible middle

range conceptual spaces. The categorization juxtaposes two common dimensions used in

evaluating different philosophical positions in scholarship.

The first is the objective to subjective dimension (e.g., Burrell & Morgan 1979)

which characterizes two extremes: object as reality, independent of mind vs. reality

existing only in the mind, respectively. This dimension aligns with IT impact research

that approaches the subject primarily from a positivist vs. interpretivist view point. In

terms of the IT artifact, the implications are that studies that typically assume a single,

objective view of what the IT artifact is vs. studies that assume multiple, interpretive

views of the meaning of an IT artifact.

The second dimension is the concrete to abstract dimension which focuses on how

technologies can be conceived of as specific, concrete features or capabilities that result from configurations of hardware and software, or how technologies are abstracted into higher level capabilities or even symbolic roles, such as power, communication, or investment. I juxtapose these two dimensions to create a stylized categorization tool to

compare how prior IS research has conceptualized the IT artifact and potentially reveal middle range conceptual spaces.

Abstract

Subjective Objective

Concrete

Figure 3.2.1a - Two dimensions of characterizing how prior research has conceptualized of IT features.

To further illustrate I briefly describe how each quadrant can be characterized and also how Orlikowski and Iacono’s (2001) categorizations of the IT artifact fit in this scheme.

1.) Abstract-Subjective: similar to #2 except that one believes that abstractions

of technology are interpretive acts taking place in one’s mind. There may be

varying degrees of subjectivity. For example, subjectivity may vary by

individual, social groups, or differences in context. The ensemble view is

primarily characterized by this quadrant.

2.) Abstract-Objective: a focus on more abstract notions of technological ability,

such as enabling virtual communication—i.e., the tool view. Another example

might be that technology is abstracted into investment—i.e., the proxy view.

Alternatively, the abstraction might be more social in nature, such as in the

case of technology as power, control, collaboration, or emancipation. In some

theories, technology is regarded methodologically the same as a human (e.g.,

Latour 1987). The more objective, the more the researcher assumes that these

positions are widely held and universal, independent of individual

interpretation.

3.) Concrete-Subjective: emphasizes features and capabilities enabled by

configurations of hardware and software. A subjective perspective means that

each individual will interpret the meaning and use of these features in their

own unique way. One person’s tool may be considered useless for another.

None of Orlikowski and Iacono’s categories seem to fit here, although, the

ensemble view may possibly be employed at this level.

4.) Concrete-Objective: a focus on features and capabilities of technology that

exist from a single interpretation (typically the designer). Computational and

tool views of technology could both be in this quadrant if they are focused on

detailed, material aspects of the technology. E.g., calculations are performed

using algorithms (computational view), or a technology that automates a

specific task (tool view).

Using these dimensions I will now illustrate some key discourses in which scholars have reflected on conceptualizing the IT artifact. The first example is illustrated in a scholarly debate between Kling (1991a, b, 1992a, b) and Woolgar and Grint (1992;

1991) in sociological studies of science and technology about the different ontological

perspectives of technology11. Woolgar and Grint advocate for what they call

thoroughgoing interpretivism to argue that the meaning of technology can be endlessly

(in principle) unraveled and that these meanings have no significance outside of a

particular context. Their argument begins with a subjective view of concrete aspects of

technology (quadrant 3) and moves toward abstract view of technology (quadrant 1), the

abstract-subjective. As noted by Markus (2005) many ensemble view-based studies

sought to demonstrate the variability of technology across contexts by contrasting

quadrant 4, concrete-objective with quadrant 1, abstract-subjective, thus, coming to a

similar conclusion— technology, thus, has no durable, consistent impact across contexts.

The point of IS research from this vantage point would be to emphasize the interpretive

and symbolic role of technology. Kling, on the other hand, attempts to strike a middle

ground between subjective and objective extremes by focusing on what he calls

reconstructive interpretivism12. Reconstructive interpretivism attempts to achieve a level

of subjective interpretation and then black box this interpretation into some view of an IT artifact – possibly a categorization. The ideal-type result is the retention of technical features of technology within the social context of their use.13 Kling’s argument begins

in quadrant 3, concrete-subjective, and attempts to abstract while considering subjective

differences of the various levels of abstractions. The purpose is to ultimately arrive at an

agreed upon (i.e., semi-objective) view of technology. He then moves to the right to

11 Part of the divide in the debate seems to stem from Woolgar and Grint’s seemingly theoretical purist approach and Kling’s desire to make advances in policy and understanding of the impacts of technology in which he feels that powerful commercial interests too frequently overemphasize the positive and beneficial aspects of advancing technologies. 12 Markus (2005) refers to Kling’s position as weak constructivism. 13 Finding an adequate stopping point when attempting to retain multiple subjective views and also abstracting IT is a serious challenge. 50

quadrant 4 by settling in on an agreed upon (i.e., semi-objective) view of technology.14

The following figure depicts the relationships between Kling, Woolgar and Grint, and the four views of the IT artifact (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001).

Abstract Proxy View—IT Value Ensemble Studies (e.g., View productivity and IT)

Subjective Objective Black box Meaning Kling’ Woolgar and Grint Computational Kling Concrete Figure 3.2.1b - Comparing Woolgar and Grint and Kling to four views of the IT artifact

Two further examples of theoretical perspectives that adopt a social symbolic perspective of IT are noteworthy because of their increasing adaptation in IS literature— actor-network theory and boundary objects. Actor-network theory (Latour 1987;

Walsham 1997) is interested in the building up of networks of human and non-human actors to achieve stability. Actor-network theory emphasizes a symmetrical treatment of human and non-human actors with detailed descriptions of how scientific facts become hardened. As these scientific facts become hardened they are said to be black boxed.

Thus, IT artifacts are symbolic actors (abstractions) in which their impact is mediated by their relative position in the network. Actor-network theory exists in the objective half of

14 Kling and Woolgar and Grint’s debate was intertwined with the concern of whether or not materiality of technology had causal effects. However, without clearly separating these dimensions from the nature of causality we could fall into the trap of thinking that abstract-symbolic views are tied to relativism, or that objective-material views are tied to determinism. Though this may be the norm, logically and as will be illustrated, it is not always the case. 51 the diagram and moves upward from detailed analysis to more symbolic (abstract) roles as the technology becomes black boxed, or moves downward when attempting to open the black boxes by understanding how the network is configured.

In response to actor-network theory, Star and Griesemer (1989) sought to explain how diverse social groups can still continue to coordinate and collaborate despite not being tightly integrated into an actor-network, per se. They use a term called, boundary objects to describe how various artifacts enable these diverse social groups the ability to maintain their distinctive perspective, yet still share understanding through the adoption of the boundary object. Boundary objects are physical or conceptual artifacts which aid in unifying diverse social groups because they are flexible enough to be locally adapted to a social group; yet, they have common features and are robust to enable inter-group interaction (Star & Griesemer 1989). Thus, IT artifacts that enable the coordination of groups could be considered boundary objects because of their capacity of flexibility and robustness. In the scholarly literature the concept of IT artifacts as boundary objects has not gone unnoticed (Boland & Tenkasi 1995; Carlile 2002; Star & Ruhleder 1996). In terms of the diagram, boundary objects are situated in the subjective half with an emphasis on both the abstract and concrete domains. Star and Griesemer (1989) considered how the material dimensions of objects considered boundary objects, such as maps, diagrams, and repositories, were logically capable of interpretive flexibility within a social world. However, when considering the dynamism, scale, and reach across social worlds inherent in advanced technological features of information systems, the concept of boundary objects remains in need of theoretical and empirical refinement. A notable point here is that the subjective interpretations of technology exemplified by boundary

52 objects are often detached from potentially fundamental changes in the technology or in the way it is used. The diagram below now reflects these two additional perspectives.

Abstract Proxy View—IT Ensemble View Value Studies (e.g., productivity and IT)

theory Objects

Subjective Objective Black box network ‐ Boundary Meaning

Kling’ Actor Woolgar and Grint

Computational View Kling Concrete

Figure 3.2.1c - Four views of the IT artifact with relationships to Boundary Objects and Actor-network theory

Another characterization of how to conceptualize of the IT artifact comes from

Markus’s (2005) technology shaping view and attempts to balance the social considerations without losing the material impact of technology to subjectivism. She introduces the “technology shaping perspective,” wherein the objective is to “try to understand and explain technologies’ ‘effects’ (‘or ‘impacts’),” in terms of its specific features and their role in different outcomes within similar contexts. While in the end, she aligns well with Orlikowski and Iacono’s recommendations to include a contextually and temporally sensitive perspective of IT appropriation, her view of the IT artifact, like

Kling, seeks to retain the material (concrete) while balancing the objective/subjective

dimensions of IT use by recognizing contextual considerations. Markus follows this line of thinking (2005, p. 10-11) when she argues that technology has probabilistic effects

(Harris 2001). Such probabilistic effects are not deterministic, but can be traced to the features of the technology, in which the actions of users were shaped by the technology.

Thus, ontologically, this “weak constructivist view” (Markus, p. 9, citing Howcraft,

Miteve, & Wilson 2004) strives for a balance between thoroughgoing interpretivism and

material determinism.

The last illustration comes from a recent trend in IS literature to conceptualize IT

artifacts in terms of their affordances (Gibson 1977; Gibson 1979) as a way of balancing

objectivity and subjectivity when discussing the material aspects of technology. There is

little guidance in the IS literature on what IT features are and how to conceptualize them.

This weakness is evident not only in the ensemble view, but in many studies in which

little consideration is given to theorizing about how IT features play out in impacting

organizations (Markus 2005). IT features are generally considered as “specific

technological capabilities for, and potential constraints on users” (Markus 2005, p. 3).

These features are enabled by specific bundles of hardware and software. In practice it is

often the ability to combine features that results in increased utility and new capabilities

to users. While this seems straightforward, there is little guidance on arriving at an

adequate granularity of an IT feature abstraction. Markus discusses this issue and offers

several options in how to approach this challenge:

If one is concerned about demonstrating causality and ensuring consistency of research results from one study to the next, one always faces problems of how finely one needs to categorize features. From an experimental control perspective, comparing whole packages (e.g., Notes vs. Groove) used in different settings is hopelessly problematic; if one did find systematic differences in use patterns, to what could they be attributed? On the other hand, if the goal is to find broad patterns of regularities or to provide guidance to practitioners, excessive concern with control could be misplaced. Every day, business executives compare packages that differ on innumerable features, but they generally have to choose on the basis of package entirety. Knowledge about systematic technology effects at the gross package level could be useful to them, even if the precise source of these effects remains somewhat unclear. In general, the technology-shaping perspective outlined in this chapter is not concerned with tight correlations between specific features and specific uses, but rather with plausible linkages and broad patterns that could stimulate new design research or better implementation.

This still begs the question of where to start looking for features likely to have effects. Although no one approach is likely to fit all research purposes, I can offer a few suggestions. One could start with a priori theoretical interests, such as decision making (where features that might restrict or give guidance would be a place to start; see (Silver 1991)) or privacy (where anonymity and opt-out features might be of prime concern). Alternatively, one could start by looking at the technologies of a type and seeing where they differ most, such as in the privacy defaults of electronic calendars, the threading and member registration of virtual community environments, or whether the expert profiles of knowledge management systems are generated by the expert or by the system. Still another place to start is in the level and type of integration of various packages – does a user have to go to another piece of software to communicate with someone who does not use a particular e-collaboration tool? There are many possible starting places, each likely to lead in interesting research directions (Markus 2005, p. 18).

While these are excellent starting points, I wish to build upon them by acknowledging the interpretive flexibility associated with the use of IT. This leads to the need for multiple perspectives including those that are often overlooked in classic studies of IT impact—those not directly linked to the design, implementation, or use of the IT. It is plausible that the need for multiple perspectives of IT features depends upon scope of the inquiry and temporality of the effects one is studying. For example a longitudinal study would be more likely to uncover the second order social effects (Sproull & Kiesler

1991) on less intense users of an IT artifact. To foster the view that the IT features and IT

capabilities may be perceived in different ways, I review the concept of perceived

affordances. Perceived affordance was developed in ecological psychology (Gibson

1977; Gibson 1979) and has been made popular in designing literature by Donald

Norman (2002). Underlying this notion is that well-designed artifacts can make use of

our ability to naturally perceive what something is designed for or to hide what

something is not designed for. Ontologically, perceived affordances “refer to those

functional and relational aspects of technology that frame but do not determine the

possibilities for action in relation to an object” (Rappert 2003, p. 566, citing Hutchby

2003). Affordances are perceived by those interacting with technology (Norman 2002)

rather than the list of all known possibilities by designers of a technology. Perceived

affordances could also include unintended features and capabilities—possibilities

unknown to designers, discovered during the context of use. The concept of perceived

affordance was originally introduced by Gibson (1977) to refer to the subjective

perceptions of individuals of some objective and real possibility. These perceptions may

lead to both intended and unintended consequences due the relative fit or misfit between

perception and affordance of the objective reality.

The concept of affordance can be applied to at least four perspectives associated

with IT use: the IT artifact designer, the user, other related non-users, and the researcher.

The perspective of designer is represented by the known and intended capabilities

designers have built-into the IT artifact. DeSanctis and Poole (1994) referred to these as the spirit of the IT artifact and Orlikowski (2000) refers to these as expected uses. The affordances from this view are related to certain processing or task-based objectives of user activity. An alternative to the designer perspective, users’ perceptions, are often

expressed in terms of what the IT artifacts afford or constrain within the context of their daily working activities. These perceived affordances will vary from specific tasks and processing capabilities afforded by the IT artifact. Other related non-users of the IT artifact may be indirectly associated with a technology (knowingly or unknowingly) but may still be effected by the use of a technology (e.g., Sproull and Kiesler’s, 1991, second order social effects). These non-users may be reflective in changes or new affordances either by them or at the group or organizational level that are now available (or not available) in conjunction with the use of IT. Lastly, a researcher’s perspective can be developed through the direct observation of the IT features during IT use. This approach considers what people do rather than what people think they do, or what designers expect users will do with their artifacts. Affordances are perceptions of how researchers code the use of IT artifacts into the working practices of users. Although it is a rare example,

Orlikowski’s (2000) technology-in-practice perspective mentioned aspects from three of

the four perspectives by gathering industry literature about the use of Lotus Notes (i.e.,

designer’s view), interviewing users of the technology (i.e., user’s view), and observing users in action (i.e., researcher’s view). While the differences and similarities between these perspectives are not at the center of her work, the tensions between these perspectives demonstrate critical differences between technology-use in practice, as opposed to what might be rationally expected by designers of IT systems. More frequently, however, studies tend to describe technology from a single viewpoint rather than compare and contrast differences and similarities. Employing multiple perspectives offers the possibility of increasing the internal validity between the IT artifact and the impacts. The concept of affordance attempts to capture these various perspectives across

57 the subjective/objective dimension (quadrants 3 and 4) while letting the concrete and abstractness vary by perception.

The following illustrates the addition of perceived affordances and IT features to the IT artifact conceptualization diagram.

Abstract Proxy View—IT Value Studies (e.g., productivity and Ensemble View IT)

Abstract y

to ects

j theor Ob Perceived

y of Subjective Objective Concrete Black box network ‐ Boundar Ranges

Meaning from

Kling’ Actor Woolgar and Grint Possible IT Features/Capabilities‐‐ Affordances Perceived Affordances: User, Designer Researcher, Non‐User Kling Computational View Concrete Tool View

Figure 3.2.1d - Four views of the IT artifact with middle range concepts: relationships to affordances and IT features/capabilities.

3.2.2 A Middle Range Conceptualization for Theorizing About the IT Artifact

Orlikowski and Iacono’s (2001) recommendations for theorizing about the IT artifact are essential for a broad and accurate portrayal of the importance of IT artifacts in organizational change. While they suggest the need to look at features and computational capabilities of IT (see p. 131) the underlying emphasis is on the role of context in producing different outcomes across similar technologies, and it tends to mask possible

salient differences related to the material nature of the IT artifact. Markus (2005) points

out that this is likely due to historical development of the ensemble view which evolved from a position of opposing the deterministic view of IT impact. As such, ensemble view studies have often sought to explain the role of context in explaining differences when similar technologies are used across different contexts (ibid). For this reason, I have addressed more attention to the challenges associated with conceptualizing features of technology and how to incorporate them into the theoretical account. The above illustrations based on two ontological dimensions help to clarify that in terms of conceptualizing the IT features, there is a wide variety and possibility for unique combinations and positions that would constitute a middle range account. I used broad arguments and views to populate the two dimensions, but focusing in on a more specific topic may reveal different positions and different theoretical movements than illustrated here.

It is likely to be unfeasible (e.g., cost, time, and intellect) to satisfy simultaneous, multiple philosophical views of the IT artifact in a single study. What the middle range approach developed here suggests, however, is that one recognizes their position taken be explicit about the tradeoffs so that research could more cumulatively build an interconnected picture. Returning to Orlikowski and Iacono’s (2001) argument that

scholars tend to black box the IT artifact, the above discussion illustrates an approach to

opening the black box. The first argument that scholars have suggested is that we need to

move from abstract to more concrete conceptualizations of technology. Orlikowski and

Iacono primarily emphasize that the move from abstract to concrete maybe less important

than the move from objective to a nuanced subjective/interpretive conceptualization that

includes practices, uses, and context. In contrast, the middle-range logic suggested here is

not to move to a single philosophical view of the IT artifact, but rather opening the black

box results in creating connections across these dimensions to provide a more holistic

interpretation of the IT artifact.

3.3 Conceptualizing the Outcomes of IT Impact

“In addition to needing a better understanding of the thing doing the impacting

[IT], we must also be clearer about the thing that is impacted (Mason 1984, p. 183,

emphasis added). Though the recent interest has moved to the conceptualization of the IT

artifact, there has been relatively wide and consistent recognition that we need clarity on

conceptualizing outcomes of IT impact. In 1980, Peter Keen noted that the IS field lacked

a well-defined dependent variable (Keen 1980). Since that time multiple studies have

attempted to either refine certain conceptualizations or survey the literature to

recommend different outcomes to study.

For the majority of scholars in the IS discipline IT is posited to lead to some type

of change in firm value (performance).15 Depending upon the philosophical and causal

structure (Markus and Robey 1988) taken up by a researcher the resulting argumentation,

intermediating and moderating variables that ultimately comprise a causal story differ.

The actual choice of what to emphasize emanates from how to make causal connections

between IT and its resulting value. For example, a popular stream of work in IS research

was Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS). GDSS were supposed to aid the group in

15 An example of other streams of work not represented here are those who adopt critical theory as the basis and the goal of the research is to emancipate users from the harmful effects of IT. 60

making better, well-informed decisions and in turn improving the performance of the

firm.

Bakos (1987) describes a simple model of IT impact noted in the figure below and

suggests that IS research ought to emphasize the relationships between IT and structure

and process (2) and IT and Performance (1), while leaving organizational theorists

primarily to explore number 3.

Figure 3.3a - Bakos (1987) model of IT Impact

Considering the theoretical tradeoffs, scholars attempting to do number 1 are

focused on highly general accounts that link macro level spending trends of IT to firm

and industry performance. These studies comprise the IT value debates that still continue

today are becoming more and more refined. The refinement that has take place seems to

be in line with trying to flesh out the understanding between IT and Structure and

Processes (number 2). The study of number 2 is multifaceted in itself when considering

the different philosophical bases by which to study the connections. The result is that the

constitution of structure and process as an outcome measure of IT impact is not so simple. However, the different positions of scholars generally follow the theoretical positions outlined above, meaning, that there are likely to be middle range conceptual spaces for conceptualizing the IT impact outcome.

Bakos’ (1987) simple figure above falls in line with mainstream IS researchers’ perceptions of why and how IT may lead to an improvement in the way a firm operates and ultimately improves its bottom line. In general this argument underpins much of the current IT impact literature. The nuanced differences arise in how process is conceptualized. These differences parallel the theoretical advancements from general, contingent, and phenomenological views outlined above. They indicate the movement of conceptualizing the IT impact of process from static measures to dynamic depictions to story like narratives. Revisiting how this evolved helps to identify the tradeoffs made and sets the stage for middle range theorizing about where the middle range lies for IT impact research. As employing a single depiction of process measures under-represents the breadth of possibilities given applications of phenomenological views of causality noted above.

Bakos (1987) focuses on the dynamic vs. structural differences in his conceptual framing of the process level variables of impact. The examples he identifies from the literature are primarily static types of measures of process. Given the IS literature at this stage, it should not come as a surprise. Given that various theoretical perspectives, like

Structuration theory, had not yet emerged in IS literature, or qualitative data methodologies suitable for gathering dynamic process data were not widely employed in

IS research, structure and process were either seen as separate, static dimensions. As an example, Bakos identifies the impact of IT on coordination as a process level outcome, but emphasizes coordination costs (Malone & Smith 1984), a snapshot measure of this process, rather than ongoing patterns of coordination over time. Surveying a classic IS framework paper (Ives, Hamilton, & Davis 1980) a MIS research model reveals the

performance and static nature of outcomes of IT impact of the day. In their review they

note dependent variables of previous models include decision quality (Chervany,

Dickson, & Kozar 1971), user performance (Lucas 1973), decision maker performance

(Mock 1973), and attributes of information (e.g., accuracy, timeliness, and use) (Gorry &

Scott Morton 1971).

Also taking place in the 1980s was the increasing recognition of mixed results

about the nature of IT impact within organizations (e.g., Attewell & Rule 1984; Robey

1981). These put into perspective Bakos’ assessment and his resulting conclusions. Two

of his concluding remarks identify approaches subsequently taken up in the literature.

The first was to strive for agreement on appropriate dependent variables by looking to

reference disciplines for “sets of organizational variables” (Bakos 1987, p. 20). Seeking

for agreement and unification resulted in studies such as DeLone and McLean’s (1992)

emphasis on conceptualizing IS success as the ultimate dependent variable for IS

research. It also appears to have been successful in spawning cumulative research from

this perspective as noted by their follow-up work (DeLone & McLean 2003).

A second concluding remark by Bakos points to another approach evident in the research. The following quotation is from Bakos:

By choosing appropriate explanatory theories from the underlying disciplines, information systems research can focus on the process-related impacts of the technology, relying on existing theory to link these impacts to organizational performance. … [A]s Markus and Robey [1988] explain in detail, there are many bi-directional interactions in organizational systems. Causal models will be inadequate if they do not include the appropriate feedbacks and cross-sectional data will be unable to show the interactions among the variables; hence longitudinal approaches will be necessary (Bakos 1987, p. 20).

One advancement of the process view is when Mooney, Gurbaxani, and Kraemer

(1996) specifically take up trying to improve the theory around IT and process change

relationship. They rely on Porter’s (Porter 1985) approach to value chain analysis and

Davenport’s (1993) distinction between operational and managerial processes16 as the

underlying basis for assessing how IT impacts business value. They conclude that IT

impacts processes along three dimensions: automational, informational, and transformational.

“First, automational effects refer to the efficiency perspective of value deriving from the role of IT as a capital asset being substituted for labor. Within this dimension, value derives primarily from impacts such as productivity improvements, labor savings, and cost reductions. Second, informational effects emerge primarily from IT's capacity to collect, store, process, and disseminate information. Following these effects, value accrues from improved decision quality, employee empowerment, decreased use of resources, enhanced organizational effectiveness, and better quality. Third, transformational effects refer to the value deriving from IT's ability to facilitate and support process innovation and transformation” (Mooney et al. 1996, p. 74). What they propose can be aided by referring to the following diagram:

Figure 3.3b - Figure of Mooney et al.’s (1996) conception of IT Impact

16 “Operational processes are those that embody the execution of tasks comprising the activities of an organization's value chain. In effect, operational processes constitute the ‘doing of business.’ Management processes, on the other hand, are those activities associated with the administration, allocation, and control of resources within organizations. ‘Management processes’ should not be taken to be refer only to those processes that are carried out by managers, or conducted at the management level of organizations” (Mooney et al. 1996, p. 71-72). 64

The argument is that automational effects of IT primarily result in changes to

operational processes while informational effects primarily result in managerial process

changes. Second order effects result for operational processes when process changes

make it possible for processes to take advantage of new information. Second order effects

result for management processes as innovations allow for reduction of routine processes.

Transformational effects result from the new processes and capabilities that have first

influenced the management and operational processes (ibid).

Mooney et al.’s view is primarily rooted in a rational, deterministic (albeit

contingent) view of how IT would ultimately lead to firm value. However, the

phenomenological stream of research has followed the search for IT impact to processes

in a different way. The introduction of Structuration theory in IS research highlighted the

bi-directional relationships between structure and agency by challenging the subjective –

objective dichotomy (e.g., Barley 1986; Orlikowski & Robey 1991). The rising of such

alternative views has fueled the practice-based focus prevalent in current IT impact

studies.

In general work practice is considered “undertaking or engaging fully in a task,

job, or profession” (Brown & Duguid 2001, p. 203). Yet, the concept of practice is broadly employed in research. To summarize from the literature some of the common

meanings of practice are presented in Table 3.3a.

EVERYDAY LIFE PRACTICES. Structurational perspectives focus on the practices of everyday life and how these relate to larger social structures. (Bourdieu 1977, Giddens 1984)

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE (Brown & Duguid 1991; Lave & Wenger 1991) . A holistic view of a practice. This is a “coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity…Bricklaying is not a practice; architecture is” (MacIntyre 1981, p. 187). “Undertaking or engaging fully in a task, job, or profession” (Brown & Duguid 2001, p. 203).

ROUTINES AS PRACTICES. Routines may also be referred to as practices (Orlikowski 2002). For example, Orlikowski comes up with five practices (sharing identity, interacting face to face, aligning effort, learning by doing, and supporting participation). A single one of these practices does not make up the practice of distributed software development, but each is still referred to as a practice. Orlikowski calls a social practice a “recurrent, materially bounded, and situated social action engaged in by members of a community” (2002 p. 256).

PRACTICE SUBSETS and TYPOLOGIES. Subsets of work practice have been studied under the IS research umbrella. Examples include: display, representation, and assembly practices in web development (Kellogg, Orlikowski, & Yates 2006), brokering practices (Pawlowski & Robey 2004), HR practices (Lindgren, Henfridsson, & Schultze 2004) management practices (Malhotra, Heine, & Grover 2001), informing practices (Schultze 2000), IT sourcing practices (Lacity & Willcocks 1998), strategic information systems planning practices (Earl 1993), and business and operational practices (Wastell 1999)

PRACTICE AS KNOWING. Practice and knowledge are also considered mutually constituted. This theme is set forth in the philosophy of knowledge (e.g., Polanyi 1966; Ryle 1949). Cook and Brown (1999) argue for an epistemology of practice which distinguishes between possessed knowledge and knowledge that is a part of action.

Figure 3.3c - Multiple meanings of the term practice in IS and Organizational Studies. 17

These various meanings point out the key ontological parameters of practice which are succinctly discussed by Orlikowski as 1) recurrent, 2) materially bounded, and

3) involving active engagement by members of a community (Orlikowski 2002, p. 256).

In her argument, she draws upon work in the field of cognitive anthropology (Hutchins

17 A very common and general form of practice not included in this table is the difference between research and practice (i.e., activity of a practitioner) often used to distinguish between those doing the work and those studying about that work. This is exemplified in the rigor vs. relevance debates (Benbasat & Zmud 1999) in which research and practice are divided. Many articles that state that the purpose is to inform research and practice. 66

1995; Lave 1988), high reliability organizational studies (Weick & Roberts 1993),

philosophy of knowing (Polanyi 1966; Ryle 1949), and Structuration theory (Giddens

1984) to emphasize that practice routines are ways of knowing—“all doing is knowing and all knowing is doing” (Maturana & Varela 1998, p. 29). “Thus, when people change their practices, their knowing changes” (Orlikowski 2002, p. 253). Using practices as a unit of analysis in a case study, Orlikowski inductively generates a middle range repertoire of five practices that support globally distributed product development. These

are good examples of middle range concepts as they are specific to global product

development activities and they link to high level, generalizable types of knowledge

needed for global product development. They tend to be rather high-level activities that

could be applied to a variety of global product development contexts, rather than to a

specific industry. Yet, there is good detailed support to backup the classifications.

Because her concentration was more on global organization these categories of practice

are generally relational-support activities. Other repertoires of practices could be

developed in relationship to the actual product development process, for example.

Further, using the repertoires of practice one could compare how global organizations in

different industries employ similar or different practices.

From the context of studying IT impact, work practices, in which individuals

engage, form part of their everyday activity into which IT is blended (Orlikowski 2000).

Yet, work practices and IT use in them are sociological concepts that cannot be solely

understood through concepts that capture an individual’s behavioral states like beliefs or

intentions. Further, unlike organizational level or higher level views which tend to miss

causal explanations and may reflect averages of changes and disruptions at the work

practice level, focusing directly on the work practices would seem to help bridge better

the gulf between micro and macro level explanations.

The practice-based view differs in several ways from Mooney et al.’s (1996) approach to solve the apparently similar problem – linking IT impact to nth order effects

(e.g., transformation and firm performance). Mooney et al.’s reductionist goal is to improve and guide the development of measures to improve the connection between IT impact and firm value. They are trying to move the general approach to IT value at the firm level to more accurate depictions by appealing to mediating processes. In contrast, the practice-based view emphasizes the ongoing, production and reproduction of actions rather than snapshot measurements to capture how processes may have changed. Further, the practice-based view highlights processes from a sociological view rather than trying to assess structural characteristics of a process. This casts a much larger net open to social issues (e.g., power, politics, identity, perceptions) that may influence the IT impact effects, and is amenable to other philosophical views (e.g., interpretivism).

The preceding discussion sets up a middle range conceptual space if we try to juxtapose the functional, rational views of processes with the sociological practice-based orientation. The strength of this approach is to concretize the practice orientation into the understood types of business processes that practitioners would anticipate IT impacting.

An recent example that reconciles these two approaches is (Robey & Boudreau 1999) study which links the enactment of users’ resisting practices with the anticipated functional work practice transformations related to ERP implementation. The result is both greater empirical fidelity (i.e., accuracy) and improvement of theoretical explanation

68 of why process transformations failed and why firm value did not result. Once again, the value in middle range is in combining approaches to achieve a balance between theoretical tradeoffs.

3.4 Summary of IT Impact Literature

In this chapter I have reviewed the literature of IT impact and its three core dimensions: the nature of causality, the conceptualization of the IT artifact, and the conceptualization of outcomes. It is evident that the underlying philosophical assumptions often drive the resulting conceptualizations of antecedents and outcomes.

Perhaps for this reason, scholarly literature reviews identify and emphasize this point without carrying out further analysis, or these reviews may assume that finer nuanced positions based on other dimensions are not possible. Applying the approach of middle range theorizing I emphasize possibilities from juxtaposing different philosophical bases for each dimension. This approach reveals that there is room for theorizing that strives to make connections across these assumptions. This is not to elevate middle range theorizing approach above other approaches (e.g., incrementally working from general to accurate or vice versa) but rather to offer a conceptual basis that is akin to theoretical triangulation.

In terms of causality, based on a high-level view of IT impact literature, there is room for combining multiple levels of analysis, process and variance approaches, emergent and contingent views. For conceptualizing the IT artifact, there is significant room to improve theorizing that not only includes contextual and interpretive understandings but also to incorporate varying levels of concrete and abstract views.

Outcomes of IT impact have steadily increased through more nuanced approaches and

frameworks to understand the connections that lead to firm performance. This represents

beginning at the general theoretical tradeoff and trying to infuse it with more accuracy.

Accuracy based approaches have also infused their work to link to more general explanations, but with different philosophical approaches. The key in striking a middle range here is to combine the two approaches so that general and accurate remain

interconnected.

A threat to advancing middle range theory in terms of IT impact is the difficulty

implied, methodologically and the time and financial feasibility, in carrying out such

comprehensive studies. Given the complexity of the phenomenon under study and the

resulting literature fragmentation, it is apparent that a purely analytical approach fostered

by unification of concepts, terms, and philosophies will be unlikely to tackle the

problems faced. We must be careful therefore not to assume that these problems can only be interpreted in terms of philosophical assumptions of causality.

In a sense this applies the classic reasoning of requisite variety (Ashby 1956) to the problem of theorizing and suggests that scholars ought to take a complexity absorbing approach as opposed to complexity reducing. The complexity reducing approach in any single philosophical stream to this point has been unable to amount a reasonable explanation of the innovations of IT that have ensued during the last half century.

4.0 IT IMPACT: 2D TO 3D CAD IN ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING, AND

CONSTRUCTION

Although 3D CAD has been around for some time within the Aerospace and

Automotive industries, recent interest has highlighted its role in making radical

Architecture possible (Post 2003). Because the Architecture, Engineering, and

Construction (AEC) industry has been using 2D-based representations for decades, moving to 3D representations as the central or primary documentation is a non-trivial change. The AEC context provides an interesting background of how this takes place in a multi-firm, distributed-project based setting. Further, the AEC industry is not well known for agility in accommodating change rapidly across its diverse and distributed professional groups (Nam & Tatum 1989; Slaughter 1993). Despite this reputation, various examples of complex, sculptural-like architecture have relied on 3D CAD in significant ways for their completion. These changes have been noted as radically disruptive and innovative within the AEC environment (Boland, Lyytinen, & Yoo 2007;

Yoo, Boland, & Lyytinen 2006).

In this literature review I will broadly cover the nature of CAD impact, the conceptualization of CAD, and the conceptualization of CAD outcomes. This is organized by chronologically reviewing the literature and working from the early 1980’s

CAD literature to the current work of 3D CAD impact in AEC. This sets the stage for understanding various assumptions about 3D CAD impacts from a practice and knowledge-based view. I then describe more specifically the conceptual gaps and areas of research that this study will undertake. Following these explanations I will comment on

the middle range perspective of conceptualizing key aspects of studying 3D impact

within AEC.

4.1 Early CAD Impact Literature: General and Simple Explanations to Explain

Productivity

Early CAD impact literature was rooted in a deterministic or contingency type of

logic. It emphasized the current state of the art and how to adopt, implement, and manage

this new technology (e.g., Amirouche 1993; Encarnação & Schelechtendahl 1983; Stover

1984). The main impact of CAD as discussed mainly in the 1980s deals with its role in

improving productivity through automation of manual processes (e.g., Barnette 1982;

Fulton 1982; Hall 1987; Heidelberger & Welch 1981; Koenigs & Ouchi 1982; Mays

1997; Miles 1980; Petras & Rowe 1985; Weisberg 1983). Consequently, the literature

emphasized the role of CAD in the design process while creating the design

documentation, rather than on more downstream issues of coordination and integration

with other practices. The outcomes are therefore commonly related to the productivity of

the designer and draftspersons. These productivity concerns have also been studied at the

group, organizational, and industry level. CAD has also often been framed as supporting

a particular design process and its influence on improving or worsening the design

product.

Due to the emphasis on linking CAD to productivity CAD is referred to in proxy

terms as a cost of investment which includes various elements like hardware, software,

training, etc. The logic followed that CAD increased productivity by eliminating tedious

aspects associated with manually sketching engineering drawings. Because early 2D

CAD was primarily an automation of existing manual processes, the features were not

anticipated to have nth order effects beyond productivity. From a computational view,

CAD researchers explored specific models associated with the calculation of dimensions

or the interactions of visualization with other parameters (e.g., features and physical properties of materials). The computational view stems from the disciplines of computer science and engineering. The tool view is that CAD is used to support a design process or an aspect of the design process. The design process that it most often supports is a rational, linear approach to design (Henderson 1991). Because CAD technology merges visualization with manipulability and precise information its technical features are usually of interest. Early literature explored both the software and hardware dimensions

that enabled such features. The hardware capacities of CAD are associated with the input,

output, and processing devices of a CAD system. These include the means for

manipulation (e.g., a mouse, electronic sketchpad, or keyboard), the output of the design

(e.g., a screen or a printer), and the processing hardware (e.g., CPU, hard drive, or motherboard).

The implicit theoretical tradeoff that these studies followed was one of generalizability and simplicity. For example, practitioner literature has discussed common rules of thumb around what ideal increases in productivity are to be expected in

a well-established CAD/CAM system (Krouse 1982) suggesting the broad general yet

simplistic impact of the emerging technology. The idea of automation was a key narrative

in early discussions and even later CAD has been primarily assumed to be an

operationally impacting technology (Mooney et al. 1996). The impacts would be known

because of the linear thinking associated with automation— it decreases time on

73 mundane activities and therefore boosts productivity. Second order effects anticipated were that productive improvements would free up more time for unleashing creativity within the design process (Mitchell 1979). Yet, many of the discussions lacked the depth and breadth of likely impact that might be elevated by considering a socio-technical perspective (Leavitt 1965a). Majchrzak et al.’s (1987) work is the most rigorous academic discussion of the early CAD use and follows Leavitt’s socio-technical approach. They developed some propositions of the social and organizational consequences of CAD (ibid., Ch. 8, p. 160-196), a rarity when compared to the general literature around CAD use at the time. Their review focused on automation of manual drafting via CAD. They proposed that CAD would create certain design changes (all with positive outcomes) which would result, if managed correctly (Majchrzak et al.). Their causal model of CAD impact on productivity was depicted as follows:

Changes to Individual

Changes in Workplace Innovation CAD Design Changes (job and Process organization Quality

Output

Social and Organizational Consequences of CAD

Figure 4.2a - Recreation of Majchrzak et al.’s Figure 8.2, p. 162, The impact of CAD on productivity In terms of causal agency, Majchrzak et al.’s model is not far from most of the popular literature that was based on simple technological and organizational imperatives, except that it recognized a broader socio-technical perspective. Yet, there are no

discussions of reciprocal relationships or levels of feedback that one could even expect

from a systems or cybernetic perspective (e.g., Ashby 1956). There is no anticipation that

impacts may cascade first through multiple orders of effects across different dimensions

(Mooney et al. 1996). Further, there is no mention of the potential for emergent impacts

(Markus and Robey 1988) related to CAD use. Part of this is likely attributable to the

general/simple tradeoff paradigm of the era as well as the expected outcome of 2D CAD

automating a 2D-based process. In terms of logical structure, Majchrzak et al.’s work is a

variance based approach searching for the right factors that lead to success. Their levels

of analysis are mixed, focusing on both individual and organizational level variables.

4.2 The Practice Turn in CAD Research

It wasn’t too long after Majchrzak et al.’s (1987) work that a sociologist, Kathleen

Henderson (1991) produced an insightful study on the adoption of CAD using an

emergent sociological perspective as opposed to previous studies that leaned on the technological or organizational imperatives. Her findings were that CAD was restrictive and not flexible in terms of organizing design engineers’ work. By understanding well what CAD was replacing (e.g., sketches and drawings) in terms of their social value in organizing engineers’ work and negotiating different meanings, she was able to draw out a much more detailed account of the impact of CAD implementation and impact. Instead of focusing only on what CAD was intended to do, she instead compared the intentions to what engineers were already doing – their practices. Focusing on the emergent nature of the situation she revealed the counter intuitive impact emanating from the use technology

75 on the interactive nature of work among design and shop engineers. The logical structure of her work was based on a process view of the impact of CAD, and the level of analysis was mixed, cutting across the individuals, profession groups, their organizational work groups, and management.

Henderson (1991) focused on the social symbolic role of CAD by exploring the tensions between the expected IT capabilities of CAD/CAM and the actual results of its use in the design of a turbine engine. She readily recognizes the computational capabilities as a means to inter-departmental integration of information:

Computer graphics systems such as CAD/CAM are being introduced in

manufacturing companies around the globe in hopes of circumventing repetitions

of visual renderings and thus cutting time and labor costs. A subgoal of the team

designing the Mark IV was to integrate computer graphics more fully into the

design and production process. Thus they were counting on formal procedures

routed through the data base and CAD/CAM system to facilitate communication

and coordination between departments. (Henderson, 1991, p. 455)

However, while the CAD/CAM tools offered improved ability to document precisely and integrated the visual computer graphics with a database of information, its use, as intended, also represented a redesign of the organization’s work. The CAD/CAM system was not only a technological artifact but also adopted symbolic roles of the artifacts that it replaced—sketches and drawings. This enabled a richer perspective of why it failed to supplant the engineers’ sketches and hand drawings, which she saw as boundary objects. Boundary object (Star & Griesemer 1989) is a term to describe

76 conceptual or physical objects that are flexibly used by different social worlds in order to collaborate one with another while maintaining distinctive objectives. The fundamental idea of a boundary object is that its use is both flexible in its use by different social worlds, yet robust enough to foster a common coordination (ibid). Common examples of boundary objects include classification systems or maps. Henderson saw that sketches and drawings are sufficiently flexible enabling the engineers to coordinate design activities, while CAD/CAM failed in its capacity as a boundary object because it unified representations across social worlds leading to a rigid process of work.

4.3 Knowledge-based View of CAD Impact

The social symbolic view of CAD has not dominated subsequent studies.

Renewed interest in technological advancements from 3D CAD has spawned studies looking at the knowledge-based impacts. Baba and Nobeoka (1998) compare the differences of 2D and 3D CAD in terms of the development of organizational knowledge.

They discuss three IT features of 3D CAD: 3D visualization, simulation and analysis functions, and shared databases. I refer to these as IT features (Markus 2005) as they are more closely related to the core of what technically differentiates 3D from 2D.

3D Visualization Æ Information is expressed in a common, intuitively visual framework.

Simulation and Analysis Features Æ The “ability to carry out a number of iterations in the formation and verification of a hypothesis” (p. 649). This can be significantly faster than the development and testing of physical 3D models.

Shared databases Æ “Contents of a 3-D database contain much richer information than 2-D databases such as inter-component relationships and assembly processes” (p. 649).

Figure 4.3a. IT Features of 3D CAD – Baba and Nobeoka (1998)

Together, these IT features lead to higher level IT capabilities (comprising various individual features) when combined together. They discuss four different IT capabilities:

Full Visualization Æ a design can be seen from any perspective. More relevant information is seen by “working on an entire form of the component” (p. 650). Ideas do not have to be transformed back and forth between 3D and 2D.

Simulation Æ Simulation is easier when coupled with 3D and information concerning the properties. Certain things are better simulated in 3D, such as aerodynamics of an automobile (Baba and Nobeoka). Analysis can be conducted by designers rather than having to involve other specialists at each step enhancing designers’ overall understanding of the design.

Digital Pre-assembly Æ This is a special form of simulation. Digital prototypes can be created and interferences and conflicts in design can be found more easily. The movement of the design can be assessed at the component level.

Communication and Coordination Æ The result of these IT capabilities is an improvement in communication and coordination between designers and other groups. These “support organizational knowledge creation by facilitating interactions among designers and engineers anti by improving the degree of their collaboration. For instance, sharing design ideas with other engineers enables an engineer to confirm a design from a variety of different viewpoints and to resolve design conflicts” (p. 649). Coupled with the visualization, key design tradeoffs are more easily communicated to other functional groups or those outside of the firm.

Figure 4.3b - IT Capabilities of 3D CAD – Baba and Nobeoka (1998)

They also claim that 3D better supports concurrent engineering which depends upon a common language for functionally interdependent groups to communicate. The high level of precision and detail enables broader conversations with other designers and functional groups.

Baba and Nobeoka focus on how they believe 3D CAD changes the capability of producing knowledge in product development by enabling designers to better tackle

unstructured and structured design problems. The speed and realistic visualization allow

for more rapidly testing emerging hypotheses on creative and innovative designs. The

78 shared nature of the 3D CAD model allows for validation and interpretation by other functions leading to organizational knowledge.

Similarly to Baba and Nobeoka, Yap et al. (2003) discussed IT capabilities of 3D

CAD that improve the knowledge processes within collaborative product development.

Interestingly, while they do not refer to Baba and Nobeoka’s work, they do come up with

a similar set of related IT features/capabilities.

Mental modeling with immersive, intelligent, and interactive 3D representations Æ This is similar to Baba and Nobeoka’s notion of digital pre-assembly. This IT capability builds on the features of 3D visualization, databases that contain detailed information about the product (e.g., attributes of the material or specific numerical functions for a shape) in order to effectively demonstrate a digital prototype with “procedural knowledge” of the interdependencies and functionality of the proposed product (Yap et al., p. 93).

Synchronous multiple representations Æ This is similar to the idea of full- visualization. Because 3D CAD can effectively link precise full visualization with detailed, mathematical information there is greater opportunity for multiple isomorphic representations of the same model to be shared but from different perspectives.

Knowledge sharing, distribution, and fusion with open systems and object-oriented 3D representations Æ Tacit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge by combining detailed data in 3D form. The possibility of exchanging 3D files between different 3D systems also increases the likelihood of such knowledge being distributed beyond the immediate designers.

Figure 4.3c - IT Capabilities of 3D CAD – Yap et al. (2003)

4.4 CAD Facilitating Coordination

Continuing with the knowledge-based view, CAD research has also focused more specifically on intra and inter-firm coordination and communication issues (Argyres

1999; Henderson 1991; Thurk & Fine 2003). These have been addressed from economic perspectives (e.g., transaction cost economics: Argyres) and sociological perspectives

(e.g., boundary objects: Henderson 1991; Carlile 2002). Argyres’s (1999) study is one of

the few that explore the implications of CAD at an inter-organizational level. CAD

systems played an important role in establishing a technical grammar to enable communication and coordination between multiple organizations working on the design and construction of the Stealth Bomber. This grammar is what transforms unstructured

knowledge into structured or partly-tacit knowledge in this project. The types of IT

features noted in this study were: 3D visualization, high levels of tolerance, compatibility

with other graphics programs, centralized database, remote accessibility, automatic batch

updating, rule-based verification, and interoperability between numerically controlled machines and the CAD databases. These IT features were then employed within

Argyres’s theoretical discussions of communication and coordination within and between organizations and across different functional specialties. The CAD system enabled “much better communication between designers, manufacturers and maintenance people than would have been the case without the system” (Argyres 1999, p. 171). This is essentially a tool view of technology aimed at describing how the IT features lead to differences in

information flows and knowledge, and coordinating design activities.

4.5 The Role of CAD From a Practice-based view of Knowledge

Carlile’s (2002; 1997) work emphasizes the practice-based perspective of knowledge in assessing the impact of CAD. His ethnographic-based work focuses on the

difficulties of coordinating innovative product design and manufacturing. The practice-

based view of knowledge emphasizes that existing knowledge is embedded into practices

(Cook & Brown 1999) that are situated within a localized context (Suchman 1987) and

built upon investments in prior experience that make change difficult (Carlile 2002).

Consequently the novelty introduced by product development innovations may prove

disruptive enough to require fundamental changes to that existing knowledge. At its most

extreme this reconfiguration may require transformation of knowledge, “where

individuals represent, learn, negotiate, and alter the current knowledge and create new

knowledge to resolve the consequences identified” (Carlile 2002, p. 453).

Carlile (2002) also adopts the perspective of CAD as a boundary object, yet

unlike Henderson (1991), he finds that CAD does enable design and manufacturing

engineers to resolve and overcome their indifferences resulting from innovative product

design changes. As a boundary object, CAD establishes “an infrastructure or process where knowledge can be represented, learned, and transformed” (Carlile 2002, p. 454).

Yet, he also acknowledges the situatedness of the effective use of CAD as a boundary object – “CAD can be an effective communication tool in one meeting, then a

‘bludgeoning tool’ in the next.” (An excerpt from a participant [Carlile 2002, p. 452]).

Like Henderson’s study, technical CAD features are formulated into the sociological framework of boundary objects and typologies of knowledge that flow between boundaries. For example, the database capacity of CAD is interpreted as a repository type of boundary object by supplying “a common reference point of data, measures, or labels across functions that provide shared definitions and values for solving problems” (Carlile 2002, p. 451). Abstracting CAD into a boundary object is a middle range theorizing move in that it links the technical details of the artifact to a larger, more general view of the sociological nature of communication, coordination, and knowledge

81 creation. A risk is that too hasty of an abstraction from a technical to a social conceptualization may obscure underlying, fluid patterns that link the technical nature of

CAD to its sociological impact. This also means that a middle range move is now more clearly defined in trying to understand the linkage between CAD and its abstraction.

What makes this particularly difficult is when we recognize that IT use, like knowledge, is localized, embedded, and invested into practice (Carlile 2002) then we see that the concept of technology-in-practice (Orlikowski 2000) is likely to result in a variety of different patterns. This leads to questions such as whether or not we can generalize the link between identified technical aspects of and IT artifact and an associated, abstracted theoretical concept outside of any context. It is this sort of puzzle that drives continued research, like this study, that is interested technological shaping (Markus 2005) between the IT artifact and its impact outcomes.

4.6 Situating a Study of 3D CAD Impact in Radical Architecture

The above mentioned studies introduce the practice-knowledge-coordination perspectives of CAD impact and provide the basis to introduce recent work on 3D CAD impact in AEC as well as set the stage for defining more specifically the purpose of this study. This dissertation builds on two recent works in studying 3D CAD impact that have focused on the role of 3D CAD in a perspective of ongoing organization designing (Yoo et al. 2006), and how 3D CAD related innovations diffuse across AEC firms across multiple projects (Boland et al. 2007).

Both of these studies provide illustrative examples of 3D CAD impact to support the theoretical perspective they are trying to generate. The earlier study illustrates different and evolving uses of 3D CAD across four projects because their use is ongoing 82

in the organization designing process. The primary impact of 3D they note is

conceptually a high level impact within the framework of organization designing – “to create space for a genuine collaborative dialogue that opens new design alternatives”

(Yoo et al. 2006, p. 228). Here are the types of impacts of 3D CAD and how they varied by the four case studies presented:

Project Fish: This was a paperless project that generated 3D information based on physical 2D models. The 3D information was used to fabricate and assemble the Fish sculpture.

Project Guggenheim: The use of 3D CAD “was used to support documentation and coordination among multiple contractors during the construction process” (Yoo et al. 2006, p. 222).

Project EMP: “…3D models were the primary contract documents for the building” and were utilized as the “main coordination platform” (Yoo et al. 2006, p. 223)

Project PBL: 3D is used to document and communicate designs as well as control costs by rationalizing the surface into rule-based forms (Yoo et al. 2006).

Figure 4.5a – Figure of types of 3D CAD Impact from Yoo et al. (2006)

In this study, Yoo et al.’s primary focus is neither on the uniqueness of 3D nor on

its systematic impacts to AEC practice. Rather they emphasize that it was flexibly used

on each project and supported the concept of design gestalt and organization designing to

explain how the tensions associated with the logic of variety and the logic of unity are resolved (Yoo et al. 2006).

Boland et al. (2007) focus on developing “a theoretical language that allows

[them] to explain diverse actors’ individual innovations, as well as how those actors and their activities are interrelated and produce wakes of innovation spreading beyond the boundaries of their communities” (p. 634). In doing so, they provide illustrative examples of wakes of innovations involving 3D CAD (See for example, Table 1 in Boland et al.

2007, p. 642). Their examples are not presented to generate a systematic pattern of

explaining 3D CAD impact within AEC practice, but rather they serve to substantiate that

innovations did indeed take place within different trajectories that overlapped. Some of the impacts they discuss that directly flow from 3D CAD include the following:

• Higher levels of precision • Generate 2D drawings as a by product • Scale small physical models up to larger prototypes without losing the subtleties of a design • Used as primary contract documents • Identified non rule-based forms to reduce costs • “Analyze constructability, cost, and even maintenance-or energy-related aspects of their architectural designs earlier than previously possible” (Boland et al. 2007, p. 639). • Enables more daring structural forms as they have become more comfortable and confident in using it. • Provides predictability to complex architectural projects. • Shared more information earlier “allowing design and construction knowledge to flow more freely in both directions” (Boland et al. 2007, p. 639).

These examples are not systematically linked to practice, but they are understood as practice-level innovations or at least differences in the tradition-laden practices of

AEC. Together both of these studies demonstrate substantial innovations with 3D CAD and identify that these take place within work practices.

4.7 An Approach to Studying 3D CAD in AEC

New representation technologies, like 3D CAD have enabled realistic, interactive, and highly precise models to be developed. Accordingly, the prior 3D CAD literature, has found knowledge, coordination, and information integration benefits within designing processes (e.g., realistic and digital prototypes for exploration) and downstream to production (e.g., computer numerical controlled-CNC manufacturing). The practice perspective has characterized the inseparability between knowledge as embedded into

practice (Carlile 2002) or produced and reproduced within practice (Orlikowski 2002).

The knowledge – practice connection involving CAD is obvious in AEC. Ultimately in

AEC, the actual coordination of physical production, assembly, and manipulation of

materials in the field are where design information must be applied. Much of this requires transforming craft-based skills and collaboration across different trades in the field. As a result, these processes are not always amenable to automation.

Based on previous work about 3D CAD in AEC, we know that AEC work practice is flexible enough to adapt and come up with innovative practice changes that produce innovative designs (Boland et al. 2007). These include temporal and structural changes to practice (Boland et al. 2007). Several illustrative examples identify connections between the features of 3D CAD (compared to 2D CAD) and how they are used in the practice change (e.g., layouts of materials: xyz coordinate surveying vs. traditional column/grid system using a tape measure) (Boland et al. 2007). Yet, we still are limited in understanding if there are systematic relationships between 3D CAD and practice changes, or if they are contextually centered technologies in practice (Orlikowski

2000) that would only make sense from the context of more general concepts such as coordination, knowledge transformation, or boundary objects. It is this line of questioning that motivates exploring for such emerging patterns within this study.

A first step in developing such regularities that strive for both contextual richness and independence from a context is to develop an approach of conceptualization for the impact antecedent – 3D CAD and the outcomes – AEC work practice. The theoretical challenge is the conceptual gap that often emerges between the detailed view of practice

changes and more general descriptions of what these practice changes represent.

Identifying patterns between 3D CAD and practice depends both upon underlying and enduring descriptions of 3D CAD and also AEC work practice.

4.7.1 Conceptualization of 3D CAD in AEC

A middle range strategy in previous CAD, and specifically 3D CAD work, has linked both the technical features with either sociological or knowledge-based constructs.

Combining the social and material is one of the charges in theorizing about the IT artifact

(Orlikowski and Iacono 2001). A middle range perspective proposed here seeks to understand and link multiple perspectives of 3D CAD. By multiple perspectives, I mean collecting various practice-based uses of 3D CAD from users, literature, along with the researcher’s interpretation. By layers of abstraction, I mean identifying the concrete and abstract views of CAD and how they exist in inter-dependent relationships.

One conceptual lens from psychology and design that bridges both the perception of one using an IT artifact with the actual possibilities of that artifact is called affordances

(Gibson 1977; Gibson 1979; Norman 2002). Affordance helps to understand and preserve the nature of impact from different perspectives that are involved in different practices with knowledge that is situated and invested for different reasons (Carlile 2002). It opens the possibility to assess impact not always considered by IS researchers looking at the immediate and direct effects of IT. For CAD, this is particularly important due to its capabilities to integrate vast portions of the data across organizations (Argyres 1999).

Looking at CAD beyond just the completion of the design to how the CAD-based representations are used in the building process also necessitates a broader perspective of

the IT artifact than its features, yet more focused than just its symbolic nature. Focusing

on the impacts that are indirect and unexpected, one must consider that the designer’s

affordances of the technology may be very different when interpreted by the user and

later observed by the researcher.

Affordances are understood through actual uses within the practices of AEC

participants. Features of 3D CAD may also be mentioned by those participants that are

technically knowledgeable and also by the researcher by understanding how features

enable certain affordances. Combining the interpretive view of how participants view 3D

CAD as affording their work practice with the objective notion of the technical features

of 3D CAD is a middle range guided strategy that seeks to link the detailed, contextual

with the technical aspects of CAD.

4.7.2 Conceptualization of AEC Work Practice

Scholars have illustrated that CAD enables coordination of individuals to

overcome complex knowledge boundaries (Carlile 2002), flexibly interact in design and

production (Baba & Nobeoka 1998; Yap et al. 2003), or vertically disintegrate an

interorganizational hierarchy while maintaining control (Argyres 1999). CAD is not seen as deterministically causing these outcomes. Rather, it is reframed within a larger process of communication, coordination, knowledge-related processes. The middle range space that has evolved in this work emphasizes a practice-orientation that is sensitive to the temporal routines in practice work as well as to the situated, contextual and invested nature of knowledge within practice (Carlile 2002). A careful analysis of practice can identify with both the process orientation of IT impact (Mooney et al 1996) and the social

87 implications that highlight human choice, collaboration, and coordination between interdependent people or firms.

Creating practice typologies is one middle-range strategy that more clearly connects the detailed descriptions of practice change to more general descriptions. (See

Practice Subsets and Typologies in Table 3.3a - Multiple meanings of the term practice in

IS and Organizational Studies). I will refer to Kellogg, Orlikowski, and Yates’(2006) recent example of a practice typology to illustrate. Their typology builds up detailed analysis of practices in a dynamic, fast-paced web development company into a typology of three key practices – called display, representation, and assembly. These focus respectively on visibility, legibility, and juxtaposition of previous work that will inform or be reused in ongoing projects. The three categories abstract the highly-detailed, everyday practices into categories because of shared underlying routines. These three practices are then used to substantiate a higher level, more general description of the concept of a trading zone which then explains how they were able to get their work done, despite inherent tensions and contradictions.

Developing a typology of practice is a middle range strategy that facilitates the inter-connection of future research that could use or test the same typology of practice in a new setting or that introduces a new typology of practices in conjunction with the concept of a trading zone. A typological framework also helps to make comparisons if significant changes take place within practices. What is unclear in developing practice types is if they are merely conceptual place holders to group like activities and thus aid in the analysis of data, or if they are underlying dimensions that might facilitate an even

88 more ambitious middle range strategy that would connect the accurate to the general explanation. Questioned differently, are practices that are identified in a variety of studies merely common themes or actually underlying forms or dimension of practices? While this study will not test a typology of practices across multiple AEC projects, it will strive to focus on the comparability of dimensions of practices and their changes from 2D to 3D

CAD. At a minimum, illustrating this may help to foster more practice-typology or practice-dimension building that links accuracy and enables further generalizability.

4.8 Summary of Middle Range Theorizing in 3D CAD Impact within AEC

Based on the review of the CAD impact literature there is a distinctive risk in not employing some middle range view to shape and contour the conceptualization of 3D

CAD and work practice. The risk is simply to develop a detailed analysis that will require conceptual leaps back to more general theoretical ideas. These conceptual leaps can obscure underlying patterns or themes that might be able to link the accurate to the general explanation. Of course, the view that there are underlying patterns to begin with is in opposition to the logic of pure contextual dependence.

In the following section (Section 5) I will provide a conceptual framing of AEC practice and the role of CAD within it. As a result of this framing I will develop dimensions of AEC work practice that will guide the data analysis and provide mental scaffolding for understanding the empirical data used to assess the impact of 3D CAD in

AEC.

5.0 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING TRADITIONAL

AEC PRACTICE AND THE USE OF 2D REPRESENTATIONS

To provide a comparative basis for understanding how 3D CAD use may impact

AEC, I develop a conceptual framing of AEC practice and role of 2D CAD within it. By traditional I am referring to the contemporary AEC practices that dominate even today.

To guide this general overview I consider the traditional guide of the five W’s and H

(who, why, what and where, how, and when). I then discuss how the answers to these

questions are interrelated to one another and discuss the role of 2D CAD. I define

dimensions of the AEC work practices that follow from this analysis which are used to

sharpen the idea of AEC work practice as a focal outcome for this study. Lastly, I

highlight the interrelationships among the constraints within AEC and how these change.

Who. The primary actors of concern in an AEC project are owners, developers, architects, designing consultants and specialists, various engineering specialties, building professionals, and those that will reside, work, or in some way utilize the completed

spaces.

The answer to why emphasizes a fundamental necessity of living – the need for

shelter. Because of the pragmatic nature of this objective the dominant perspective in

designing and constructing a building has been one of efficiency. Why questions can

further be elaborated by understanding the purpose and type of building across multiple

dimensions and who the stakeholders are. Asking more why questions could take us down

a variety of paths that might include artistic, cultural, or political objectives. The point to

emphasize is that in the typical AEC processes answering why generally involves some

straight-forward, economically driven justification. The result is that efficiency metrics

become the dominant measuring stick—e.g., on time, on budget, with desired

functionality.

The attempt to answer the questions what and where is made through the

documentation process. In the contemporary AEC environment the primary output of the

design process is a workable set of construction documents. The result of the

specification process is a stack of hundreds of 2D drawings and written specification to

represent the design intent in terms of what to build and where to build it. By where I

mean how the elements of the building relate to one another.18 The architectural drawings

do not provide full details that the building professionals will require. Additional details

are provided by more specialists (usually the responsibility of the sub-contracting

specialist) using the architect’s drawings as a guide and are called shop drawings. The

combination of the architect’s original drawings and written specifications along the

detailed shop drawings will then be used by the builder to determine what and where to

build.

There are many how questions that might be posed as the AEC project unfolds

over the design and construction phases. At a high level there are various approaches to

how an AEC project may be carried out. These include the traditionally distributed

process where an owner contracts separately with an architect and general contractor, or a

design/build process in which an entity is charged with both the design and construction

process. I will consider the former, more traditional, distributed approach in considering

18 The location of the building itself is a larger concern nearly always defined prior to the AEC process of designing and building. These designing and building responses take into account this location and its environment. Location dependencies impinge upon all AEC projects, thus, my focus is on how representations specify the location and interrelationships of the parts and components of the building. 91

the question of how. Prior to creating representational documentation the architect will collaborate with the owner/developer to determine the needs and come up with a solution to meet those needs. An architect may use many visual representations such as sketches, drawings, pictures, or physical models to engage with the owner/developer in an iterative process. Architects collaborate with various engineering and specialty consultants to assist in developing documentation. After the architectural documentation is complete it is used during a bidding process and possibly to help generate funding, depending on the nature of the project. Once the selections of general contractor and sub-contractors are

made, the construction phase begins. Architects often represent the owner’s interest in

making sure there is alignment and consistency between the documentation and the actual

building. Progress during construction is monitored by the architect through a variety of

meetings, onsite observation and inspection, and document sharing. Architects and

various engineers will approve the detailed shop drawings, questions and proposed

changes. Problems with documentation during the process (e.g., clarifications, lack of

detail, or errors) will also require continued collaboration of the architect, engineers, and

contractors until construction is complete. The next layer would be to probe into how to do the constructing and assembling of the building actually takes place. Further elaboration could continue on deeper into how various trades use tools and methods of

application for construction activities (e.g., measuring, cutting, assembling, etc.).

When. The timing of construction at a high level is driven by the priorities of the

owner/developer, funding, climate, location, etc. Overall the general AEC process

progresses through various designing, documentation, and construction phases. In the

construction phases the primary role of the general contractor or construction manager is

to organize and coordinate the sub-contractors and determine when to build the various

components of the building. To coordinate the when, general contractors or construction

managers will need to consider what, where, and how the building will be constructed.

The when is derived by the joint understanding of how the building will be constructed

and what and where the components and structure will be.

A closer look at the Five W’s and H reveals their interrelationships. The following figure will be used to articulate how these are related. Below the figure I will discuss each of the numbered relationships.

Figure 5.0a – Relationships between Why, What, Where, When, and How in describing the AEC industry.

1) Answering the larger why question has typically had the most impact on issues

related to what and where. For example, deciding to build an office building vs. a

residence essentially determines what the type of building will be and how it will

be designed. This is the essence of form following function.

2) The remaining relationships are illustrated using double arrows to signify their

mutual dependence. Both what and where (i.e., how the components will interface

and their relationship to one another) are represented in the architectural drawings

and specifications. The dashed line surrounding these terms indicates that these

are jointly connected within the architectural documentation. Logically, these are

related to each other because as the materials change (what) there may be a direct

influence on the location or interrelationships. However, these relationships are

typically quite stable. Consider, for example, that concrete generally is used for

the foundation of a building and glass is used for windows. Alternative uses are

much less common, such as using concrete for other aesthetic enhancements, or

are physically infeasible, such as a glass foundation.

3) How something is built is generally dependent upon what the materials are to be

used and where they are specified to interface with one another. The direction is

both ways because what is represented is generally considered in light of the

capabilities of how things are built.

4) When or how coordination of the building process takes place generally follows a

similar pattern from foundation to enclosure and then to detailed finishes inside.

Corresponding to these processes is a variety of trades and professional groups

that specialize in various aspects of construction. The mutual dependence in this

relationship is that representations of construction work and management are

developed in response to when work should be coordinated (e.g., Gantt chart).

5) The general contractor may consider how things are constructed in trying to

improve the efficiency or effectiveness of when things are coordinated. The

reverse is also possible in that scheduling processes may influence how

construction takes place.

Answering who questions involves identifying the typical entities and/or individuals and their relationship to these mutually dependent relationships as depicted in the following

94 figure. It is also important to recognize that while the depiction of these relationships represents mutual dynamic inter-dependencies that these are generally stable because they are intertwined with ongoing practices and tools that are integrated throughout the

AEC process.

Figure 5.0b – Key stakeholders in AEC projects.

5.1 How the Five W’s and H Relate to Work Practices and CAD Technology

Work practice is a multi-dimensional concept that ranges from the practice of a larger community down to a particular routine activity by an individual within a specific context (See section 3.3). The above discussion and accompanying figures help to separate AEC work practices into several dimensions of work practice that I will elaborate upon below. They also help to create a conceptual map for understanding the complex relationship of CAD within AEC work practice.

While the AEC is made up of distinctive professional groups it shares high level practices that allow these groups to coordinate and relate to one another toward a common goal. These practices I will call relational practices. The socially situated nature of work practice (Orlikowski 2002) implies that the relational aspect of practice is not

merely a dimension, but is rather an essence of practice. However, I will draw upon the

above discussion and figures to help clarify that we can distinguish different dimensions

of practice that are performed for relational purposes, but are within a certain genre of

activity. Relational practices may be discussed in general terms as they relate to

communication or dialogue (e.g., collaboration), but they are often fully intertwined with

other dimensions of work practice.

These other dimensions of AEC work practice are the primary focal dimensions

represented in the figure above and are related to the different professional groups. The

sub-contractors’ emphasis on how to build is what I will call material practice as it

involves directly working with and manipulating physical, material objects. The general

contractor’s primary concern is with the coordinating practices of the project—the when

aspects. Architects and engineers are concerned with the representational practices that answer questions of what and where. These three dimensions of practices: material, coordinating, and representational along with pervasive relational essence of practice form the central dimensions of the AEC work practice for purposes of study and analysis in this paper. I will elaborate on each of these practices below.

Relational practices in AEC rarely exist without being intertwined in some way to one of these other three dimensions. For example, architects are trying to communicate their design intent with other professions relationally using drawings. While they produce and use representations (i.e., representational practice) they must collaborate and coordinate how to do so (i.e., relational practices). Another illustrative example would be sub-contractors’ material practices such as laying out where to erect walls by drawing on relational practices with other trades as a result of the overarching coordinating practices

96 employed by the general contractor. General contractors’ coordinating practices are essentially a sub-set of relational practices that have a particular focus within the AEC environment. These coordinating practices are mutually influential with the material practice of building.

The material practice dimension focuses specifically on the challenge of producing a physical structure that must be shaped and assembled. The material practice can be further elaborated by considering how representational information relates to it.

The figure below illustrates that representational information relates to several sub- components within the material practice. These are introduced and defined below the figure.

Representational Information

Materials Figure 5.1a – Relationship between Used Means and representational information and the Methods Assembly means and methods for construction. Measurement and Layout

Means and methods are concepts of how to build and assemble components.

These are the implicit and explicit instructions that connect the architectural and shop drawings to the physical material world of construction practices. They are instructions that are built up in the knowledge repertoire that professionals draw upon to manipulate the material world to conform to a design. Often there is little change in how these aspects are interconnected, except on an incremental basis with limited customization.

Representational drawings and specifications provide information about the materials

97 used and inform the processes of assembly through specifications and visual depiction, which are based on a system of measurement and layout. Assembly and/or manufacture of materials following a designed approach (i.e., not haphazardly) requires the application of knowledge of how things go together, which is in turn dependent upon some system of measurement and layout. For example, manufacturing of materials makes direct use of representational information – e.g., computerized numerically controlled (CNC) manufacturing uses CAD data to control manufacturing machines. Measurement and layout are also tightly coupled to the representation system utilized. In AEC, assembly of components relies on a 2D grid system of columns and rows. In this system, how components will interface is based on multi-referential logic. Multiple references come from using different column grid combination as well as referring to other components that may already have been built up (e.g., vertical wall positioning is measured from other walls). The history and culture of various trades pass on various techniques and routines that often take for granted the means and methods.

Coordinating practices are concerned with the organization and arrangement of sub-contractors and trades within an AEC project. These are an essential outgrowth of the need to organize specialized crafts and trades. At a micro-level coordinating practice is embedded in how to build, while at a macro level it is more purely a relational component. The purpose of specifically focusing on coordinating practices is because of the central role of general contracting and construction management in modern AEC work practice.

There are two important considerations for coordination in AEC. These are the inter-dependencies among sub-contractors’ activities, and the length of time to complete

specific activities. When these are unknown or difficult to predict the coordination

process overall becomes difficult to arrange in a timely and efficient manner. As it is the general contractor’s or construction manager’s primary role to coordinate the sub- contractors, they generally do not have to reconsider how material practices take place or how material practices and representational practices relate. These duties are the responsibility of the sub-contractor. Using information from representations and

specifications they can apply standard rules to estimate how long certain processes will

take. These time periods then are considered in light of the inter-dependencies and

general contractors figure out how to schedule based on this.

In AEC, representational practices are routines that emphasize the creation,

manipulation, and sharing of design ideas with the purpose of constructing a building.

Representational practices are inherently relational in nature in that they are for the

purpose of communicating what and where to build. They are a specialized form of

symbolic communication, especially in AEC, because they use various routines,

standards, and technologies to encode visual and descriptive information. The

representational information supplies the information required to carry out material and

coordinating practices.

These professional groups are not limited to action within these focal dimensions,

but the purpose of their work is strongly rooted in these areas as a result of their

specializations. Each of these dimensions is part of the whole of AEC work practice, yet,

they focus on different means and ends (e.g., tools, processes, history, culture, etc…). It

is within these dimensions of AEC work practice that representational technologies (i.e.,

CAD) and the information they provide are entangled.19 Thus, we would anticipate that

changing the underlying core representational technology from 2D to 3D would be more

richly understood as not purely a communicative or relational problem but we must also consider these other practice dimensions as well. This is because these dimensions as a whole make up the overall AEC work practice20. The following figure replicates the

above figure using the work practice dimensions just defined. Relational practices are

considered pervasive within these dimensions.

Figure 5.1b – AEC Work practice dimensions and their relationships to stakeholders in an AEC project.

5.2 Dynamic Linkages of AEC Work Practice Dimensions

In general terminology the above discussion has conceptualized key work practice

dimensions and how representational technologies are intertwined from the perspective of

contemporary AEC practices. It is important to clarify that the mutual dependencies

19 The preceding discussion should illustrate why the concept of boundary object (Star and Griesemer 1989) is a useful description of how drawings serve to enable relational practices in a flexible manner for diverse social groups. 20 There is obviously a variety of other possibilities in terms of types or dimensions of AEC practices that could be identified, such as subsets of relational practices around negotiating and resolving problems that arise. I have selected the dimensions of practice that I consider to be central in an AEC project. 100

among these dimensions are not static. The resources that various professions draw upon to shape representational, material, and coordinating practices have not remained static over time. While advancements in materials (e.g., mass produced steel) and their applications, visual representations (e.g., CAD), and coordination capabilities (e.g.,

Chandler 1977, managerial revolution) have taken place, their application to altering the

AEC work practice has depended upon changes across all AEC work practice dimensions. We can think about these changes and the inter-dependencies in terms of capacities and constraints. An increase in the capacity of one practice dimension may enable the possibility to overcome other constraints in another practice dimension.

The primary constraint for an AEC project is the physical laws of nature. These are the constraints that generally determine whether or not various materials can be used in certain configurations so that the building will actually function as intended. Outside of

this are other constraints, such as how to work with and utilize the material, how to

coordinate the process of working with the material, and how to represent a proposed

design. These impose further constraints on what is possible. For example, there may be a

possibility to shape materials in a certain way. However, there is a lack of human or

machine capacity to either shape materials that way or to organize people in a way that

could be done. The relationships among constraints are not static. Their dynamic nature

becomes evident when considering how they are connected to the overall objectives of a

project and changes to the constraints themselves (e.g., invention of new materials). The

implication is that if the capacity of a practice to handle a certain level of constraint

changes, the other practices may not be able to fully take advantage of the increase in

capacity.

101

A simple and fictitious example will help to illustrate how the dynamics of these relationships. What becomes the constraint depends upon the objectives of the project as well as the capacities of these work practice dimensions. For example, if the objective is to build a simple tower as high as possible the primary constraint could be the material practices in terms of the type of material required and how to make it structurally sound.

Another way of stating this is that the material itself and the material practices are the

lowest common denominators of the design. Because this tower is very simple in design

the ability to draw and represent the design to facilitate coordination is equally simple.

More difficult than the design but not as difficult in figuring out how to build it is how to coordinate people in the most efficient way possible. Suppose then that a discovery of being able to mass produce a strong, yet relatively lightweight material like steel enabled a higher tower theoretically according to the laws of physics. As a result more work and coordination was required, which could possibly mean that coordinating practices were more constraining than material practices. Perhaps after coordinating workers into shifts to work around the clock, a high level of efficiency is achieved. At this point the primary objective might change to making the tower more complex by requiring that it be inhabitable. In this case, the workers are capable of doing so given the material practice, they have devised appropriate coordination mechanisms to organize their various trades, but the dominant constraint becomes communicating the design ideas for inhabitability to the rest of the workers. Hypothetically, the lead designers may become frustrated because they have difficulty conveying their ideas about the layout of the interior of the tower. In this case the representational practices become the most constraining aspect.

102

Once the representation problem is solved and the designers get the builders onto the same page, the dominant constraint may propagate issues with how to build coordinate with the increasing complexity. We can show how the constraint relationships have evolved in this contrived illustration with the following graph:

Objective Build highest Build highest Build highest Build highest tower possible tower inhabitable inhabitable possible with tower tower possible efficiency possible efficiently Description Primary Advancement New Once constraining in materials requirements representational factor: allows for shift the most concerns are materials can higher tower, constraining settled, only support but now factor to efficiently up to a certain coordination representing doing it means point without among many to builders coordination is failing workers is the what the the primary most designers constraint constraining want Figure 5.2 – Dynamic illustration of how constraints between AEC work practice dimensions might change.

103

It should be clarified that the purpose of this illustration is not to point out some

general pattern of deterministic movement among constraints. The point to emphasize is

that the constraints, given a set of objectives and the practice capacities that exist, are

dynamically related and changeable. Different objectives bring to bear shifting primary

constraints. In this way, I anticipate Gehry’s different objectives provoke different

patterns of constraints.

5.3 The Current State of Constraint in AEC Work Practice

Advancements in the capacities of AEC work practices to overcome constraints

have largely been employed to increase the scale and scope of projects within the

efficiency paradigm. As noted above, efficiency is the primary objective within the AEC

industry, often critics might argue, to the detriment of other values such as meeting more

fully the client’s requirements or providing something more aesthetically pleasing.

In order to handle the increasing complexity due to increases in size, inclusion of

many systems (e.g., HVAC), added detail and technology, and efficiency demands other

aspects have remained less changed, like 2D drawings. The 2D drawings are a syntax

used in representing the building between different professions and has been in use

predominantly in the modern era. 2D CAD has enhanced the designers’ ability to more

rapidly and efficiently design the necessary construction documents. Even the logic of 2D

drawings are embedded within the way 2D CAD operates (e.g., use of layers on screen =

use of vellum paper). The 2D based coordinate system has a highly scalable capacity for efficient representation with orthogonal shapes.

In these contemporary AEC practices where the underlying baseline is the 90- degree angle, the primary constraint has been on coordination practices. The next 104 constraint has been with material practices (i.e., new materials or uses of materials). One example is the industry’s response to coordination challenges by vertically integrating the designing and building processes into the same firm (called design-build). Such vertical integration comes about, because the AEC has a poor reputation (especially in the USA) upon which litigation has significantly influenced the contractual coordination between the professions. An example of the implications of the legally driven approach to collaboration is that architects have an incentive to share the minimum information necessary about a design with contractors so as to avoid penalties should there be a mistake in the drawings.

Representational constraints have been recognized in the communication process between clients that are likely not to be experienced in understanding 2D drawings. In response, physical models, realistic sketches, and computerized rendered 3D drawings have been helpful in communicating design ideas to the client. However, these are less helpful to those actually charged with the construction as they will need more precise information and they have experience visualizing how 2D drawings will result in the finished product.

Summary of Framework for Understanding 2D CAD within AEC practices

The above discussion has served to help clarify the dimensions of AEC work practice – representational, relational and coordinating, and material – that will be considered when looking at the practice-level impact of 3D CAD. Based on this preliminary analysis these dimensions are assumed to be mutually dependent so that a change in one may have ripple effects to other dimensions. As advancements in the

105 material, coordinating, or representational capacities take place there are likely to be requisite corresponding changes in other AEC work practice dimensions.

6.0 METHODOLOGY

6.1 Research Design and Methodological Objectives

The research methodology aims to support the research objective to develop middle range explanations of 3D CAD impact within the AEC industry. To this end, I adopt a case based methodology for several reasons. First, the research questions proposed are high-level and do not suppose a deductive framework by which to test existing theory. I assume based on the previous literature review that the middle range view proposed draws upon multiple perspectives and has not settled on any single theoretical model for testing. A second purpose for case based research is to seek out frame-breaking insights (Eisenhardt 1989) even when there are existing theoretical avenues by which to explain a particular phenomenon. Per the mid-range insights acknowledged above theoretical insights are varied and often disconnected. A third reason for using a case approach to this study is part of the conceptualization of 3D CAD is assumed to be a subjective interpretation (i.e., affordances) based on the way in which it is enmeshed within the ongoing work practices of professionals. Lastly, the data collection and analysis via the case approach embraces the unique and changing aspects of context. In this way the researcher is open to change and modify the variables or processes of interest during the study (Stake 1995).

106

The case design strategy is embedded and comparative. The case studies are considered embedded because they deal with multiple cases within a single case and multiple units of analysis in a single case study (Yin 2003). There are multiple case studies that can be extracted from the overall project that highlight individual firms’

responses to a single AEC project. The units of analysis can also vary depending upon

emphasis and level of abstraction. For example, the unit of analysis might be firm-level

CAD adoption strategies in which there is a one to one mapping with a case.

Alternatively, there may be more instances per case when looking at appropriation of

technical features as units of analysis. Comparisons take place between units of analysis

within a case (e.g., multiple appropriations within a case) or across cases (e.g., multiple

appropriations between cases). An additional comparison is that the case participants implicitly and explicitly compare differences between 3D and 2D CAD based on their previous experiences. The participants’ sense making process is one that inherently involves comparisons with their previous experiences of previously experienced

“commonplace situations” (Yin 2003, p. 41). An additional benefit of the embedded case strategy is that the embedded cases take place within the same overall contextual environment.

6.2 Data Sources

The primary sources of data for this study are AEC organizations participating in a Frank Gehry and Associates (referred to as Gehry) designed project. Gehry is one of the most innovative adopters of 3D CAD technologies in the architectural profession.

Choosing to study a Gehry project is an example of extreme or unique case selection (Yin

107

2003) in that there are relatively few architects that have adopted and used 3D CAD to this level. Further, Gehry projects are extreme in that they are each geometrically unique and difficult to physically produce. The primary purpose of selecting a unique project is to maximize learning about the AEC, 3D CAD phenomenon (Stake 1995). Further, projects such as Gehry’s, though not representative of the industry as a whole, provide insights to how change takes place in radically innovative projects. It is possible that these cutting edge projects may lead to innovative and/or disruptive changes within the industry.

6.3 Data Collection

Data for the study has been collected from semi-structured and unstructured interviews. The interviews took place after the completion of the Peter B. Lewis Building between 2002 and 2004 and were conducted by academic researchers at the author’s institution. Funding for the interviews and the five year research project was provided by the National Science Foundation. As part of the research project these researchers hosted a workshop in the fall of 2004 on the digital transformation of the AEC industry. The workshop included both practitioners and academics to enable cross-pollination, refinement, and feedback on many ideas related to the nature and impact of 3D representations in AEC. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed; workshop talks and discussions were video recorded. To identify relevant participants, researchers began with Gehry and the general contractor in charge of the project. Conservatively, the overall body of data collected as part of the research project exceeded 75 interviews, with

40 participants from 20 organizations. I used all of these interviews to familiarize myself

108

with the AEC industry in general, however, the data used as the basis of this research

(coding and analysis) is comprised of a subset of these interviews from the Peter B.

Lewis project specifically, respectively, 48 interviews from 25 participants from 10

different organizations.

6.4 Data Analysis

The data analysis consists of two major parts – coding and direct interpretation.

The first part generally follows the concept of coding (Glaser & Strauss 1967) or

categorical aggregation (Stake 1995). Coding refers to the process of collecting and

analyzing data iteratively according to pre-defined or patterns that are inductively

developed. Coding applies pattern matching logic (Eisenhardt 1989; Miles & Huberman

1994; Yin 2003) in which data is matched to the research questions and the overall aim— to understand relationships between the context, CAD affordances, and dimensions of

AEC work practices. Broadly, pattern matching takes place in two stages within case and cross case analysis (Eisenhardt 1989). The purpose of within case analysis is to develop a detailed, rich analysis of each case that enables one to sort through and make sense of the vast amount of qualitative data associated with the particular case (Eisenhardt). For cross case comparisons Eisenhardt recommends a strategy that aligns well with the middle- range approach proposed here:

“One tactic is to select categories or dimensions, and then to look for within- group similarities coupled with intergroup differences. Dimensions can be suggested by the research problem or by existing literature, or the research can simply choose some dimensions” (Eisenhardt 1989, p. 540)

109

Within case and cross case analysis can take place using the results of coding exercises or by following the second analysis approach used here. The second approach, direct interpretation of data analysis involves developing the researcher’s awareness and understanding of events by probing deeply their significance to the case overall (Stake

1995). This is important when considering that single case studies or limited data collection or observations may not produce insights by solely aggregating the findings.

Often, qualitative research relies on direct interpretation of single events or actions by trying to understand their significance within a particular context. The following excerpt describes how Stake, a case methodologist, views the qualitative researcher’s responsibility to applying direct interpretation:

“In my analysis, I do not seek to describe the world or even to describe fully the case. I seek to make sense of certain observations of the case by watching as closely as I can and by thinking about it as deeply as I can. It is greatly subjective. I defend it because I know no better way to make sense of the complexities I recognize that the way I do it is not ‘the right way’” (Stake 1995, p. 76-77) To provide some structure for direct interpretation I focused on the temporal trajectory from the design to construction. This type of approach builds on the ideas of theorizing from process data (Langley 1999). Meaning does not come from the aggregated instances rather it emerges by understanding choices made at certain points in the design and construction process as well as comparing those choices across firms. I placed a priority on being descriptive while trying to pay attention to the causal explanation described by participants as the project evolved. Another key to direct interpretation is to be aware of the salient contextual features of the case studies. Both categorical aggregation and direct interpretation complement one another in that rich interpretations may lead to new categorizations of the phenomena that appear more

110

important once the underlying meaning is better understood. Likewise, inductively

developed coding scheme may identify patterns worth probing more deeply through

direct interpretation.

6.4.1 Coding Strategy

In general the process of analytical induction can follow various approaches

discussed previously such as grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss 1967), qualitative data analysis (Miles & Huberman 1994), and strategies for sense making (Langley 1999).

These approaches share a common approach to working through data (process or variable

data) by progressively abstracting from details to categories and constructs. These

approaches describe the need to iterate back and refine categories and constructs by comparing with additional data and existing theory. In addition to textual coding to generate concepts by immersing oneself into detailed transcripts or recordings, various researchers have suggested aids to this process of data refinement. For example, visual aids such as maps, diagrams, and tables are helpful to compare various dimensions, show temporal precedence, and explore a variety of relationships between data (Clarke 2005;

Langley 1999; Miles & Huberman 1994). These visual aids may be the end result of a comparison or simply aid in the comparative process (Clarke 2005). The stopping point for developing and verifying categories, constructs, and propositions is guided by the concept of theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss 1967). Theoretical saturation is a judgment call by the researcher(s) at which minimal value is added by increasing the amount of data or the number of iterations between the developed propositions and data

(Eisenhardt 1989, see p. 545).

111

6.4.1.1 Coding Specifics

I began data analysis with open coding by reading and re-reading each transcript.

I coded phrases, sentences, and paragraphs that focused on a variety of broad indicators, not limited to the following examples:

• Interesting or insightful events of change or difference noted by the participant

(e.g., “We had never done it this way before”)

• Impact or use of information systems or information technology (e.g., “I don’t

know how we could have done our job without this technology”)

• General comparisons based on their previous experience (e.g., “In general the

industry just doesn’t operate this way, what we were doing was definitely

unique or different”)

• Mentions of certain technological features or how the technology afforded them

to get their work done (e.g., “3D visualizations helped us to see precisely how

we would interface with other professionals”).

In the second step, called axial coding, I linked and grouped related codes or merged codes if they were considered redundant. During this process I coded the work practice dimensions (see section 5), and features and affordances of CAD. The axial coding was carried out for the three dimensions of AEC work practice, features and affordances of CAD, and other emergent contextual themes. In this process several contextual themes emerged that were clearly important in both their frequency in the interviews as well as later in the direct interpretation. These contextual aspects included recurring themes such as extreme complexity of the project, the time and cost constraints

112

and pressures, or the traditional practices of AEC, to name a few. These were considered

contextual elements, as they were influential according to participants, yet not classified as work practices or features/affordances of CAD.

6.4.1.2 Process Strategy – Direct Interpretation

To study how 3D CAD use evolved over the process of the project I selected three firms with different construction related responsibilities. I composed a mini case study of each firm from project introduction to the actual construction process. The project length varied from 3-5 years for the participating firms. Thus, the participants’ accounts reflected a longer evolution rather than a snapshot event.

The cases describe the firms’ involvement in the project, use of 3D CAD, and changes they experienced. I identified that there were primarily four key phases for each firms’ evolution. Phase 1 (project introduction) and Phase 4 (construction) were the same for all three firms. Some slight variations existed in phases 2 and 3 across the firms existed, as they referred to more specific accounts that were taking place in preconstruction or early construction. These write-ups served as general analysis to illustrate different engagement patterns with 3D CAD, the types of changes experienced, challenges they faced, and the key contextual features. These in particular highlight the relationships between the means employed and ends that the firms were seeking. In addition to these case write-ups, I developed further elaborations that described how the key constructs were related within specific examples for these cases. The purpose of these further elaborations was to knit together the logic of impact between 3D CAD and work practices within the AEC context. These three cases are embedded cases within the

113

same project and along with the coding results formed the basis of the theory building in the discussion section.

7.0 FINDINGS

The results of the coding process are divided into three categories: Key contextual factors, 3D CAD affordances, 3D CAD features, and work practice changes. Following these results three case studies describe how the coded results (3D CAD affordances, features, and work practice changes) are knit together. These cases are drawn from three construction firms in the Gehry project with no prior 3D CAD experience– the general contractor, the framing sub-contractor, and the concrete sub-contractor. The final section summarizes the findings.

7.1 Key Contextual Factors

These contextual factors are similar to those presented in section 5 as part of the description of the existing AEC environment and the use of 2D CAD and drawings.

These factors are key in the sense of being identified as salient to participants in affecting this AEC project.

7.1.1 Traditional Relational practices

The current relational practices in AEC are organized as a loosely coupled system. It is loosely coupled (Weick 1976) because there are a variety of specialists, consultants, and trades that coordinate their activity around a set of 2D representations that convey the design intent of the architect. Each of these specialists comes from a

114 different community of practice (Brown & Duguid 1991). This system of organization provides flexibility for the uniqueness of each project. However, it also fosters an environment in which macro-level innovation is difficult because of the difficult in changing a variety of loosely connected firms. The professional groups in the industry have become increasingly specialized, focusing narrowly on a particular area with limited awareness of others on the project. The role of a general contractor or construction manager is to coordinate the construction phase of the project, and their objective is to do so in a way that results in the minimum costs and shortest time possible while meeting the functional and quality requirements of the client and architect21. Depending upon the particular contractual arrangement, the risk of cost and time overruns may reside with the general contractor or with individual sub-contractors. The relational position of the architect with the general contractor and trades has evolved from the historical, centralized position of a master builder to one that validates that the original design intent is achieved. The distributed coordination between the architect, general contractor, and sub-contractors has fostered a system in which control is enforced primarily through the use of legal contracting and governance. (See section 5 for additional discussion on the traditional AEC work practice).

7.1.2 Legal Issues

Architects avoid legal exposure by limiting how much information they share. To avoid legal responsibility they will specify the design intent of the building program, but they will leave most of the details to be worked out by the contractor and the sub- contractors. The responsibility of the details are shifted to the trades because they are

21 Like project managers they manage three interrelated constraints: cost, time, and functionality. 115 required to create shop drawings that are often reviewed and approved by the architect and his associates and consultants. Further, not having to flesh out every single detail means that the architect does not need to become an expert in all of the trades.

Participants interviewed recognized inefficiencies, such as lack of sharing information, that have emerged in the contractual practices of the AEC industry to protect and limit legal liabilities in the event of project failures, cost and time overruns.

7.1.3 Economic Constraints

AEC projects are generally large capital expenditures expected to last for a relatively long period. Due to the high cost, there is a general tendency to focus on purely functional aspects of design with less consideration for other design concerns. Further, the funding structure of the AEC industry is driven by time and budget constraints and demands for improving efficiency. In turn there is a strong need for ongoing, accurate estimations starting early in the project. These values reinforce a focus on exploiting the status-quo in terms of design, and they stress cost cutting.

7.1.4 Localized Dependencies

AEC projects draw upon local resources in terms of skills of trades, are built for different clients, and take place geographically in different locales. Each project has to determine the resources available and figure out how to make them work given the building design and material choices. Localized dependencies create a high likelihood that each project is unique and will not benefit from repetitive, mass manufacturing.

116

7.1.5 Unique and Complex Designs

AEC projects are already unique given the localized dependencies. Customized

and unique designs exacerbate these issues. Gehry strives to avoid repeating their designs

making each building unique and often increasingly complex as they and those they

collaborate with increase in their capacity and confidence to do so. Gehry and his

colleagues also have increased the level of complexity in their buildings as they have

been able to exploit the technology and create tighter relationships with manufacturers, engineering and construction firms. These tighter relationships improve their capacity to

innovate in new ways. Because they are constantly pushing for different and innovative

designs the result is a relatively high cost building due to the significant custom, non-

standard materials and processes for fabricating and installing the materials.

7.1.6 3D CAD use in Architecture

The use of 3D in architecture began primarily with the focus conveying the design

ideas in a natural 3D visualization. Alternatively, engineers adopted 3D for dynamic

analysis and automation. The merging of the 3D visual and 3D analytic capabilities was

not well integrated when Gehry was looking at software options in the early 1990s.

7.1.7 3D CAD use by Gehry

3D CAD use began in the early 1990s with the Fish Sculpture in Barcelona and later for the renowned Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. According to a Gehry Partner,

3D has evolved to be the “center of the process” in Gehry’s office. Gehry does not

consider that 3D software has caused them to create the undulating structures but it has

enabled them to make their ideas a reality by solving problems in conveying enough of

117

the right information so that other designers and builders can respond and come up with means and methods to construct the designs.

7.1.8 Summary of Key Contextual Factors

The AEC industry has been recognized for its lack of ability to flexibly innovate

due to its unique, project-based context (Nam & Tatum 1988) and one where information sharing is hindered by fears of legal recourse. Participants we interviewed were cognizant

of these contextual factors of the industry and the challenges presented in the face of

Gehry’s complex, rule-breaking designs. The above mentioned contextual factors

underline the significance of some of the changes that participants note. They also clarify

whether or not Gehry’s designs and the implications of constructing them are radical.

System wide and radical changes are the most disruptive in that they represent changes to

the existing linkages between firms as well as the underlying concepts (Slaughter 2000).

These changes are considered non-trivial as the participants with years of experience

identify that they have never or rarely engaged in the type of work practice changes that

they did on the Gehry project.

7.2 3D CAD Affordances

I now describe the role of 3D CAD in terms of its features and perceived

affordances. I also describe how several key underlying features of 3D CAD enable or

enhance these perceived affordances.

118

7.2.1 3D Visualizing

Perhaps the most recognized use of 3D is for realistic visualization. Architecture has relied for some time on 3D visualization to help communicate ideas with the client about proposed designs. However, Gehry’s models developed in CATIA™ are not completed to finalized 3D pictures. 3D visualization in this case served more as an analytical test rather than as an aesthetic, representational tool. For example, an architect might be more interested in looking at a wire frame representation in 3D to understand how developed and ruled the surfaces are vs. trying to understand the aesthetics of the project. Another example of a non-realistic visualization process is to understand more fluidly how different aspects or programs of the building flow or interface one with another. Further, because it is an entire model the ease of assessing the surrounding interfaces between different engineering and construction responsibilities increases.

Further, although 3D visualization was not realistic it still served a purpose in affording builders with views of complex relationships between materials.

7.2.2 Modeling

Modeling is a generic term to describe a general process of creating and developing a 3D digital prototype in 3D CAD. Modeling with 3D affords a more holistic view compared to fragmented view compared to working in 2D cross sectional, overhead, or perspective drawings. The difference is that working in 2D is more similar to hand drawing and sketching than developing a digital 3D model. This affordance refers to the ability to visually model as well as make use of the geometric data. CATIA™ was selected in part because it had the capability to provide the geometric information that

119

was ultimately driving the visualization. It was the geometric information that Gehry felt

they needed to communicate in more detail how to build their complex geometries. Some participants noted that CATIA™ allowed them to “come up with concepts on the computer. Concept generation according to a participant meant being able to test or prototype many ideas digitally before deciding and testing the best one with a physical prototype. Several of the other affordances mentioned are specific aspects of the overall concept of modeling in 3D.

7.2.3 Predicting

Able to predict, simulate, or test material quantities, constructability, structural integrity, etc. In general, good prediction and estimation of the time and cost to complete projects is a necessity. Prediction becomes more important in projects with significant complexity that may disrupt the fundamental assumptions that most estimators work with. “It’s a mechanical design program, but it had certain functional features that we needed, that we could use. We wanted to be able to develop and unfold surfaces, predict

the way we could shape the metal and, and you know, we had very specific ideas. But the

ideas about how to build it existed before the software. I remember software was just

brought in to take care of those, each of those operations” (Glymph). Zahner (metal

fabricator) mentions that many of the interferences “happen up front…you’re planning

for the result and to me that, that is gonna save in the construction industry and in my

industry-fabrication and construction-tons of time.”

120

7.2.4 Collision detection

CATIA™ enables the specification of certain conditions and relationships between geometric objects and automatically determines if these conditions are violated.

One example is when detailers of a 3D model begin taking a wire frame model and adding depth and detail, they can determine if certain aspects or different layers of the building interfere with one another. Collision detection can be simply a visual inspection of intersecting objects or automated in CATIA™.

7.2.5 Increased accuracy

A simple theme from a variety of participants is the ability of CATIA to increase the accuracy between the design intent and the actual constructed structure. This requires much more precision and tighter tolerances in the field. Increased accuracy in the Gehry project also comes from the change to 3D surveying and layouts in which the control points are referenced from a single origin rather than a relational measurement system based on columns and grids and all relate back to a single origin.

7.2.6 Dimensional control

Closely related to the idea of increased accuracy some participants referred the affordance of being able to control more accurately the layouts and building process.

CATIA™ affords the modeling of a digital prototype in which changes can be made via dimensional specification and not just visually changing it. From the vantage of the architect this means being able to control and coordinate the consequences of a continuously changing geometry. Thus, not only does the control increase from the view of tighter tolerances, the control is enhances when design decisions can be made later on,

121

even during the later stages of construction. Dimensional control is enhanced as well

because the process established for this project was that the architect had contractual

control of the control points for layouts.

7.2.7 Isomorphic model

A single, digital model of the building enables better tracking and allows the sub-

contractors to build directly from the single model rather than recreate detailed shop

drawings. An isomorphic model enables multiple views of the building at varying levels

of detail that are fully, consistently integrated into a single whole. The alternative is that

AEC participants try to understand and assess the building through a set of 2D drawings

and elevation perspectives.

7.3 3D CAD Features

Features were less likely to be noted by participants in the context of their practices. Based on the affordances that participants mentioned, 3D CAD features that were critical to the way in which 3D CAD afforded a particular practice were identified.

7.3.1 XYZ coordinate system

3D CAD triangulates the geometric position of objects using XYZ coordinate information in relationship to a constant origin (e.g., 0,0,0). 3D coordinate information enabled other features of CATIA noted below. One example is the calculation of the relationships and interferences between different objects based on their position in 3D

space.

122

7.3.2 Bezier and B-spline calculations

Determining the XYZ points for the objects in 3D CAD depends upon Bezier

polynomial equations and/or Non Uniform Rational Basis, or Bezier Spline (NURBS).

To build the free form curves architects needed to communicate enough information to

builders in order to construct these shapes. The information about these curves comes

from these mathematical equations.

7.3.3 3D object properties

The objects modeled in CAD can be assigned data and specifications. For

example, an object can be assigned corresponding material properties such as metal or

wood. The link between modeled objects and their properties replaces the traditional

representational approach in which detail in 2D drawings are noted in the specifications

documents. For example, structural engineers can assign objects certain properties and

then test and simulate how they handle various loads.

7.3.4 Parametric

Objects in a 3D CAD can be described with properties and therefore logical

relationships can be modeled based on the properties or the object’s XYZ coordinate in

space. When changes are made to a model or when different components interface one

could predict the behaviors of materials and interconnections or interferences between

components.

123

7.3.5 Interoperability

Interoperability refers to the ability to transfer data between CAD systems (2D

and 3D) based on standard file formats. While this is not a unique feature to 3D CAD it

was critical in that various sub-contractors relied on the ability to transfer data to other

CAD (3D and 2D) applications that they had licenses to and that their users were more

comfortable using.

7.4 Summary: Relationships between Features and Affordances

Affordances are dependent upon the features of 3D CAD identified by participants use or inferred through logical relationships. The following table depicts how

affordances either depend on or are enhanced by the features noted above. These are not

all inclusive dependencies or enhancing features, nor are the possible enhancing features

always operating within a given practice. Thus, there are there are additional basic

features of CAD that were not emphasized or probably taken for granted by the

participants, such as input, graphical output, etc. upon which these affordances depend.

Affordances 3D Collision Dimensional Modeling Predicting Increased Single visualizing detection control accuracy model XYZ coordinate dependent on → system

Bezier/B-spline dependent on → equation 3D object enhanced by → properties Features Features enhanced by → Parametric

enhanced by → Interoperability Figure 7.4 – Dependence and Enhancing Relationships between 3D CAD features and affordances

124

It is evident from the table that Bezier/B-Spline equations are the critical feature

generating the underlying mathematical description of a three coordinate – XYZ –

graphically based depiction. Thus, all of the affordances depend on these two critical

features.22 The other features in most all of the cases add additional enhancements to the affordances. A few illustrations of how these other features enhance 3D visualization are described below.

3D object properties may enhance the visualization by allowing an architect to observe analytically or aesthetically how various finishes (concrete, metal, wood, painted surfaces, etc…) interact in a given space. Structural engineers give properties to certain objects in the 3D model in order to evaluate the structural integrity. Parametric features, when setup, allow one to understand analytically, the possible implications of design

changes. For example, interference checking can be automated to find potential conflicts

in model objects. Interoperability enhances the affordance of visualizing by allowing

others without access to the original 3D software (e.g., CATIA™) to take extracts and

visualize them in their own software (e.g., AutoCAD™).

The next section looks at the work practice changes by identifying the patterns of

difference and similarity between firms with and without previous experience with 3D

CAD.

22 This highlights richness that emerges beyond solely looking at features. It also illustrates how seemingly several distinctive affordances in the work practices are enabled by a critical few set of features. 125

7.5 Work Practice Changes

According to the framework outlined previously I report on the three dimensions

of AEC work practice –representational, coordinating, and material as well as general

relational practices. Relational practices are fundamental to the practice perspective and

are considered throughout the other dimensions. General relational practices will be

discussed together with the specific sub-set of relational practices – coordinating practice

changes.

7.5.1 General Relational and Specific Coordinating Practice Changes

As noted in section 5, the relational practice dimension is a fundamental dimension of the practice-based view. In this section I report the general relational

sequence between the core professions in a conventional AEC project – architects,

engineers/consultants, general contractors/construction managers, and sub-contractors. I also consider the more specific form of the relational practice dimension – coordinating practice dimension. The following figure illustrates at a high-level the involvement of various professions from design to construction and compares this to differences in the

Gehry project.

126

127

128

Relational and coordinating practice changes were evident in six different types of coded practice changes detailed in the following six sub-sections.

7.5.1.1 Increase in Collaboration

The most commonly mentioned relational work practice change by participants was an increase collaborative activity when compared to their previous experiences in

AEC projects. By collaborations, the participants meant changes to and/or new inter- professional interactions and to interactions within their respective professions. Simply put, they worked more closely with those they routinely interact, and at times they collaborated with others either inside or outside their firm that they had not previously.

Compared to their previous experiences in the AEC environment some felt that they were creating more of a team environment by “breaking traditional barriers.” The structural engineer stated that in the contract it says that the records are to be submitted to the architect because the structural engineer is contractually part of the architect. “…we’re just an extension. We’re a tool. You know? We’re on his team rather than a separate entity.” Some did not interpret these collaborations as revolutionary, but rather a necessity given the nature and uniqueness of the project. Many of the participants also discussed their admiration and respect for the other professional groups and the way in which cooperation took place. Given that nearly all of the participants had multiple years of experience in numerous AEC projects, this highlights the non-trivial nature of these changes.

129

7.5.1.2 Frequency of Communication

Participants noted that the intensity of existing communication increased on the

project. They often referred to this as an increase in “back and forth” communication

within and between professional groups. These increases can be seen to stem from a

combination of the increase in solving complex problems and in the commensurate use of

3D CAD software that supported solving many of these problems. In traditional projects,

intensity of communication may revolve around the negotiation of contractual

obligations, timelines, budgets, and responsibilities. These same types of communicative

activity were present in this setting as well. However, the intensity of communication

here refers to applying technical knowledge toward a solution in a collaborative way by

drawing on the established relationships that exist in AEC projects.

7.5.1.3 Centralization in Coordination

Taking advantage of the use of a single model and the unfamiliarity of using 3D

the general contractor, JWB23, decided to centralize much of the surveying and layout.

While this is traditionally done by each trade many of the trades had not used a 3D coordinate system and would allocate budget to come up to speed in terms of equipment and personnel. To do this, control points had to be extracted from the 3D model into spreadsheets. These control points were more accurate as they are related to a single origin in 3D space than a relational measurement system in which the trades measure from a variety of sources. Given that the complex shape required tighter tolerances and

23 JWB is a pseudonym 130

was not visually intuitive (e.g., rectilinear) accuracy was paramount. The result of this

change was that coordination between trades improved resulting in less wait time.

7.5.1.4 Sequence Shifting

The previous example of centralizing the surveying function also relates to other

benefits gained in altering coordination sequences among the trades. JWB was not only

able to improve the timeliness of coordination but also improved efficiency by changing

the traditional sequence of events in placing steel, running conduit, and boxing out for

penetrations in concrete. The result was less idle time for various trades than would

normally happen.

Other shifts and timing in coordination occurred due to the nature of complexity of the structure. For example, in certain areas that might be difficult to get to the entire

construction would be completed while the scaffolding and access was available. This

meant that framing, drywall, and painting would be completed, whereas in a normal

project each system would be completed at a much larger scale before the next begins.

Another example of sequence shifting is the window manufacturer relying upon the

digital measurements to fabricate windows instead of the traditional approach of

measuring after the concrete is placed. This type of sequence increased the degree of

precision that had to be high so that components (e.g., windows) that followed an earlier

system (e.g., concrete) would fit.

7.5.1.5 Increase in Design Participation

Gehry employed a process they called “design assist.” Design assist is the preconstruction involvement and commitment of sub-contractors in figuring out how to

131

design and build the complex shapes. The participation in design varied with some

contractors feeling like they were involved to improve the accuracy of budget and time

estimates to others feeling like they were actually a part of the design. A striking example

is that of KB, the framing and drywall contractor, who assisted in designing a new

framing and drywall technique for the undulating and curving walls. Several participants

stated that compared to their non-Gehry projects they felt like they were actually

involved in the creative process, jointly designing, something that had never happened in

previous experiences.

7.5.1.6 Increase in Scope of Involvement

The structural engineer, DeSimone, commented about how working on Gehry

projects they tend “to get nosy” and involved in others’ business. They attribute this

increase in involvement to the fact that 3D models allow one to see the interfaces of

others in the project. Another reason that this seems to take place is due to the complex

nature of the project as well as the relationship Gehry has with this structural engineering

firm. Participants from the structural engineering firm fully expected to interact and step

outside their normal duties throughout the designing process.

7.5.1.7 Intra-firm coordination

In addition to inter-firm coordination changes, I noted that some intra-firm coordination patterns also changed. We can see this through the types of coordination that occurred for the concrete sub-contractor, VRL24. VRL changed their coordinating

patterns when the formwork engineer and the field workers became much more tightly

24 VRL is a pseudonym. 132 interconnected, developing their own vocabulary of communication and learning from one another. The drywall and framing contractor, KB25, also developed new patterns of communication that involved one of their key managers acting as the translator between the architect and his own firm. In this process he spent months flying back and forth from the architect’s office working out design ideas and the returning to his facilities to test out what he had come up with. This process involved working in 3D to prototype and transferring data to other CAD platforms within his firm.

7.5.2 Representational Practice Changes

Changes to representational practices are identified by finding differences in the practices of designing, developing, detailing, sharing, and refining the design intent over the course of a project. In particular, I focused on the representational practices from the perspective of construction firms that have the responsibility for utilizing the repertoire of representations for the purpose of building or coordinating the building process. There are two main components to the representational practice changes. The first is the actual uses and purposes of the representational artifacts and techniques. The second component highlights more of the qualitative aspects of how a new system of representations is incorporated into the ongoing practices of the firms. As a starting point, the following figure compares over time how the Gehry project differs from a traditional project in the use of architectural representations:

25 KB is a pseudonym. 133

134

The main difference in the use of representations is the central role of CATIA

compared to printed 2D CAD generated drawings and specifications. Both Gehry and

conventional approaches go through iterative processes of generating more design detail.

These might include illustrating representative ways to make connections between materials, and then later having the sub-contractor develop more specific shop drawings.

Processes for interaction are conceptually similar as well in that shop drawings are communicated back to the architect and engineers/consultants for approval and validation.

Gehry relies on sketches and physical models to develop the intent and gesture of the building. Once this gesture is advanced into a physical model it is digitally scanned and refined in more detail using CATIA™. In traditional architectural practice, 2D CAD drawings are the central focus and may begin quite early in the project. Sketching may be used in conjunction with the 2D CAD, but the purpose is to create a gesture of the design.

For Gehry a sketch is an inspirational means as to achieve the gesture, whereas in many conventional practices, sketching is simply using hand drawn annotations or rough sketches with the goal of ultimately getting to 2D. Physical models and 3D realistic renderings are recognized as a good practice in traditional architecture for communicating design ideas, finishes, and spatial relationships with the clients and investors of a project. For Gehry physical models are the center of the process that

follows from the sketches to build the gestures, shapes, and relationship to the

environment. A 3D realistic rendering was not done for the Peter B. Lewis building.

The second component of representational practices builds on the identifiable

changes to the pictorial or diagrammatic depictions (e.g., 2D to 3D) to highlight the

135 qualitative aspects of how a new system of representations is incorporated into the ongoing practices of the firms. When compared to previous, traditional projects, participants noted six prominent changes relevant to the representational practices. These are detailed below.

7.5.2.1 Design Assist

Gehry actively involves contractors and various trades earlier in the preconstruction process, calling the process “design assist.” Design assist incorporates the general contractor, sub-contractors, and other consultants with the purpose of estimating time and cost as well as developing methods for construction. Construction methods are the base assumptions for estimating time and budgets. Free-form geometric shapes necessitate a rethinking to these base assumptions.

The design assist process is a relational activity change between the architect and the trades. It is included here as illustrative of a representational work practice change because it is a fundamental departure to the character and timing of how representational information is shared and further refined. It is more than simply crossing firm boundaries or increasing the sharing of information earlier in the project. Design assist in the way that Gehry runs it depends upon the unique aspects of 3D CAD in its visual and informational capacities for the relational aspects of design assisting to take place.

7.5.2.2 Digital Sharing

Digital information is even more critical when working in 3D as it becomes nearly impossible to recreate 3D detail from a set of printed drawings. Compared to conventional practices it is not always a given that information is shared in a digital

136 format. Shop drawings are frequently recreated based on the architectural drawings that are used as a guide. This means that the refinement of design detail is not separated both in the practical, and in the Gehry project, a contractual sense. The 3D CAD model becomes the digital reference point for other representations.

7.5.2.3 Minimum use of 2D Drawings

The central role of 3D models means that 2D drawings are used only when needed. 2D drawings are used as information is extracted into 2D from CATIA, but typically only when necessary. Some examples of this include when the city inspectors required various 2D drawings because they did not accept a 3D model. The fact that 3D is the reference point means that there is a fundamental questioning as to whether 2D should be provided since it implies additional effort to produce it. Thus, the hierarchy of representations changes with 3D taking center stage.

7.5.2.4 Increase in Consistency of Data

The use of 3D CATIA means that more data about the geometry of the building is available to those relying on the model. The additional data is needed to describe complex surfaces and interrelationships between components of the building. Further this data is represented in a digital prototype as compared to additional data that is represented across a variety of different perspectives in the 2D drawings. This means that the consistency of data is higher.

7.5.2.5 Tighter Tolerances

The tolerances of modeling in CATIA can be specified to a much higher level than in conventional 2D CAD packages. This is an important aspect of the

137

representations since the unusual shapes require more accuracy to ensure that they

interconnect and fit together. Typically there are industry standards and expectations for

the level of tolerances.

7.5.2.6 Making Design Changes Later

Design changes take place more frequently and further along in the project. Some

participants felt as if design changes were taking place up until the end of the project.

7.5.3 Material Work Practice Changes

The initial review of transcripts and subsequent coding for material practices identified specific types of changes, such as how concrete, framing, or brickwork is done.

The framing developed in Section 5, proposes that practice changes at the material practice dimension will emphasize changes to means and methods and that understanding them will come from analysis of how representational practices produce and are used to

determine the materials used, the assembly process, and the measurement and layout

system employed. This was depicted in the following way:

Representational Information

Materials Figure 7.5.3 – Relationship between Used representational information and the Means and Methods Assembly means and methods for construction. Measurement and Layout

Ultimately, material practice change represents a dependent variable in assessing

the impact of 3D CAD. To understand in more detail I describe material practice changes

138

and their relationship to representational, relational and coordinating practices. In this

section I look at material practice changes from three different firms. These firms were

chosen because none of them had prior experience with 3D CAD, and each had a major

responsibility in the construction phases of the project. The lack of 3D CAD experience

was important to create an inherent contrast between their previous 2D CAD use with

contemporary AEC work practice and this Gehry project with 3D CAD. Their

experiences and reflections in the interviews constitute a period of four to five years involvement in the project.26

7.6 Material Practice Change: Concrete Work by VRL Inc.

VRL Inc. is a contractor with significant experience in construction management,

general contracting, and sub-contracting, with notable experience in concrete work. They

also employ in house engineers that assist in project estimation and design of their

projects. That they employ their own engineers indicates that they are able to take on

larger projects and down their own detailed shop drawings in house. This is important to

note because there is likely to be tighter integration between the formwork engineers and

the carpenters in the field that are using the shop drawings. Prior to this project they did

not have any experience in 3D CAD.

VRL was responsible for forming and placing the concrete. An important aspect

of the design logic of this project was that the underlying concrete structure would be the driving the undulating and curving shapes. This would result in a sort of parallelism between the interior and exterior of the building (Boland et al. 2007). Gehry’s previous

26 Data was not collected during this longitudinal period, but interviews were focused on the transitions and change that took place during this time period. 139

project had not had this tight of integration between the interior and exterior elements of the building. This approach required extremely complex concrete structures that would drive the complexly shaped exterior that was proposed.

The conventional concrete means and methods are built on several assumptions about the measurement system and the types of materials used. These in turn affect the assembly processes employed in the field. The standardized way in which these material practice elements are related is well-suited for efficiency. The system allows for reuse of the concrete formwork from job to job, and supports repetitive methods for set up and configurations.

One of the first noticeable strains for the concrete work on the PBLB project was the consequence of fluid and changing design, especially early on. Typically, estimating

the amount of concrete needed and the level of difficulty could be calculated based on the

standardized system of forms, the methods of measurement, and assembly processes.

Because the concrete was such a basic and integral part of the Gehry design there were a

number of iterations and changes. For VRL this created difficulty with estimating the

precise nature of what would be involved in creating such non-standard, customized shapes. The complex and unusual 3D freeform shapes challenged the conventions, necessitating many customized shapes and different ways of constructing the concrete forms. Further, the process of shoring up and pouring the concrete had to be changed to accommodate some of the leaning shapes. Changes in a conventional rectilinear design shape can easily be accounted for without affecting the concrete form work method and processes—it becomes a simple add or subtract following the same logic. However, changes in complex and unusual shapes can result in the significant rework of already

140 unique concrete form shapes. In VRL concrete work we can see evidence of challenges in restructuring the make-up of concrete material practice that is suited for Gehry’s radical design.

One of the first challenges with Gehry’s design is that the existing 2D representations do not convey an adequate amount of information to describe the shapes.

This was a primary purpose for Gehry using 3D representations to more precisely describe complex geometries both descriptively and visually. However, even though shapes were more adequately described the relationships between how to link the materials, measurement, and assembly are not explicitly given in the 3D architectural representations. It appears that VRL struggled through this process of trying to figure out how to incorporate 3D information when their existing way of working was not based on it.

VRL continued to rely on the traditional 2D representational system to assess whether or not they should take on the risk doing such a job and how they would estimate the price. When questioned how they decided to take on the risk when the felt that they had such little information, they replied, “We took a lot, what was conventional and just flat as maybe had lots of historical data and then on the segmented parts that created that…We try to do is your best bet, I mean, this was different, it was complex” (VRL).

The interviewer then questioned if they had received enough information from JWB or whether they had contacted Gehry about how to come up with the information. VRL replied, “It’s a little bit of both, I mean there were a couple trips made out to Gehry’s office by the estimating staff and looking at some of the earlier versions of the model to get some ideas on how to price it. There’s a 3D model on the CATIA and there’s also the

141 big model, they built the visual one and so some of that information was used in the pricing, but a lot of the pricing was done off of the 2D information that we were given to take off some of the quantities. I know the estimator, he went back into his geometry books, you know, trying to figure out some of the areas and the yardages” (VRL). While they did rely on 2D, VRL did also acknowledge the need for Gehry to use 3D because

“you really get a true understanding.” Additionally, they recognized that insufficiency of the conventional representation system when they stated, “how did you take something that was on two sheets of drawings to be able to determine what it’s gonna be to get ’em here” (VRL).

VRL process of using 3D representations and how to communicate this to carpenters in the field evolved over the course of the project. They noted their progression as follows: “I think we hadn't thought about using that much 3D. We weren’t even building up 2D drawings. Initially we hadn’t planned on using that much 3D, but as the preconstruction evolved, it became pretty clear that 3D AutoCAD and 3D AutoCAD extractions out of CATIA were gonna be needed in order to build the structure. Now the straight walls and that, I mean, that 2D is fine, but building any of the ruled surfaces and curving surfaces, we definitely needed the 3D AutoCAD, and that came to light as the preconstruction process evolved.” (VRL).

Using the 3D data points, the formwork engineers designed the uniquely shaped forms and carpenters responded with an approach for shimming the forms to create the appropriate curves. The concrete forms were represented in detailed shop drawings which then specified where the forms were to be placed and where to place shims so that they would provide the proper shape. The formwork engineer used both 2D and 3D drawings

142 with written descriptions in the formwork shop drawings. The set of shop drawings are instructions with 3D visual information as well as precise data points.

In the construction process the formwork engineers could not simply send new representations with more data to represent the increase in complexity to the field carpenters. The process required more collaboration between these two groups to resolve the inherent conflicts between what the representation suggested and what was possibly with the materials. The result was that the formwork engineer learned from the carpenters so that he could better design knowing their particular constraints in the field. As he put it, carpenters would say: “‘Hey, you know you can't bend a three-quarter inch sheet of plywood that way, you can only bend it this way and this way and so forth.’ And you don't know that in AutoCAD or anything when you are drawing it you just hope for the best” (Formwork engineer interview).

Field carpenters also learned to interpret and understand the 3D drawings and associated terminology so that they could share any problems with the formwork engineer when following the shop drawings. “They learned from the drawings and they learned the lingo and the communication on it. So they could call up and say, ‘hey, you know you're so many degrees off here from your coordinate.’ For awhile there we actually developed a new terminology or a new communication process on the job where we educated them, and they educated us” (Formwork engineer interview). These two groups which are typically loosely connected, unidirectionally, through comparatively static 2D drawings became much more collaborative even to the point of developing a new communication process and terminology. Insightfully, the formwork engineer

143

recognized that this shift was not just increasing the information flow or frequency but

was actually a whole new vocabulary to convey the ideas from the design to the field.

The process of working out the correct way to coordinate changes between how

engineers were designing the complex shapes and how the field carpenters would utilize

this information took considerable time and some structural changes in terms of staffing for VRL. One VRL manager noted, “I don’t think VRL ever put a project engineer on site with 3D AutoCAD and every column that they pour, they need to plot, you know, in a computer and then slice it at different elevation and then talk back and forth with the engineers, you know, almost once or twice an hour depending on where they were on the job and get them information. You’re constantly radioing information back and forth.

“Typically, I don’t think I would have been on site… pulling information off of a computer, and turning around 3D AutoCAD extractions and printing out little sketches to give to engineers” (VRL).

“I think most of the construction industry uses 2D flat paper drawings and this was something that was by far different than anything we’d ever done before, so, we start giving a carpenter, foreman, or even your engineers on site, all these drawings with all these splines and you know there’s cuts every 8 inches, on every wall and you start flipping things around and showing different views, you gotta be able to explain to these guys, we have to build it, what they’re looking at, and it just took some time to be able to realize, how do I put this on a 2D piece of paper, and show ‘em what they’re looking at and what they need to do to build the forms” (VRL).

144

Occasionally, the difficulty in communicating between the field carpenters and the designers resulted in the need to use CATIA™ as a visual aid for resolving misunderstandings.

“There was maybe one or two, there was a couple instances where there was

something that I couldn’t even describe. I couldn’t put it on paper and I didn’t

have enough paper to explain it. …So I went up on top deck and grabbed Don,

our carpenter foreman. I said, ‘man, you gotta look at this. There’s no way I can

explain it to you. You’re just gonna have to see it for yourself.’ So he walked in

the trailer… he’s looking at this things and he’s like, ‘do we have to do this?

[laughter] Is that absolutely necessary?’ And of course it was. It had to be there.

Very rarely did they get into the trailer and see CATIA, but sometimes when you

could not explain what was going on you had to zoom out and say, ‘okay Don,

here’s your wall, you see that little line.’ Then you zoom in on it and this is what

it needs to do” (VRL).

7.6.1 Review of VRL Vignette

Using the AEC work practice dimensions as a lens to what VRL went through, we can see that new representational means were applied within new material practice changes in their concrete work. They actually did things differently with their formwork and some these differences were described as indispensably relying on 3D. Different representational practices emerged in the use of 3D AutoCAD, such as adding 3D visualizations, describing the information in XYZ coordinates. Once incorporated into practice these features afforded VRL practices with 3D visualization, the ability to model in 3D, increased accuracy, and greater dimensional control. Adapting material practices

145

with these 3D representations, however, was not straightforward. Material practice

changes were enabled by new relational practices, such as formwork engineers working

more intensely with carpenters, which aided in reestablishing linkages between the

aspects of the means and methods. Compared to 2D, 3D afforded the necessary

information to describe the complexity in Gehry’s design. However, it did not prescribe

how to reorganize these underlying aspects that make up the means and methods. In fact, conflicts emerged between the relative flexibility of the digital world and what carpenters

knew was practically impossible when it came to assembly. Resolving such issues seems

to have either required or at least resulted in greater cross-functional understanding.

These challenges and subsequent resolutions illustrate the mutual adjustments between different dimensions of work practice, such as material work practices and their relationship to representational information.

The types of patterns identifiable in VRL description of material practice change associated with relation and representational practice changes do not lend themselves to some well-defined process pattern of impact from A to Æ B to Æ C. Yet, neither is it haphazardly taking place, rather we see that different dimensions of practice relevant for

AEC professionals had to mutually adjust and change. VRL approach also seems to indicate a fairly minimalist stance to accommodation in that they tried to continue incorporating 2D CAD whenever and as much as possible. Their work practices were invested into many previous projects and experience (Carlile 2002) as well as embedded into the professional practices of concrete work. By looking at this challenge with multiple dimensions of practice it gives some more substance to why they are embedded and difficult to change. The challenge is not just to change means and methods for

146

concrete work like one might to a list of instructions. Gehry’s complex designs stretched

beyond the traditional representational and relational boundaries of how work is done

with concrete to what is physically possible with concrete. Although incorporating 3D

CAD provides the necessary information to depict these new possibilities based on what is physically possible with concrete, it does not prescribe how to reconstitute the interdependencies between the new 3D information and the types of practices they engage in that apply such information.

7.7 Material Practice Change: Framing Work by KB, Inc.

KB, a framing and drywall contractor, was identified by JWB as a potential sub- contractor for the Gehry project. KB had primarily worked on conventional projects and had no previous experience using 3D CAD. Personnel and management in the KB organization had well over two decades of experience in the AEC industry. For the Gehry project the framing and drywall contractor would have to develop new means and methods, like concrete work, which were built upon established traditions and standards that connected the materials, measurement approach, and assembly methods.

KB was introduced to the project by looking at 2D drawings and physical models and then later on with 3D. They recognized very early that the task was highly complex compared to the traditional methods of framing and drywall assembly and finishing. It was a type of work that had not been previously accomplished by them, or by others known to them. William27, the KB manager recounts the impact of being introduced to

3D after first trying to make sense of the project with 2D and the physical model. “Our

27 William is a pseudonym. 147 initial understanding was that the documents we had were the ones we were going to build by and then later in fact the 3D CATIA came into play, which totally changed, in our mind, everything. Because what we were trying to figure out on drawings all of a sudden became more of a reality. We were shown the physical models so we could see that it was a very difficult project. But we were relying on the information in the documents to give us enough to build the job. What we did realize when we were shown the CATIA, we were shown how we were going to build the job. Because once you get the reality of the 3D, which brings reality to the drawings, it definitely changed our perception of what we were doing and what path we were going to take to build” (KB).

William and his crew became more involved in the project at the design stage than in his previous 20+ years of experience: “I have never, ever spent more than an hour in an architect’s office prior to this job. And I spent 22 trips, 4 and 5 days at a time in their office. And I mean I’ve spent some days in there where I was in there at 8:00 in the morning and I didn’t get out of there until 10 or 11 at night, working on this frame”

(KB). Gehry attempts to involve some of the key trades early in the pre-construction process in what they call “Design Assist.” The purpose is to come up with specific means and methods for construability. With such a complex design it may require more time to design these details and they may have a greater impact on the design as a whole.

Engaging in this process earlier helps to maintain control over such design changes before construction has commenced.

In KB’s design assist, William spanned the interface between the use of 3D in

CATIA and 2D representations that the KB crew was accustomed to. William describes how working with a CATIA modeling consultant they would model different concepts

148

for framing. These concepts would be tested out in the CATIA environment and then he

would share them with his own crew. He describes this process as follows: “It was really

something, as I would go to California, I’d spend 4 or 5 days, I’d come back and I’d have this whole group of guys on the job just starving for information, and just dragging me over to the computer. And this is what you did. We’d email the CATIA work I did back to the job so that they could see what I did. And then they’d tell me what I did wrong, then what I did right. And then we’d bring that back here and do all this

AutoCAD work and then they would try to take the AutoCAD work and relate it back to what was in CATIA. It was really difficult. Very difficult. The problem was near the end, we had a system down that was quick and efficient” (KB). William’s team relied on him to span between the architect’s complex designs in CATIA and his own colleagues’ knowledge bases in the materials and methods for framing and drywall.

Despite their modeling in CATIA, the actual production and implementation at the construction site took time to work out an effective and efficient system of framing.

Once KB had settled on some core means and method concepts they did actual, full-size prototypes to see if they would work. When compared to the typical process, these stages of modeling and testing were a world apart from their previous jobs in which they applied their existing knowledge to a conventional design. The following exchange highlights the ongoing work on drawings in the Gehry project compared to a typical project:

149

William: Well, typically if you are dealing with a round surface, typically it’s plumb. If you are dealing with an out of plumb surface, you still have connecting points and radius arcs you work with. So basically our guys in the field just do the work. They don’t call me and say, “where do I place these studs?” They just place them themselves. It’s automatic. They’re skill level is such where anything a conventional architect draws on a 2D drawing, they don’t need me to do anything. They just, they do it themselves. Interviewer: So, the drawings are basically done before any of the work starts? William: Correct. Interviewer: Whereas on this job the drawings are continuously worked on right up until…? William: Until you get the last stud in. Drawings were continuous until the end because many of the curving wall shapes required a significant more amount of information just to locate where they should go.

KB had to use 3D coordinates to locate these points. These also had to be much more accurate than conventional wall systems because of the unusual interfaces and connection points.

For KB, the use of CATIA (e.g., modeling, prototyping framing systems, and relying on the e 3D coordinate system) became embedded in the way in which they thought and executed their actual work practices. It is evident these changes were non- trivial. William noted that, “There were guys who said, ‘this is too much for me. I don’t want to be here’. I don’t normally have to put up with this. It was tough. It was. These

guys were, they’re used to stringing out their tape measure, putting marks on the floor,

and standing studs and going. Out there it was none of that. It was, ‘hey, I need the

surveyor. This isn’t working. I need to figure this out.’ They were running down to

CATIA”(KB). The changes also included relational changes not only between KB, JWB

and Gehry in the design process, but also in KB’s internal organization in which laborers

150

had to become more tightly linked to the office rather than solely through the job

foreman.

7.7.1 Review of KB Vignette

Using the AEC work practice dimensions as a lens we can describe that KB, like

VRL, employed 3D representational practices to change their material work practices.

This is evident in their coming up with new means and methods and employing them in

the field. 3D CAD afforded KB to engage in new representational work practices through

realistic visualization, modeling in 3D, collision detection, and prediction of how

standardized material shapes might work to create the curved shapes. 3D CAD enabled

increased accuracy and dimensional control when coupled with new material work

practices related to the actual framing process.

Like the VRL example, these 3D CAD affordances and features did not simply

lead to material practice changes. Despite that William notes that, “we were shown how

we were going to build the job,” the actual material practice changes were not

immediately or intuitively obvious when applied in the field. The new means and

methods for framing had to consider new assembly processes that would use different

materials and different measurement and layouts. Although the conceptual idea and the

necessary 3D CAD information were available, incorporating these into their material

practice was challenging. KB employed different relational and coordinating practices

with Gehry, the general contractor, and within their own firm that facilitated the

reconnection between the more detailed aspects of material practice (i.e., relationships between the materials, measurement, and assembly). KB also used prototyping to test the concepts, but in the field they ultimately had to work at coming up with a workable and

151 efficient system. This workable system was sensitive to the fact that there was ongoing information in the drawings that was being worked up “until you get the last stud in.”

Again, the case of KB demonstrates a necessary mutual adjustment and reconstitution among information, material, and work practice dimensions.

7.8 Material and Coordinating Practice Change: 3D Surveying by JWB Co.

JWB is a large general construction management firm with significant experience in large commercial construction projects across the United States. They are experienced in a variety of large scale projects such as professional sports stadiums. They no prior 3D

CAD experience prior to the Gehry project they began exploring as an opportunity in

1997. As the general contractor, JWB had to balance multiple responsibilities of various stakeholders – client, architect, consultants and sub-contractors. JWB’s primary objective was to coordinate a group of sub-contractors to build efficiently. Doing so is required knowing how a building comes together and balancing the trade-offs between time, cost, and meeting the design requirements.

The coordinating practices that shape the sequence of activities among sub- contractors is dependent to a large degree upon the material practices (i.e., when to build is dependent upon how it is built). How it is to be built, however, is rarely questioned in the extreme way that it was for the Gehry project. The disruptive nature of the designs on material practices, as exemplified by the VRL and KB vignettes, creates further challenges for JWB in trying to determine how to organize the project. Changes in material practices affect the two key variables JWB must consider in coordinating sub- contractors:

152

1. The inter-dependencies with other activities

2. Length of time to complete activities

One of the key aspects of material practice is the system for measurement and

layout. Sub-contractors rely on this to determine where components go as well as where

they will interface. For most sub-contractors using 3D coordinates is new while for some

using it to the extent that they did was new. JWB feared that sub-contractors would spend

too much time and money trying to get up to speed with the surveying process. They

decided to contract to a surveying company that would perform this for nearly all of the

sub-contractors. As a result of this JWB became much more involved in the surveying process and found opportunities to change coordinating practices. For example, they were

able to more tightly couple different trades in their layouts so that there was less wait

time. This example illustrates how they reconstructed the relationships between the three

focal dimensions of AEC work practice. First, they took advantage of new

representational capabilities of 3D coordinate data to rearrange the coordinating

practices. This was possible because the workers in the field could utilize the 3D

coordinate data in how they conducted their material practices of laying out their work.

New practices resulted that were more efficient than traditional coordination between the

trades.

JWB also recognized early that the sheer complexity of the project along with the new system of measurement would lead to radical changes in how sub-contractors went about their assembly practices. During the proposal stage of the project, prospective general contractors met with Gehry in his California offices. Prior to their visit, JWB

153

tried to prepare by understanding what CATIA™ was about, yet, in 1997 when this

process began, there was little information about Gehry and the processes they employed.

JWB described this visit as “an eye opening experience.” A JWB manager stated, “I

remember our early reaction was, were the volume of physical models that were around

and the apparent lack of paper drawings that were around was telling us, hey this is

something different, and this process is gonna be something different and we better

continue to educate ourselves in that regard” (JWB). These anticipated changes would

likely lead to unpredictable estimations of how long it would take to complete activities.

Trying to bring predictability back into the equation meant that the sub-contractors would

need to come up with means and methods that could then be used for estimation of time

and budgets.

In response to this, JWB engaged in more intensive communication early on.

They called this period the road show period. The purpose of the road shows was to

increase the familiarity of the design and the use of 3D CAD. They believed that as sub-

contractors became more familiar and at ease with the project and means of

representation (e.g., 3D) they would overcome their apprehension in taking on the risk of such a complex project. For example they noted, “we preached and we talked to our

subcontractors through what we called the road show, before we had any of them on

board, [about] the difficulty and the coordinate base of the system. And we, in the bid

documents tried to emphasize it and in the scope reviews tried to emphasize it” (JWB).

A second emphasis for interjecting greater predictability in coordination that JWB communicated to sub-contractors was to build and test physical prototypes prior to carrying out new material practices in the field. One notable example is that they first

154

completely finished one single office, including the furniture. As they noted, “We

completely roughed out that entire room ready to hang drywall on, made sure that the

window blinds worked and operated, made sure the light switches, you know, just tested

the design. Made sure the diffusers came through the wall. We identified a lot of

problems. And after that we said, ‘okay, now go be productive on the other 149. You

took three times as long as you wanted to on this first office, but we know everything

about these offices now that we need to, the doors work, they operate’” (JWB).

7.8.1 Review of JWB’s Experiences

Using the AEC work practice dimensions we can describe that JWB employed 3D representational practices to change their coordinating work practices as well as the material practices associated with measurement and layouts. 3D CAD afforded visualization, increased accuracy, and enhanced dimensional control. These affordances were made possible by the underlying XYZ coordinate system, underlying equations to describe the shapes, and interoperability for other applications.

Even though JWB’s primary objective was to coordinate sub-contractors they recognized interdependencies of coordination with representational and material practices. Because coordination depends on the ability to predict and anticipate they were dependent upon other’s getting to up to speed in using 3D CAD and figuring out how their material practices would be different. While the linchpin was the changing of material practices so that they could create greater predictability, they were also able to take advantage of 3D CAD affordances more directly to improve the coordination practices (e.g., centralized surveying).

155

7.9 Summary of Work Practice Changes in Three Cases

The contractor and sub-contractors were responsible for changing material and coordinating practices in a way that would produce the necessary outcomes. The complexity of the project initially drove them to focus on how to carry out these changes.

Consequently, the radical architectural style is the primary source of disruption. The use of 3D CAD was also disruptive because it supplanted the means of representational production that is intertwined with the material and coordinating practices. However, 3D was crucial in reconstituting the practices in light of the informational requirements of the radical design. In this case the design complexity was coupled with the simultaneous switch to 3D CAD and created mixed results in terms of it benefits. Difficulties existed not only in the negotiating of work across firms, but within firms for re-establishing the interfaces between different dimensions of practice. The above cases provide a nuanced basis for understanding these disruptive aspects as well as how the reconstitution of practices came about.

The cases demonstrate that firms had to reconstruct cognitive linkages between these work practice dimensions. For example, material practices depend upon representational information for materials specification, measurement and layout, and assembly (See Figure 7.5.3). For example, KB was able to come up with new means and methods for framing that they could apply in the construction process. These means and methods restructure how they assembled the framing, how they attached certain components together, how they measured and laid out their locations, and even what types of materials would be required for the process. These new material practices relied on different information much more frequently that could only come from 3D CAD. This

156

is an example of restructuring both the material practice and the interface with representational information. It is interesting to note that although William of KB describes that when they first saw 3D CAD they could see how it was to be built, it still

required months of figuring out how to actually come up their means and methods.

Perhaps seeing by his initial view of 3D CAD he could see how it would afford new

practices of designing their framing system. Even later in the construction process after

they had the means and methods it was still not straight-forward as they had to continue

refining the in-field assembly processes. KB also had the benefit of working on top of

VRL concrete work which stabilized some of the possibilities of change and gave them a

basis upon which to build. In this regard, VRL’s work should probably be recognized as

inherently more challenging in terms of the material practice required. For example, there

is little flexibility in the material practice of concrete. There are physical laws that they

have to abide by for it to properly set up and provide a structurally sound foundation.

They were not doing a lot of repetitive systems like the framing mechanisms. Rather,

form building and pouring required uniquely bended and shaped re-bar as well as

uniquely supported and staggered pours. Despite their apparent lack of interest in

changing their work practice noted elsewhere (Boland et al. 2007), their work practice

did change as exemplified the different relational activities between the formwork

engineer and carpenters—they had to. The rigidity of their material practice to form and

place concrete, though dependent upon 3D data, was not transformed into a flexible

system of new means and methods, like KB. Rather, VRL personnel had to more tightly

coordinate activities that were previously loosely connected together. Because of the

uniqueness of the shapes there was less benefits from repetitively coming up with a

157

system, however, there was ground work laid for more flexible coordination between the

design engineers and formwork carpenters.

It appears that KB and JWB were more aware earlier in the project of the extent

of disruption beyond their central objective, either material or coordinating. This also

appears to be why these firms engaged in greater reconfiguration of their work practices

earlier. However, considering the level of complexity we can see that the material

constraints of concrete work were just not able to flexibly give way to the flexible and

information-rich capabilities of 3D CAD. One could continue to question, however, if

earlier recognition of such disruptions might allow for faster reconfiguration of the

interfaces between work practices that are disrupted by complexity or new IT use. While

JWB did not rapidly embrace 3D CAD they were aware of its disruptive potential and were open to reconfiguring their coordinating practices around it in fairly distinctive ways (e.g., centralized surveying). In this way they seemed to emphasize an economic and pragmatic approach to being aware of possibilities to take advantage of without wholesale work practice reconfiguration.

8.0 DISCUSSION

3D CAD impacts AEC by "challeng[ing] key organizing practices and encourag[ing] new interactions in trading zones" (Boland et al. 2007, p. 639-640). Inside trading zones 3D CAD is a boundary object that enables “architects, engineers, construction managers, contractors, and sub-contractors [to] continually redefine and

mutually adjust their relationships” (ibid, p. 640). We have examples of such trading

158

zones from Boland et al. and from the findings in this study that identify the increase in

collaborative activity and formation of new and different relationships. This work also

identifies that innovative work practice changes are produced through these trading

zones. The purpose of the present research has evolved from middle range theorizing to

focus on why does 3D CAD support the creation of trading zones and how and why does

3D CAD influence the outcomes of the trading zone?

This study addresses these questions by detailing how 3D CAD affordances and

features apply to a framework of AEC work practice dimensions. The following figure

illustrates some key elements of the underlying argument of the impact of 3D CAD

impact in AEC when compared to 2D CAD. The x axis represents three comparative

stages: A. standard complexity project using 2D CAD, B. high complexity project using

3D CAD, C. Full parametric use of 3D CAD. The y axis represents is used to identify the

relative constraint among the three dimensions of AEC practice in terms of achieving the

desired design outcome. The depiction is intended to be only for illustrative purposes and

clarifying the contributions of this study – the distances and positions of the work

practice dimensions are not precise. The numbers in the figure outline key assumptions

that I will elaborate on below.

159

3.5 More 3D CAD "challenges key organizing 3 practices and encourages new 3 interactions in 2 trading zones" 2.5 1 (Boland et al. Objectives 2007, p. 639‐640)

2 2 Coordinating Achieving Design 1 1.5 Material on

Representational 1 Constraints

Less 0.5 Standard Complexity Increase in Complexity Parametric use 2D CAD Introduce 3D CAD of 3D CAD

Figure 8.0 –Broad illustration of 2D vs. 3D initial use and full 3D CAD parametric use and the relationships to the AEC work practice dimensions.

1). In a standard AEC project, using 2D CAD, the relationships between existing AEC work practice dimensions are stable and the depicted distance between them is intended to identify that they are loosely coupled. Coordinating practices in this standard type of project are more constraining on achieving the design objectives because the representational and material practices remain relatively stable. In the traditional AEC practice there is a stable, hierarchical dependence between these three work practice dimensions.

2). The longer, double arrow is to illustrate that the general argument of loose to tight coupling applies not only among the participants and firms (Boland et al. 2007), but also among the dimensions of work practices that exist both within a single firm and/or across

160

more than one firm. The second, shorter double arrow is the speculation from Boland et

al. that “In the future, 3D representations are expected to engender even more open and

intense trading zones and the models become more fully parametric and contain cost,

construction time, and other information for each element of the building” (2007, p.

640).28 The line of thinking reveals a trajectory of logic that makes a conceptual leap

from 3D CAD use to the larger, more general idea of a trading zone (represented as the

cloud). For example, it is unclear as to how or why the continued and more deeply

embedded use of 3D would require more open and intense trading zones. An opposite

outcome seems more plausible since better understanding and use of 3D would help AEC

community members to understand their new roles and risks associated with

participating. The missing assumption in their logic, in which 3D CAD both disrupts the

AEC community boundaries and leads to trading zones to resolve the negative

consequences, is an account of the role of complexity and the novelty between AEC

members (Carlile 2002) that results from it. In reviewing the logic of why the trading

zone was created we can identify the value the dimensions of AEC work practice are

useful.

3). The trading zone in this case (Boland et al. 2007) was identified as emerging from the

misalignment between the existing loosely coupled structure of the AEC community, which included 2D representations, and the introduction of 3D representations. The 3D

CAD provided more information but not necessarily in a way that resolved its negative consequences of use easily “because the number of perspectives it makes available is

28 Later they vacillate on whether or not a more tightly coupled arrangement “will become conventionalized around 3D representations”, or whether the “landscape of innovations [would become] more colorful and rugged” (Boland et al. 2007, p. 643). 161 indefinitely large” (Boland et al. 2007, p. 639). As a result, actors did not have “sufficient ability to understand and negotiate their new roles, or with a sufficient understanding of their risk” (ibid, p. 639). They then proceed to explain that “3D representations at community borders on an AEC project challenged the key organizing practices [I assume they mean the traditional AEC organizing practices] and encouraged new interactions in trading zones, where knowledge creation across communities could take place (Boland et al. 2007, p. 639-640, emphasis added). Inside the trading zone mutual adjustment of relationships between architects, engineers, contractors, and sub-contractors took place in their redefinition of roles, and their overall relationships amongst one another became more tightly coupled. In the trading zones 3D CAD was transformed from challenging

“key organizing practices” (ibid) to an effective boundary object (Star & Griesemer

1989). A key unresolved question, and thus a major point of this study, is to answer just how and why 3D representations challenged and then encouraged practice.

Providing a more nuanced explanation to this question is a middle range theory endeavor because it seeks to link the detailed findings of innovative practice changes with the larger, more general aspect of how coordination and organization across project networks takes place. The findings from this study shed some light on what happens inside a trading zone from the perspective of dimensions of AEC practice. Without including the dimensions of AEC practice we fail to see the interwoven nature of just what is being disrupted and what has to be reconstituted. The results of this study substantiate a more detailed picture of the primacy of radical design and that 3D CAD had to be reconstituted into a new configuration of AEC work practice. This leads to a slightly alternative explanation, which is that complexity regardless of the

162

representational system used was the primary disruption of the project, not that 3D CAD

offered too many viewpoints. Without the multiple viewpoints it would have not been

possible for the trades to reorganize their work practice to build the structure. The

complexity of the design first drove the contractor and sub-contractors to focus on their

primary objective – getting the building constructed. 3D CAD was not too flexible, rather

it was the inability of work practices to initially accommodate and take advantage of 3D

CAD. Theoretically, this suggests that as a boundary object the flexibility and robustness

of 3D CAD is mutually dependent upon its relationship to the practices it affords, and

that this relationship is adaptable. Another important point is that in AEC the flexibility

of uses of 3D CAD may be dependent upon the realities of materials and material

practices. Each of the firms detailed came up to certain inflexible junctions that were not

due to their inability or unwillingness to use 3D. Given the requirements and the

economic and temporal constraints they acted in accordance to what made sense to them.

9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

An ideal theory would be able to explain a phenomenon in a way that accurately represents a particular situation, is generalizable to a larger population, and is still able to

be simple enough to be understood and practically applied. These are the grand theories

that are able to account for a wide variety of phenomena, conditions, and contexts.

Conceptually, the challenge to such an ideal of theorizing is described by Weick (1979)

using Thorngate’s (1976) concept of commensurate complexity, which states that a

163 theory cannot be simultaneously general, accurate, and simple. The alternative to this then is a research program and/or body of literature could develop complimentary explanations depending upon different theoretical tradeoffs (Weick 1979).

In sociology, Robert Merton (1968) also recognized the difficulties between grand theorizing and the increasing development of empirically guided research. Merton suggested that scholars focus on building middle range theories that would enable connectivity of explanations across the phenomena. These explanations would provide theory for empirical generalizations without the burden of building or fitting within some grand theoretical paradigm. The goal was that these middle range explanations would together improve theory development. For such a view to succeed theorizing must result in explanations that are complimentary and able to explain the benefits and tradeoffs in pursuing an objective. This level of transparency would increase the clarity in what one might be giving up in attempting to secure a particular theoretical objective.

When considering the development of IT impact theories there are two interesting trajectories rooted in general or accurate seeking explanations. Scholars focused on general explanation seek to increase the accuracy in order to account for the contradictory findings and lack of simplistic patterns of IT impact. Scholars focused on accurate explanation have struggled to move in the other direction to make their detailed findings more general. I have drawn on the ideas of middle range theorizing to focus on possible spaces within these tradeoffs. Conceptual leaps sometimes take place when moving from very general ideas to the specific and vice versa. The purpose of thinking about mid- range conceptual spaces is to improve explanation by elucidating the connections that exist among the chain between accurate to general explanation.

164

9.1 Three Questions to Consider for IT Impact

I sought to open up the middle range concepts by focusing on three questions

relevant for understanding any IT impact account:

1. How/Why is this impact taking place?

2. What is it that is impacting?

3. What is the outcome of the impact?

For each of these questions I will briefly summarize what emerged from IT

impact studies and the choices made in this study.

1). In terms of the nature of causality the early emphasis on broad, general patterns rooted in simple and deterministic accounts have given way to use of or desire for data sets to identify more detailed contingency aspects of impact. Accurate explanation has continued to emphasize more detailed process or practice-based views

that are recursive in principle, but often end up packaged in contingency or process-based

explanation. Both views engage in pattern matching trying to substantiate their moves

from different tradeoffs. This study has focused on a temporal, process-oriented view of

impact and how to improve the abstraction into patterns of interaction between 3D CAD

and work practice change. The emphasis on work practice retains contextual aspects that

have been used to refute general accounts of IT impact.

2). Significant interest has centered on accounting for the specific nature of the IT

artifact within the theoretical account. This means that theories should avoid black

165

boxing IT in a way that does not account for its use in practice or for the technical

differences. While there is not a standard way to open the black box I have focused on

connecting the practice-based view of 3D CAD in terms of its affordances with an

objective view of 3D CAD features. By focusing on the practice-based view it has

allowed for the flexibility to consider the role of the context and unique aspects of the

Gehry project.

3). In terms of the outcomes of interest in IT impact a common theme is

exemplified in the process and practice-based views. There is recognition that the path

from IT impact to productivity or innovation is complex. Scholarship emphasizing

general explanation has taken up process-based views using moderating or mediating

variables. These views move beyond simplistic and deterministic accounts of IT impact

that were not supported. From the accurate view, scholarship struggles with abstracting

phenomenological accounts of work practice changes into more general explanation of IT

impact. Both the accurate and general based explanations seem to ultimately hinge on the

appropriation of IT artifacts, regardless of the ultimate outcomes. In this study I focused

on changes in the work practices. In order to facilitate the challenge of abstracting from

more detailed analyses into general explanation I identified in advance particular work practices to pay attention to in the analysis.

In terms of IT impact what do we take away from this study?

To understand what we take away in terms of general IT impact knowledge from the study of 3D CAD in a Gehry Project we have to distinguish between purely general and accurate tradeoffs. From the general explanation viewpoint this study could have

166

emphasized how IT impacts the ability of AEC actors to innovate in a more efficient way

with 3D than without: 3D CAD Æ Efficient Innovation. Innovations are represented by

the changes to their work practices and the final product. From an accuracy based view a

different lower-level generalization was made that 3D CAD impacts AEC by

"challeng[ing] key organizing practices and encourag[ing] new interactions in trading zones" (Boland et al. 2007, p. 639-640). Inside trading zones 3D CAD is a boundary object that enables “architects, engineers, construction managers, contractors, and sub- contractors [to] continually redefine and mutually adjust their relationships” (ibid, p.

640). We have examples of such trading zones from Boland et al. and from the findings in this study that identify the increase in collaborative activity and formation of new and different relationships. In terms of understanding the impact of 3D CAD, the logical step this study proposed was to understand why does 3D CAD both disrupt existing practice and support the creation of trading zones? Secondly, how and why does 3D CAD influence the outcomes of the trading zone?

This study demonstrates the underlying connections between dimensions of AEC work practices that had to be reestablished in light of the radically designed architecture.

The change to using 3D CAD from 2D CAD alone would require some re-specification and sorting out of how that information would be conveyed – it would, as Boland et al. say “challenge key organizing practices” (p. 639). Using the dimensions of AEC work practice we see the complicated design forced sub-contractors into recognizing that it would require innovative material practice changes. Yet, the connections between what

3D CAD features and its application into representational and coordinating practices were not specified. Further, these were not straightforward reconfigurations because 3D

167

has to come to afford these practices. By employing a practice-based view and also

abstracting beforehand into the AEC work practice dimensions we can suggest a

possibility for general patterns of IT impact under like conditions. The general pattern

would first seek to identify the key dimensions of work practice of interest and to understand how it challenges the way in which these dimensions fit together. These findings do not imply that there is some deterministic pattern of disruption and resettling

of practices based on changes to the representations. Rather, it demonstrates the

complexity of the web of IT impact confirming the milestones of previous work and

describing in more depth what happens in between these milestones. For IT impact

knowing what happens makes all the difference in understanding how to anticipate or

manage the changes related to new IT.

While a single case study of 3D CAD use with an innovative outcome does not

strengthen our ability to generalize that 3D CAD use leads to innovation, this study does

test an implicit connection between 3D CAD and AEC work practice dimensions. This

was set up by first outlining the traditional use of representations in AEC and then

studying these disruptions and reconstitutions of practice using 3D.

What are the normative implications from this study?

In the context of AEC and 3D CAD use this study describes the type of work

practice restructuring that management would need to consider prior to switching from

2D to 3D. In terms of IT impact research the template adopted here is driven by

identifying middle range conceptual spaces in the assumed causal chain of impact (e.g.,

3D CAD Æ Trading Zones Æ Work Practice Changes Æ Innovative Outcome). Finding

168

middle range spaces in this study was done by reviewing existing literature with an emphasis on trying to balance and synthesize it. The second aspect that this study highlights is that a complete IT impact account should consider the nature of change, the conceptualization of the IT artifact, and the outcome. This becomes apparent in the struggle to adequately separate these three aspects even in the literature review. These three aspects are essential and interdependent when considering theoretical explanations of IT impact. The third implication comes from using the middle range strategy of delimiting the scope of a study in a way that is amenable to a general pattern of the phenomena (e.g., work practice dimensions). This latter part is different from simply identifying the key or salient work practice dimensions from the data. Rather it is sensitive to the existing practices and the uses of IT and the temporal process of the activities within which IT impact takes place. Henderson’s (1991) study of organizational implications by understanding well the difference between sketching and CAD is another illustration that is amenable to developing generalizable patterns about IT impact.

In terms of future research there are a variety of directions to take to increase the accuracy, generalizability, or simplicity of the findings. As it is currently set up the study provides an existing framework to make incremental improvements that would both add to the generalizability and accuracy. First, the context of study may be altered in terms of

the industry or the type of environmental complexity (e.g., radical vs. non-radical types

of designs). Second, the type of technological affordances and features of interest may be

changed. Third, the breadth or scope of work practices may be altered. Further, research

focusing on work practices may yield different patterns and/or precedence in work

practices within different contexts and industries. One could attempt to study how

169

changes to one type of practice results in changes to other types and how mutual dependencies differ under various conditions. Another route to take is to understand what the consequence of practice changes are from project to project. Given the current findings we might propose that greater appreciation of novelty and reconfiguration of practice may result in different risk taking behavior for firms. A study of this type may help to uncover patterns associated with higher-level industrial changes.

Finally, the development of middle range theorizing in IS research may be improved by reviewing other topics in the domain and mapping out the conceptual distance between different theoretical and/or methodological camps. In this way middle range theory provides a commensurate path to studying IT advancements as they proliferate across a variety of domains. Often times scholars in these domains may not appreciate or be familiar with the work done in the IS field that could benefit them. If our work clearly spells out the tradeoffs made, the road map to future research and questions yet to be answered will be more clearly defined and able to build an eclectic, yet interconnected theoretical understanding.

9.2 Limitations and Future Research Agenda

One benefit of reflectively employing a middle range theorizing lens is that it enables transparency of the limitations of this study. The middle range strategy employed here recognizes tradeoffs in terms of both generalizability and accuracy. First, this study

was not attempting to generate a broadly generalizable theory of 3D CAD impact.

Consequently, more emphasis was paid to the details of connections between 3D CAD, the context, and work practice changes rather than broad patterns of usage and impact.

Some of the affordances of 3D CAD were inductively generated and have not been tested

170

across different projects. This research does not provide tested, general statements that

representative sampling of a phenomenon might be able to. In terms of accuracy, this

work made some assumptions about the dimensions of AEC work practice and used these

as a filter when analyzing the data. It could be likely that there are more open ended

approaches that would develop a more accurate picture of the changes that took place.

Another accuracy-related limitation is that I assumed a functional view in the

interpretation of how 3D CAD afforded their work practice. It may be that there are other

non-functional, interpretive views of the role of 3D CAD. Lastly, the empirical data used

have limited generalizability even within the AEC industry because they come from a

single project that is highly unusual. Further, the interviews were conducted in retrospect

to the completion of the project and there may be discrepancy of their recall to what

happened versus what they recall.

the industry or the type of environmental complexity (e.g., radical vs. non-radical types

of designs). Second, the type of technological affordances and features of interest may be

changed or replicated. Third, the breadth or scope of work practices may be altered.

Further, research focusing on work practices may yield different patterns and/or precedence in work practices within different contexts and industries. One could attempt to study how changes to one type of practice results in changes to other types and how mutual dependencies differ under various conditions. Another route to take is to

171 understand what the consequence of practice changes are from project to project.

Regardless of the variation the middle range strategy may help to clarify the tradeoffs of such decisions and to identify where the linkages between accurate and general explanation are lacking.

Finally, the development of middle range theorizing in IS research may be improved by reviewing other topics in the domain and mapping out the conceptual distance between different theoretical and/or methodological camps. In this way middle range theory seems to provide a commensurate path to studying IT advancements as they proliferate across a variety of domains. Often times scholars in these domains may not appreciate or be familiar with the work done in the IS field that could benefit them. If IS scholarship clearly spells out the tradeoffs made the road map to future research and questions will be more clearly defined and able to build toward an enlarging theoretical understanding. In this way IS scholars will be adopting a complexity absorbing response

(Boisot & Child 1999) as opposed to a view that attempts to overly simplify the breadth and depth of IT impact currently taking place.

172

10.0 REFERENCES

Amirouche, F. M. L. 1993. Computer-aided design and manufacturing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Ang, J., & Pavri, F. 1994. A Survey And Critique Of The Impacts Of Information Technology. International Journal Of Information Management, 14(2): 122- 133.

Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E., & Van Alstyne, M. W. 2006. Information, Technology and Information Worker Productivity: Task Level Evidence, Social Science Research Network

Argyres, N. S. 1999. The impact of information technology on coordination: Evidence from the B-2 "Stealth" bomber. Organization Science, 10(2): 162-180.

Ashby, W. R. 1956. An introduction to cybernetics. New York,: J. Wiley.

Attewell, P., & Rule, J. 1984. Computing and Organizations - What We Know and What We Don't Know. Communications of the Acm, 27(12): 1184-1192.

Baba, Y., & Nobeoka, K. 1998. Towards knowledge-based product development: the 3-D CAD model of knowledge creation. Research Policy, 26(6): 643-659.

Bakos, J. Y. 1987. Dependent Variables For The Study Of Firm And Industry-Level Impacts Of Information Technology. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Information Systems.

Barley, S. R. 1986. Technology as an Occasion for Structuring - Evidence from Observations of Ct Scanners and the Social-Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1): 78-108.

Barnette, J. N. 1982. Cad System Boosts Morale and Productivity. Industrial Research & Development, 24(6): 126-129.

Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. 1999. Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 3-16.

Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. 2003. The identity crisis within the is discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. Mis Quarterly, 27(2): 183- 194.

Beres, M. E., & Price, K. F. 1980. Middle Range Organization Theorizing: Role Theory as an Example. In C. C. Pinder, & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations: 257-272. Boston: Martinus Nijoff Publishing.

173

Bernstein, R. 1983. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. . Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bharadwaj, A. S. 2000. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. Mis Quarterly, 24(1): 169-196.

Bhaskar, R. 1989. Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London: Verso.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Evered, R. D. 1980. Middle Range Theory and the Strategies of Theory Construction. In C. C. Pinder, & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations: 19-32. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.

Bobko, P. 1980. Middle Range Theories of Organizational Behavior: Some Implications for the Development of Theory. In C. C. Pinder, & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations: 101-112. Boston: Martinus Nijoff Publishing.

Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1999. Organizations as adaptive systems in complex environments: The case of China. Organization Science, 10(3): 237-252.

Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. 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.

Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. 1995. Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, 6(4): 350-372.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourgeois, L. J. 1979. Toward a Method of Middle-Range Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 4(3): 443-447.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1): 40-57.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2): 198-213.

Brynjolfsson, E. 1993. The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12): 67-77.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. 1998. Beyond the productivity paradox. Communications of the Acm, 41(8): 49-55.

174

Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. 2000. Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4): 23-48.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. 2003. Computing productivity: Firm-level evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4): 793-808.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heinemann.

Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4): 442-455.

Carroll, J. M., & Swatman, P. A. 2000. Structured-case: a methodological framework for building theory in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 9: 235-242.

Chervany, N. L., Dickson, G. W., & Kozar, K. A. 1971. An Experimental Gaming Framework for Investigating the Influence of Management Information Systems on Decision Effectiveness, Working Paper 71-12: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota.

Child, J., & Mansfield, R. 1972. Technology, Size and Organization Structure. Sociology, 6: 369-393.

Clarke, A. E. 2005. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. 1999. Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science, 10(4): 381-400.

Davenport, T. H. 1993. Process Innovation: Re-engineering Work Through Information Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. 1992. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1): 60-95.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. 2003. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal Of Management Information Systems, 19(4): 9-30.

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Org Science, 5(2): 121-147.

175

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. 2004. Structuration theory in Information Systems Research: Methods and Controversies. In M. E. Whitman, & A. B. Woszcaynksi (Eds.), The Handbook of Information Systems Research. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.

Devaraj, S., & Kohli, R. 2003. Performance Impacts of Information Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link? Management Science, 49(3): 273-289.

Donaldson, L. 1976. Woodward, Technology, Organisational Structure and Performance- -A Critique of the Universal Generalisation. Journal of Management Studies, 13(3): 255-273.

Donaldson, L. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Earl, M. J. 1993. Experiences in Strategic Information-Systems Planning. Mis Quarterly, 17(1): 1-24.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories From Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.

Encarnação, J., & Schelechtendahl, E. G. 1983. Computer Aided Design: Fundamnetals and System Architectures. Berlin: Pringer-Verlag.

Fay, B. 1996. Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science: A Multicultural Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fulton, R. E. 1982. Cad Cam Approach to Improving Industry Productivity Gathers Momentum. Astronautics & Aeronautics, 20(2): 64-70.

George, J. F., & King, J. L. 1991. Examining the Computing and Centralization Debate. Communications of the Acm, 34(7): 62-72.

Gibson, J. J. 1977. The Theory of Affordances. In R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward and Ecological Psychology: 67-82. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.

Gorry, G. A., & Scott Morton, M. S. 1971. A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review, 13(1): 55-70.

176

Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. 1992. Computers, Guns, And Roses - What's Social About Being Shot. Science Technology & Human Values, 17(3): 366-380.

Hage, J. 1972. Techniques and Problems of Theory Construction in Sociology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hall, T. 1987. Productivity Issues in Pc-Cad Graphics. Ieee Computer Graphics and Applications, 7(10): 13-16.

Harris, M. 2001. Cultural materialism : the struggle for a science of culture / Marvin Harris ; with an introduction by Allen Johnson and Orna Johnson (Updated ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Heidelberger, P., & Welch, P. D. 1981. A Spectral Method for Confidence-Interval Generation and Run Length Control in Simulations. Communications of the Acm, 24(4): 233-245.

Henderson, K. 1991. Flexible Sketches and inflexible data-bases: Visual communication, conscription devices and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(4): 448-473.

Hirschheim, R. A. 1986. The Effect of a-Priori Views on the Social Implications of Computing - the Case of Office Automation. Computing Surveys, 18(2): 165- 195.

Howcraft, D., Miteve, N., & Wilson, M. 2004. What we may learn from the social shaping of technology approach. In J. Mingers, & L. Willcocks (Eds.), Social Theory and Philosophy for IS: 329-371. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Hutchby, I. 2003. Affordances and the analysis of technologically mediated interaction: A response to Brian Rappert. Sociology-The Journal Of The British Sociological Association, 37(3): 581-589.

Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Iacono, S., & Kling, R. 2001. Computerization movements: The rise of the Internet and distant forms of work. In J. Yates, & J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Information technology and organizational transformation: History, rhetoric, and practice: 93-136. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ives, B., Hamilton, S., & Davis, G. B. 1980. A framework for research in computer-based management information systems. Management Science, 26(9): 910-933.

Jones, M. 1999. Structuration Theory. In W. Currie, & B. Galliers (Eds.), Rethinking Management Information Systems: 104-135. New York: Oxford University Press.

177

Keen, P. G. W. 1980. MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and A Cumulative Tradition. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Information Systems, Philadelphia, PA.

Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. A. 2006. Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1): 22-44.

King, J. L., & Lyytinen, K. 2004. Reach and grasp. Mis Quarterly, 28(4): 539-551.

Kling, R. 1980. Social Analyses of Computing - Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical-Research. Computing Surveys, 12(1): 61-110.

Kling, R. 1991a. Computerization and Social Transformations. Science Technology & Human Values, 16(3): 342-367.

Kling, R. 1991b. Computers and the Transformation of Social Analysis - Reply. Science Technology & Human Values, 16(3): 379-381.

Kling, R. 1992a. Audiences, Narratives, and Human-Values in Social-Studies of Technology. Science Technology & Human Values, 17(3): 349-365.

Kling, R. 1992b. When Gunfire Shatters Bone - Reducing Sociotechnical Systems to Social Relationships. Science Technology & Human Values, 17(3): 381-385.

Kling, R., & Scacchi, W. 1982. The Web of Computing - Computer-Technology as Social- Organization. Advances in Computers, 21: 1-90.

Koenigs, R., & Ouchi, W. 1982. An Interview with Ouchi,William. Training and Development Journal, 36(3): 38-40.

Krouse, J. 1982. What Every Engineer Should Know About Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing: The CAD/CAM Revolution. New York: Marcel Decker, Inc.

Lacity, M., & Willcocks, L. P. 1998. An empirical investigation of information technology sourcing practices: Lessons from experience. MIS Quarterly, 22(3): 363-408.

Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691-710.

Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Laughlin, R. 1995. Methodological themes: empirical research in accounting, alternative approaches and a case for ‘middle-range’ thinking. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(1): 63-87.

178

Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and Environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Leavitt, H. J. 1965a. Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural, Technological, and Humanistic Approaches. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations: 1144-1170. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Leavitt, H. J. 1965b. Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Stuctural, Technological, and Humanistic Approaches. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations: 1144-1170. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Leavitt, H. J., & Whisler, T. L. 1958. Management in the 1980's. Harvard Business Review: 41-48.

Lee, A. S. 1991. Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research. Organization Science, 2: 342-365.

Liehr, P., & Smith, M. J. 1999. Middle Range Theory: Spinning Research and Practice to Create Knowledge for the New Millennium. Advances in Nursing Science, 21(4): 81-91.

Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., & Schultze, U. 2004. Design principles for competence management systems: A synthesis of an action research study. Mis Quarterly, 28(3): 435-472.

Lucas, H. C. J. 1973. A Descriptive Model of Information Systems in the Context of the Organization, Proceedings of the Wharton Conference on Research on Computers in Organizations. Data Base, 5(2): 27-36.

MacIntyre, A. 1981. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Majchrzak, A., Chang, T., Barfield, W., Eberts, R., & Salvendy, G. 1987. Human aspects of computer-aided design. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.

Malhotra, M. K., Heine, M. L., & Grover, V. 2001. An evaluation of the relationship between management practices and computer aided design technology. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3): 307-333.

Malone, T. W., & Smith, S. A. 1984. Tradeoffs in designing organizations : implications for new forms of human organizations and computer systems: 1541-1584. Cambridge, MA: Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

179

Markus, M. L. 2005. The Technology Shaping Effects of e-Collaboration Technologies– Bugs and Features. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 1(1): 1-23.

Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. 1988. Information Technology and Organizational-Change - Causal- Structure in Theory and Research. Management Science, 34(5): 583-598.

Mason, R. O. 1984. Summary of IT Impacts Research. In F. W. McFarlan (Ed.), The Information Systems Research Challenge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. 1998. The tree of knowledge : the biological roots of human understanding (Rev. ed.). Boston New York: Shambhala ; Distributed in the U.S. by Random House.

Mays, V. 1997. Does CAD boost productivity? Architecture, 86(6): 160-162.

Merton, R. K. 1948. Discussion of 'The Position of Sociological Theory' by Talcott Parsons. American Sociological Review, 13(2): 164-168.

Merton, R. K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Miles, M. 1980. Productivity Quadrupled Via Cad. Computer Decisions, 12(3): 94-95.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Mingers, J. 2001. Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3): 240-259.

Mitchell, W. J. 1979. Computer-aided architectural design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Mock, T. J. 1973. A Longitudinal Study of Some Information Structure Alternatives. Data Base, 5(2, 3, 4): 40-45.

Mohr, L. B. 1982. Approaches to Explanation: Variance Theory and Process Theory, Chapter 2 in Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mooney, J. G., Gurbaxani, V., & Kraemer, K. L. 1996. A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information technology (Reprinted from Proceedings of the sixteenth annual International Conference on Information Systems, pg 17-27, 1995). Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 27(2): 68-81.

180

Nam, C. H., & Tatum, C. B. 1988. Major Characteristics of Constructed Products and Resulting Limitations of Construction Technology. Construction Management and Economics, 6: 133-148.

Nam, C. H., & Tatum, C. B. 1989. Toward Understanding of Product Innovation Process in Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-Asce, 115(4): 517-534.

Norman, D. A. 2002. The design of everyday things (1st Basic paperback ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Orlikowski, W., & Robey, D. 1991. Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2): 143.

Orlikowski, W. J. 1992. The Duality Of Technology - Rethinking The Concept Of Technology In Organizations. Organization Science, 3(3): 398-427.

Orlikowski, W. J. 1993. Case Tools as Organizational-Change - Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems-Development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3): 309-340.

Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4): 404-428.

Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science, 13(3).

Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. 2001. Research commentary: Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research - A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2): 121-134.

Pawlowski, S. D., & Robey, D. 2004. Bridging user organizations: Knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. Mis Quarterly, 28(4): 645- 672.

Pennings, J. M. 1992. Structural Contingency Theory: A Reappraisal. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14: 267-309.

Petras, J., & Rowe, B. 1985. Cad/Cam Boosts Productivity in Steam-Turbine Blade Manufacturing. Manufacturing Engineering, 94(3): 81-82.

Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and organization theory. Boston: Pitman.

Pinder, C. C., & Moore, L. F. 1979. The Resurrection of Taxonomy to Aid the Development of Middle Range Theories of Organizational Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(1): 99-118.

181

Pinder, C. C., & Moore, L. F. (Eds.). 1980. Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.

Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday.

Pondy, L. R. 1980. Commentary on Gilfillan, Morrow-Muchinsky, and Bluedorn-Evered: The Circle of Inquiry. In C. C. Pinder, & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations: 61-71. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.

Poole, H. L. 1985. Theories of the Middle Range. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage : Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press.

Post, N. M. 2003. Monster Wood Ceiling Crowns City of Angels’ Music Heaven Engineering News-Record.

Pozzebon, M. 2004. The Influence of Structurationist View on Strategic Management Research. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2): 247-272.

Raab, L. M., & Goodyear, A. C. 1984. Middle Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Applications. American Antiquity, 49(2): 255-268.

Rappert, B. 2003. Technologies, texts and possibilities: A reply to Hutchby. Sociology- The Journal Of The British Sociological Association, 37(3): 565-580.

Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. 2004. Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1): 23-37.

Ray, G., Muhanna, W. A., & Barney, J. B. 2005. Information technology and the performance of the customer service process: A resource-based analysis. Mis Quarterly, 29(4): 625-652.

Robey, D. 1981. Computer Information-Systems and Organization Structure. Communications of the Acm, 24(10): 679-687.

Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. C. 1999. Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research, 10(2): 167-185.

Rogers, E. M. 1984. The Impact of Information Technology. In F. W. McFarlan (Ed.), The Information Systems Research Challenge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.

182

Rose, J. 1998. Evaluating the Contribution of Structuration Theory to the Information Systems Discipline. Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Systems, Aix-en-provence, France.

Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.

Salancik, G. R. 1980. Science as Reality. In C. C. Pinder, & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations: 408-413. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.

Schultze, U. 2000. A confessional account of an ethnography about knowledge work. Mis Quarterly, 24(1): 3-41.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Silver, M. S. 1991. Decisional Guidance for Computer-Based Decision Support. MIS Quarterly, 15(1): 105-122.

Slaughter, E. S. 1993. Builders as Sources of Construction Innovation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-Asce, 119(3): 532-549.

Slaughter, E. S. 2000. Implementation of construction innovations. Building Research and Information, 28(1): 2-17.

Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler, S. 1991. Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Star, S. L., & 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.

Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. 1996. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1): 111- 134.

Stover, R. N. 1984. An Analysis of CAD/CAM Applications: with an introduction to CIM. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions : The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thorngate, W. 1976. In General vs. It Depends - Some Comments of Gergen-Schlenker Debate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2(4): 404-410.

183

Thurk, J., & Fine, G. 2003. The Problem of Tools. Acta Sociologica, 46(2): 107-117.

Walsham, G. 1997. Actor-network theory and IS research: current status and future prospects. In J. DeGross (Ed.), Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 international conference on Information systems and qualitative research, Philadelphia, PA: 466-480. London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd.

Walsham, G., & Sahay, S. 1996. GIS for district-level administration in India: Problems and opportunities. Mis Quarterly, 23(1): 39-65.

Wastell, D. G. 1999. Learning dysfunctions in information systems development: Overcoming the social defenses with transitional objects. MIS Quarterly, 23(4): 581-600.

Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addision- Wesley.

Weick, K. E. 1974. Middle Range Theories of Social Systems. Behavioral Science, 19: 357-367.

Weick, K. E. 1976. Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1): 1.

Weick, K. E. 1980. Middle Range Themes in Organizational Theory. In C. C. Pinder, & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations: 392- 407. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.

Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 516-531.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357-381.

Weisberg, D. E. 1983. Performance and Productivity in Cad. Computer Graphics World, 6(6): 72-&.

Whisler, T., Meyer, H., Baum, B. H., & Sorensen, P. F. 1967. Centralization of Organizational Control: An Empirical Study of Its Meaning and Measurement. Journal of Business, 40: 10-26.

Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial organization: theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Woolgar, S., & Grint, K. 1991. Computers And The Transformation Of Social Analysis. Science Technology & Human Values, 16(3): 368-378.

Yap, A. Y., Ngwenyama, O., & Osei-Bryson, K. 2003. Leveraging Knowledge Representation, Usage, and Interpretation to Help Reengineer The Product

184

Development Life Cycle: Visual Computing and the Tacit Dimensions of Product Development. Computers in Industry, 51: 89-110.

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., & Lyytinen, K. 2006. From Organization Design to Organization Designing. Organization Science, 17(2): 215-229.

185