Boundary Organization Practices for Collaboration in Enterprise Integration

References

• Azad B, Faraj S (2008) Making e-government systems workable: Exploring the evolution of frames. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 17(2):75–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barki H, Hartwick J (1994) User participation, conflict, and conflict resolution: The mediating roles of influence. Inform. Systems Res. 5(4):422–438.Link, Google Scholar
• Barki H, Pinsonneault A (2005) A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organ. Sci. 16(2):165–179.Link, Google Scholar
• Barrett M, Oborn E (2010) Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations 63(8):1199–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bechky BA (2003a) Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. Amer. J. Soc. 109(3):720–752.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bechky BA (2003b) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of knowledge on a production floor. Organ. Sci. 14(3):312–330.Link, Google Scholar
• Berente N, Yoo Y (2012) Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Postimplementation of NASA’s enterprise information system. Inform. Systems Res. 23(2):376–396.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau M, Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organ. Sci. 16(1):3–18.Link, Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4):442–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15(5):555–568.Link, Google Scholar
• Davidson EJ (2002) Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quart. 26(4):329–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doolin B, McLeod L (2012) Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 21(5):570–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elbanna A (2010) Rethinking IS project boundaries in practice: A multiple-projects perspective. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 19(1):39–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD, Sutton RI (1992) Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Acad. Management J. 35(4):699–738.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engeström Y, Blackler F (2005) On the life of the object. Organization 12(3):307–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Espinosa JA, Cummings JN, Wilson JM, Pearce BM (2003) Team boundary issues across multiple global firms. J. Management Inform. Systems 19(4):157–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faraj S, Xiao Y (2006) Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management Sci. 52(8):1155–1169.Link, Google Scholar
• Feldman M, Orlikowski WJ (2011) Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1240–1253.Link, Google Scholar
• Feldman M, Pentland B (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(1):94–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gkeredakis E (2014) The constitutive role of conventions in accomplishing coordination: Insights from a complex contract award project. Organ. Stud. 35(10):1473–1505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golden-Biddle K, Locke K (1993) Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic text convince. Organ. Sci. 4(4):595–616.Link, Google Scholar
• Gosain S (2004) Enterprise information systems as objects and carriers of institutional forces: The new iron cage? J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 5(4):151–182.Google Scholar
• Guston DH (1999) Stabilizing the boundary between U.S. politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 29(1):87–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Sci., Tech. Human Values 26(4):399–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen S, Rennecker J (2010) Getting on the same page: Collective hermeneutics in a systems development team. Inform. Organ. 20(1):44–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kellogg K, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J (2006) Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in post-bureaucratic organizations. Organ. Sci. 17(1):22–44.Link, Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina K (1997) Sociality with objects. Theory, Culture, Soc. 14(4):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina K (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lapointe L, Rivard S (2005) A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quart. 29(3):461–491.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee J, Siau K, Hong S (2003) Enterprise integration with ERP and EAI. Comm. ACM 46(2):54–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N (2005) Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: A collective reflection-in-action view. Inform. Systems Res. 16(2):109–130.Link, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Orlikowski WJ (2009) Understanding shifting power relations within and across organizations: A critical genre analysis. Acad. Management J. 52(4):672–703.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quart. 29(2):335–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2006) Turning a community into a market: A practice perspective on information technology use in boundary spanning. J. Management Inform. Systems 22(4):13–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2008) Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quart. 32(2):307–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2014) A field-of-practice view of boundary-spanning in and across organizations. Langan-Fox J, Cooper CL, eds. Boundary-Spanning in Organizations: Network, Influence, and Conflict (Routledge, New York), 285–307.Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, More PHB, Faraj S (2012) Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organ. Sci. 23(4):951–970.Link, Google Scholar
• Markus ML (2004) Technochange management: Using IT to drive organizational change. J. Inform. Tech. 19(1):4–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markus ML, Tanis C (2000) The enterprise systems experience–from adoption to success. Zmud RW, ed. Framing the Domains of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past (Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Cincinnati), 173–208.Google Scholar
• Miettinen R (2005) Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture, Activity 12(1):53–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis, 3rd ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Mørk BE, Hoholm T, Maaninen-Olsson E (2012) Changing practice through boundary organizing: A case from medical R&D. Human Relations 65(2):263–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nicolini D, Mengis J, Swan J (2012) Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organ. Sci. 23(3):612–629.Link, Google Scholar
• O’Mahony S, Bechky BA (2008) Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(3):422–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ, Scott SV (2008) Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work, and organization. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):433–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Østerlund C (2008) The materiality of communicative practices. Scandinavian J. Inform. Systems 20(1):7–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pawlowski SD, Robey D (2004) Bridging user organizations: Knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Quart. 28(4):645–672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandoe K, Saharia A (1999) Enterprise Integration (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Sarker S, Sahay S (2003) Understanding virtual team development: An interpretive study. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 4(1):1–38.Google Scholar
• Sia SK, Soh C (2007) An assessment of package—Organisation misalignment: Institutional and ontological structures. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 16(5):568–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sia SK, Yeo PL (2009) Building enterprise integration through enterprise resource planning systems. Chen H, Slaughter S, eds. ICIS 2009 Proc., 169. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2009/169.Google Scholar
• Soh C, Sia SK, Tay-Yap J (2000) Cultural fits and misfits: Is ERP a universal solution. Comm. ACM 43(4):47–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Star S, Griesemer J (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3):387–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Star S, Ruhleder K (1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Inform. Systems Res. 7(1):111–134.Link, Google Scholar
• Volkoff O, Strong DM, Elmes MB (2005) Understanding enterprise systems-enabled integration. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 14(2):110–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Volkoff O, Strong DM, Elmes MB (2007) Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organ. Sci. 18(5):832–848.Link, Google Scholar
• Wagner E, Newell S (2004) “Best” for whom?: The tension between “best practice” ERP packages and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 13(4):305–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wagner E, Newell S (2006) Repairing ERP: Producing social order to create a working information system. J. Appl. Behavioral Sci. 42(1):40–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yeow A, Sia SK (2008) Negotiating “Best Practices” in package software implementation. Inform. Organ. 18(1):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin R (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA).Google Scholar