1  

THE DNA OF DESIGN WORK: PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL MATERIALITY IN PROJECT-BASED

DESIGN ORGANIZATIONS *

James Gaskin

Case Western Reserve University

Doug Schutz

Temple University

Nicholas Berente

University of Georgia

Kalle Lyytinen

Case Western Reserve University

Youngjin Yoo

Temple University

ABSTRACT 

We review the work on virtuality and virtual organizing to develop a framework

describing six modes of virtuality in project-based design organizations. These modes of

virtuality involve various combinations of digital and physical materiality in both co-located and

remote settings. Then we generate propositions regarding the “intertwining” of different modes

of virtuality in settings of varying levels of centralization and turbulence, and we conclude by

suggesting a novel application of sequence analysis that would enable us to explore patterns of

virtuality in design processes – to gain insight into the “design DNA” of these innovative

contexts.  

* Research funded in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant# VOSS-0943157). To be

presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2010.

2  

INTRODUCTION

Project-based organizing is fundamental to the relentless pursuit of innovation that

characterizes the contemporary business environment (Gann & Salter 2000, Davies & Hobday

2005, Yoo et al. 2006). Innovative project teams temporarily come together for the purpose of

designing something new, and span multiple organizations, across a variety of domains, and are

distributed geographically. Contemporary design organizations inevitably have significant virtual

components; and their work processes are deeply enabled by information technologies (IT)

serving as design infrastructures. While organizational scholars increasingly focus on virtuality

and virtual organizing, they often do so by contrasting the virtual - “the new and the cool” -

against the physical – “the old and the boring.” Research on virtual organizations, consequently,

emphasizes structures, contingencies, and processes where virtuality is likely to improve

organizational performance by substituting for traditional physical forms of organizing.

Such a view, however, has been found to be increasingly problematic. As IT becomes

ubiquitous, it is neither practical nor theoretically sustainable to consider virtual organizing in

isolation. Recent research emphasizes that the virtual is entangled with the physical (Robey &

Jin 2004). All organizations are built with both bricks and clicks (Rennecker 2002, Schultze and

Orlikowski 2001), and virtual organizing is always situated in physical materiality. While it is

clear that contemporary work practices are both virtual and physical, the notion of “virtual” is

3  

used in a variety of ways – from virtual worlds to virtual teams – and we argue that this notion of

virtuality has two related but distinct components: digitalization and physical distribution. We

define digitalization as the process by which organizations entangle digital materiality with

physical materiality for specific work processes (Robey, Schwaig, & Jin, 2003; Yoo, Boland, &

Lyytinen, 2006); and physical distribution as the degree to which individuals and teams are

separated by distance. Thus, when studying project-based design organizing, instead of putting

the virtual and physical aspects of work in some form of blanket opposition, we contend that it

would be more fruitful to focus on the ongoing, multidimensional virtualization of work

capabilities in physical organizational contexts and the impacts of the entanglement of physical

and digital materiality.

In this paper we propose a preliminary framework to identify variations in digital and

physical materiality of design work in the context of project-based design organizations. In

particular, we adopt a view of organizational routines (Pentland & Feldman, 2005) in which

organizations are viewed as conglomerates of varying routines that provide them simultaneously

the stability and the capability to adapt to their environment by mutating their routines over time.

These sets of routines can be represented as sequences of elements of design practices that

describe the design organization – like organizational DNA. Much the same way geneticists

might identify patterns in genetic code, we are interested in understanding in particular how

4  

different patterns of “design code” might identify the relationship between digitalization and

design work in project-based organizing. We focus on project-based organizing as design tasks

are carried out in most cases in project-based design organizations that rely upon combining

technical expertise from many specialties and sources, often from other organizations, in order to

deliver their own technical capabilities, usually in one-off processes (Gann & Salter, 2000). Yet,

not all project-based organizations are the same involving different sets of DNA in the ways in

which they carry out their tasks by interlacing digital capabilities with their tasks.

The goal of our research is to explore how digital and physical entanglements should be

represented for project-based design organizations so that we may analyze the scope of

digitalization and its impact on design practices and outcomes. In addition, we posit that varying

levels of power centralization and environmental volatility affect the pathways in which

digitalization takes place and the scope at which digitalization expands. To explore these ideas,

we develop a theoretical framework drawing on the literature on virtualization of work, and

studies on organizational routines that will provide guidelines for sampling and collecting data

for studying changes in design work. To test our theoretical assertions, we propose to use

sequence analysis techniques to quantitatively analyze the scope of changes in design work with

empirical data.

We recommend sequence analysis, because it will enable us to empirically analyze and

5  

compare different sequences of design routines involving different forms of entanglement of

digital artifacts with physical work practices. Such sequence analyses were first used in genetics

research to analyze DNA patterns and their evolution and it has subsequently been used in the

social sciences (Shoval & Isaacson, 2007; Wilson, 2001, 2006), for example, in sociology to

study social change (Abbot, 1990). However, to our knowledge, this method has yet to be

employed in the analysis of design processes or material entanglement. In this regard our study

will be the first one to introduce such techniques to the analysis of routines and their change in

organizations. Sequence analysis will enable us, in particular, to analyze changes in the order of

events of design routines due to the mutating entanglements of digital and physical materiality in

tasks, and outcomes. In short, our sequence analysis results should reveal ongoing changes in the

“DNA” of organizational design work.

In what follows, we review the state of knowledge regarding digital work and virtual

organizing especially in the context of project-based design organizations. This is followed by a

presentation of our analysis framework and a discussion on how the entanglements of virtual and

digital materiality affect design work on four different project-based design organizations of

varying levels of power centrality and environmental volatility. Adaptations to these different

environments should be manifest through variations in organizational DNA in the balancing and

frequency of interplay between physical and virtual materiality. To this end we articulate a set of

6  

conjectures for the likely directions and effects of digitalization of design work in these contexts.

PROJECT-BASED ORGANIZING AND MATERIALITY

Project-based Organizing

Project-based organizations “rely upon combining technical expertise from other

organizations in order to deliver their own technical capabilities, usually in one-off processes”

(Gann & Salter, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Although project-based organizations can be

quite diverse along a variety of structural features (Whitley, 2006), project-based organizing is

generally characterized by select and consistent structural features such as decentralized power

and networked communication (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1998). Design and construction of products

and systems is often based on project-based organizing as they require the mobilization of

heterogeneous resources (Davies, 2005). Project-based organizing is also becoming increasingly

common due to globalization, expanding business requirements, and scarcity of resources –

encouraging more knowledge, equipment, and capital to be shared (Katzy, Evaristo, & Zigurs,

2000). More ‘virtual’ project teams are often erected as to traverse across functional and

organizational boundaries and access specialist or scarce knowledge with the help of IT.

Recently, scholars have begun to explore some unique challenges associated with project-

based organizing (Sydow, 2004). The first challenge involves the way teams are simultaneously

embedded in both project and organizational contexts and how they juggle those demands

7  

(Sydow, 2004), including managing the tensions between the relative stability of an

organizational context, and the variability of project contexts (Galbraith, 2002; Yoo et al., 2006).

Another key challenge involves how organizations learn during and across projects (Brady &

Davies, 2004; Davies, 2005; Schwab, 2008; Sydow, 2004), in particular, how they distill, retain

and transfer this knowledge as new capabilities into new projects (Brady & Davies, 2004;

Söderlund, 2008). Little is known, in particular, about how organizations address the dialectics

of stability and variability when they increasingly virtualize their work, or how they transfer

relevant capabilities across projects as they embrace digital technology.

The Issue of Materiality

Physical materiality is typically defined through negation – the opposite of anything virtual.

Perhaps because physicality is assumed to be a well-understood concept, surprisingly little

emphasis has been placed on its characterization. It is usually mentioned to help distinguish what

is virtual as something not bound by time and place (Rennecker, 2002; Robey & Jin, 2004;

Schultze, 2000). Yet, material involves both physical materiality (e.g. the time and place, the

physical environment of the work and physical affordances of artifacts including hardware) and

digital materiality (what one can “functionally” or materially do with affordances of IT as

determined primarily by software capabilities). In the context of virtualization, one typically

expands physical materiality with digital materiality by entangling them. By entanglement, we

8  

then mean the inseparably intertwined relationship between physical and digital materiality of

work due to its increased digitalization (Robey et al., 2003). In any given work context, the

physical materiality and the digital materiality of work are tied together, and give meaning to

each other (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Jin & Robey, 2002; Rennecker, 2002; Robey & Jin,

2004). In this vein, Robey et al. (2003) note that work capabilities can be enhanced by

increasingly intertwining or differently intertwining physical and digital materiality. Majchrzak

et al. (2000) also note that collaborative technologies must be designed “with an expectation that

they will be coupled with informal and oral forms of communication that are not necessarily

face-to-face” (p. 596).

Virtuality and Virtual Organizing

In the past two decades terms and constructs like virtual teams, virtual groups, virtual

organizing, virtual organizations, virtual communities, virtual work, and virtual reality have all

been established in different fields of practice and research. The reason for this focus on virtual

is the increased ephemeral nature of the work enabled by digital technologies. Phenomena that

are virtual are not constructed of physical matter, but are instead representations that are

nonetheless used in physical organizational contexts due to their pervasiveness (Laurel, 1991).

Consequently, due to the pervasive nature of IT use, research on virtuality and virtual organizing

is extensive and broad. Past research on virtual organizing can be roughly categorized into five

9  

research streams (see Table 1 for a summary).

TABLE 1

Summary of Research in Virtual and Virtual Organizing

Virtuality as a Context of Collaboration: Virtuality as Physical Distribution

Define and clarify understanding of virtual teams, organizations, and organizing.

(Ahuja & Carley, 1999; Burris, 1993; Chesbrough, 1996; Davidow & Malone, 1992; DeSanctis & Monge, 1999; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Duarte & Snyder, 2001; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Piccoli & Ives, 2003; Powell et al., 2004; Rennecker, 2002; Robey & Jin, 2004; Robey et al., 2003; Schultze, 2001; Söderlund, 2008; Sotto, 1997; Yoo & Alavi, 2004)

Explaining the structure of power and process of communication in virtual teams etc.

Describing the requirements to meet the needs of virtual work. Determining appropriate tasks and contexts for virtual teams.

Elaborating on the pros and cons of virtual collaboration.

Explaining members’ roles in virtual teams.

Virtualization of Work: Virtuality as Digitalization

Explaining the intertwining of virtual and physical representations of work

(Ahuja & Carley, 1999; Barley, 1996; Boland & Schultze, 1995; Child & McGrath, 2001; Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; DeSanctis & Monge, 1999; Edwards et al., 2007; Gibson & Bennis, 1998; Giddens, 1990; Jin & Robey, 2002; Joyce et al., 1997; Leonardi & Barley, 2008; Majchrzak et al., 2000; Rennecker, 2002; Robey & Jin, 2004; Robey et al., 2003; Schultze, 2000; Sotto, 1997; Venkatraman & Henderson, 1998; Yoo & Alavi, 2004)

Positioning virtuality as a representation of material reality

Positioning virtuality as its own independent reality.

Studying agency and accountability with respect to virtual work

Implicating design issues to accommodate virtual work.

Virtualization of Work Organization: Virtuality as Digitalization and Physical Distribution

Explaining what influences behaviors and outcomes in virtual work. (Ahuja & Carley, 1999; Apgar, 1998; Burris, 1993; Cascio, 2000; Chesbrough, 1996; Child, Heavens, & Studies, 1998; Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Davidow & Malone, 1992; DeSanctis & Monge, 1999; Handy, 1995; Hedlund, 1986; Robey et al., 2003; Wellins et al., 1994; Yoo & Alavi, 2004; Zuboff, 1989)

Explaining new accountability perspectives.

Explaining the various types of virtual organizing and their benefits.

Listing the pros and cons of virtual organizing, and their consequences.

Explaining the role changes, power location and communication paths in virtual organizations.

Virtuality as a Capability of Infrastructures: Virtuality as Digitalization and Physical Distribution

Describing/attempting to solve coordination issues and challenges on a local and global scale.

(Child & McGrath, 2001; Edwards et al., 2007; Foster et al., 2001; Gann & Salter, 2000; Hanseth & Lyytinen, 2008; Katzy et al., 2000; Mowshowitz, 1997; Rennecker, 2002; Yoo et al., 2008)

Describing the nature and dependencies of cyber-infrastructures.

Discussing issues of resource sharing.

Explaining what makes a cyber-infrastructure appropriate for effective management.

Virtual Worlds: Virtuality as Digitalization

Distinguishing between virtual and physical reality. (Beck & Wade, 2004; Brooks, 2007; Castronova, 2008; Malaby, 2007; Mennecke, Terando, Janvrin, & Dilla, 2007; Mowshowitz, 1997; Robey et al., 2003; Schultze, 2001; Sotto, 1997; Yee, 2006)

Describing the challenges of understanding, using, and managing virtual worlds.

Explaining perceptions of immersion in virtual worlds.

Explaining the impact of virtual world activity on real financial markets, culture, and work.

10  

For purposes of this paper, it is not crucial to go into a lengthy discussion of the literature

presented in Table 1. The main points from this body of research are summarized in the

following points:

Digitalization of work processes (also called virtualization) has changed the way we

can perform work, our work routines, the outcomes of our work, the location of our

work and our workers, and the modes of organizing and collaborating.

Virtualization cannot stand alone, as all digital work processes have some foundation

in physical materiality. Thus research on virtualization isn’t complete if it neglects

consideration of the physical.

Virtualization of work routines does not always lead to “better” outcomes. Careful

balance and interplay between digital and physical materiality must be considered,

relative to each organization.

Virtualization has the potential to change power structures within organizations, thus

decision making processes vary based on modes of virtuality.

Given this background we next propose frameworks to describe and understand different

forms of project-based organizations and the various modes or configurations of virtuality that

can be employed for organizing and work.

Frameworks for Types of Organizations and Modes of Virtuality

Organizations do not virtualize their work and related capabilities out of “thin air.” Instead,

virtual capabilities are enabled and constrained not only by the affordances of the digital

11  

artifacts, but also by path dependent institutional and environmental factors. Therefore, factors of

power centrality and environmental volatility are likely to influence the way physical and digital

materiality are entangled as organizations seek to virtualize work capabilities. We use power

centrality to refer to the extent to which the organizational control of the design process is

managed by a central body as opposed to a distributed body. For example, are decisions made

top down by a project manager, or are they made by consensus through a distributed network of

minds? We use environmental volatility to refer to industry and market volatility, and the level of

uncertainty that is associated with design decisions. For example, an organization that designs

mobile phones is in a much more volatile environment than an organization that designs bicycles

because phones and phone components change constantly, whereas bikes and bike components

remain relatively constant over time. Similarly, the size, shape, and capabilities of the bike

change far less frequently than in the case of a mobile phone. These two types of structure are

found in varying degrees and combinations in every project-based design organization.

We offer two main arguments for using power centrality and environmental volatility to

categorize project-based design organizations. First, we surmise that the structures and norms

related to design processes are conditioned by the volatility of a given industry – a classic

contingency factor in organizational research (Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence & Lorsh, 1967;

Thompson, 1967). In the case of project-based design organizations, this involves the volatility

12  

of the design parameters, architectural principles and the level of uncertainty related to design

decisions and market forces.

Second, any investigation into the impact of virtualization on design-work should address

the issues related to design control. Control in this case deals with the allocation and exercise of

rights to make decisions about the structure or the process of the design. Such control has

traditionally been conceived to be synonymous with managerial prerogatives (Yates, 1989), and

the study of control in organizational contexts generally involves a broad understanding of the

impacts of organizational structure, norms, and micro-level power in organizational behavior like

design work (Clegg, 2006). Organizations are generally thought to operate somewhere along a

continuum, with centralized hierarchical organizational forms at the one extreme, and egalitarian

networks at the other (Clegg, 2006). Decision rights and power relations are central concerns of

all forms of organizing, but can bear a markedly different character depending upon where the

form is located along this continuum. Due to virtualization, firms act increasingly in

combinations of the two forms of control, centralized and decentralized (what Clegg (2006)

refers to as “polyarchies”) (King, 1983; Yoo et al., 2008). The interplay of the virtual and

physical with these polarized regimes of control is critical in understanding how design

processes change and unfold.

13  

Thus, in looking at both centralization of the project organization as well as the volatility

of its environment, we identify four Weberian ideal forms of project-based organizations: stable

networked, stable hierarchical, dynamic networked, and dynamic hierarchical. It is important to

note that these classifications are continuums and any given instance of an organization may find

itself crossing into different forms at different times. Figure 1 describes the framework.

FIGURE 1

Forms of Project-Based Organizations

In stable network organizations, design decisions are distributed among heterogeneous actors

who represent different disciplines. However, not all of these domains face rapid changes in the

environments. Teams in the Architecture, Construction and Engineering (AEC) industry, for

example, may evidence such stable networked design organizations. In a typical AEC project, an

architect only provides “design intent” and actual design decisions are made in a distributed

manner as different contractors and subcontractors decide how to “build” the building based on

the design intent as represented in the design document (Boland, Lyytinen, & Yoo, 2007).

Power Structure

Less Centralized More Centralized

En

viro

nm

enta

l V

olat

ilit

y

Less Volatile Stable Networked

Organization Stable Hierarchical

Organization

More Volatile Dynamic Networked

Organization Dynamic Hierarchical

Organization

14  

In dynamic networked organizations, design decisions are often distributed among

heterogeneous actors. In such organizational forms diverse groups of individuals bring their own

unique disciplinary knowledge to bear on a design project, and new and changing knowledge

resources are continually brought to bear in the design project (Berente, 2007). Yet, each of these

diverse actors faces rapid and unevenly distributed changes in their own disciplines (Yoo et al.,

2008). Open-source communities are good examples of such dynamic networked design

organizations.

In stable hierarchical organizations, design decisions are centrally made by a key design

architect. Furthermore, these organizations execute well-developed design routines as they face

relatively stable environments. We see this type of stable hierarchical design organization in

traditional manufacturing firms who design their products with stable markets in-house, often

based on a unique market niche or capability. Design teams that make tooling such as dies and

molds might reflect stable hierarchical organizations. In these cases design engineers interact

with customers in a limited set of ways and provide support for local manufacturing.

Finally, in dynamic hierarchical organizations, design decisions are still centrally

controlled. However, these organizations face much unpredictability in environments that face

high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity. Design organizations in the IT industry (such as

microprocessor manufacturers or mobile phone manufacturers) fall into this category. In order to

15  

execute the centrally made design decisions rapidly, these firms must retain a repertoire of

design routines and templates (Yoo et al., 2006) and be constantly enrolling new knowledge

resources as innovative requirements emerge and change unpredictably (Berente, 2007).

Based on our review of project based design organizations and the different aspects of

virtuality and materiality, we also propose a multidimensional framework of virtuality (see

Figure 1). Virtuality refers to the location (co-located vs. remote) and materiality (digital vs.

physical) of work. Next we describe a framework and offer examples of design activity for each

mode of virtuality.

FIGURE 2

Framework of Virtuality in Project-based Design Work

Materiality

Digital Digital & Physical Physical

Geographic Dispersion

Co-located Resource Sharing (Group Support Systems)

Synchronous Collaboration (Boundary Objects)

Pre-Industrial (Studio Work)

Remote Distributed Collaboration (Virtual Teams)

Infrastructural (Repositories)

Industrial (Bureaucratic)

Given this framework, there are six different modes of virtuality that can arise in project-

based design activity. First, there is a scenario where co-located groups engage in entirely digital

design tasks, what we refer to as digital “resource sharing.” This mode invokes an image of

16  

designers each working independently through their computer on tasks although they are

physically co-located – such a mode of collaboration that can be part of the “group support

systems” tradition (see Nunamaker et al 1996). Proceeding clockwise, the second mode of

virtuality would involve co-location but the simultaneous use of digital and physical objects,

perhaps in a meeting, as boundary objects (see Carlile 2002). The third mode of virtuality is co-

located and does not have digital components, the type of organization that may not have

changed much since pre-industrial studio work. Next, the fourth mode of virtuality might

involve no digital materiality, yet separation geographically, which would indicate that activity

might be coordinated by traditional bureaucratic mechanisms such as the physical genres of

control and communication of the industrial age (Yates 1993) – for example, passing blue prints

around between construction divisions. The fifth mode of virtuality indicates geographic

distribution of both physical and digital materiality which might describe situations where

scientists use local, physical scientific technology in conjunction with – or perhaps part of – a

common cyber-infrastructure (Edwards et al 2007). Finally, the sixth mode of virtuality describes

a situation of digital materiality and distance – the domain of the classic virtual teams literature

(e.g., DeSanctis & Monge, 1999). It is important to note that the routines that comprise any given

design project do not stay confined within one of these six areas, but move back and forth and

from one mode of virtuality to another. Next we theorize about patterns of virtuality in project-

17  

based organizations based on this framework.

THEORY GENERATION

We turn our discussion now to applying lessons from the literature to generate

propositions regarding the four different types of project-based design organizations with respect

to the balance of physical and digital methods of collaboration and their effect on the balance and

the interplay of physical and digital forms of materiality. By digital materiality we mean what

one can “functionally” or materially do with affordances of IT as determined primarily by

software capabilities. By physical materiality we refer to those things whose material is bound by

time and place, physically in an environment of the workplace, and whose affordances are

physical. In the context of virtualization, one typically expands physical materiality with digital

materiality through the entanglement of the latter with the former (Robey et al., 2003).

Treating them as separate modalities of materiality, in this paper, we focus on two

dimensions of the interplay between physical and digital materiality – frequency of interplay and

balance of materiality – as the basic unit of gaining theoretical and empirical understanding of

the entanglement. The frequency of interplay refers to the number of times people switch from

digital methods of working and organizing to physical methods (and vice versa). The balance of

materiality is referring to the relative load of work being done on one type of materiality

(physical or digital) as compared to the other type. For example, an organization ‘digitally

18  

balanced’ may use both types of materiality, but they rely more heavily on digital methods of

working and organizing. In this vein, Robey et al. (2003) note that work capabilities can be

enhanced by increasingly intertwining or differently intertwining physical and digital materiality.

Utilizing our framework for organizational forms (see figure xx), we argue that those

working in stable environments would need to recreate new engagements less frequently, thus

they would get into working rhythms with others in their organization, which then might require

less physical interaction. These stable environments would also require fewer reconfigurations of

processes and thinking, also resulting in working rhythms and requiring less physical interaction.

Furthermore, in the stable environment, knowledge required for the design work is likely to be

well codified (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Thus the frequency of interplay between physical and

virtual means of working and organizing would be far less necessary than in dynamic

environments.

In dynamic environments, to the contrary, people are rolling in new knowledge sources and

requirements more often (Berente, 2007), which would necessitate more physical interaction in

order to come to group understandings and alignment of objectives (Berente, Srinivasan, Yoo,

Boland, & Lyytinen, 2007). Knowledge requirements in the dynamic environments are likely to

be much more difficult to codify effectively (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). This volatility would

also tend to increase the frequency of interplay between physical and virtual methods of working

19  

and organizing. For example, workers physically interact in order to come to consensus, and

then they go about their work virtually until they require more clarification. Naturally, in a

dynamic environment, the frequency of “snags” requiring additional clarification would be

greater than in a stable environment. Thus, workers would need to come together physically

again.

In hierarchical power structures, we expect that digital modes may be emphasized because of

the need to make decisions traceable, formalized, codified, etc., to which digitalization lends

itself so ably through email and chat trails, file histories, file repositories, templates and so on.

Furthermore, centrally made design decisions can be digitally captured and transmitted

throughout the design organizations. Those working within a hierarchical organization will also

have shared understandings of institutional practices and processes, thus arguably decreasing the

need for frequent clarifications and negotiations (Vaast & Levina, 2006). Thus, the interplay

between physical and virtual methods of working and organizing will be less frequent in

hierarchical power structures.

Whereas, in networked power structures, there is more local, ad hoc decision making, which

would require more physical interactions in order to “get on the same page” and come to

consensus when perspectives may differ (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). However, due to the

networked nature of the organization, physical interactions may be avoided when possible, thus

20  

increasing interplay between physical and digital modes of working and organizing – meeting

physically to discuss organizational routines, working digitally to accomplish tasks, but coming

back together again for realignment and clarification. Table 2 summarizes these arguments.

TABLE 2

Balance and Interplay of Materiality Based on Organizational Trait

Given the arguments above, we theorize first about the balance of materiality and the

frequency of interplay in stable hierarchical organizations and dynamic networked

organizations. These assessments are outlined in the first four propositions below.

P1.1: The balance of materiality for a stable hierarchical project-based organizational

form will be heavier on the virtual side.

P1.2: The frequency of interplay between physical and virtual materiality will be

relatively lower for a stable hierarchical project-based organizational form.

P2.1: The balance of materiality for a dynamic networked project-based organizational

form will be heavier on the physical side.

Organizational Trait Balance of Materiality Frequency of

Interplay

Stable Virtual Less

Dynamic Physical More

Hierarchical Virtual Less

Networked Physical More

21  

P2.2: The frequency of interplay between physical and virtual materiality will be

relatively higher for a dynamic networked project-based organizational form.

The other two types of organizations are less straightforward. In these situations, we

expect to see more dynamic changes in the balance and interplay of materiality. In a stable

networked organization, we expect to find that the networked trait has more influence towards

the beginning of projects as consent and alignment are established. But then as the project gets

into its “groove” the stable trait begins to exhibit her influence. For example, when a project

begins in a networked organization the contributors must initially interact physically in order to

understand each other, familiarize themselves, and agree upon practices and processes. But as

time goes on they have established these ways and means and they know those with whom they

are working, thus, the need to interact physically decreases (Berente et al., 2007). Thus we

propose:

P3.1: The balance of materiality for a stable networked project-based organizational form

will be heavier on the physical side toward the beginning of a project, but then will tend toward

the virtual side over time.

P3.2: The frequency of interplay between physical and virtual materiality will be

relatively higher for a stable networked project-based organizational form toward the beginning

of a project, but then will decrease over time.

22  

In a dynamic hierarchical organization, we expect to find a similar situation. Toward the

beginning of a project the influence of the dynamic trait exhibits more influence on the balance

of materiality tending toward the physical side, due to the necessity of understanding the project

requirements, domain processes, and working tools. It is likely that towards the beginning of

such a project the team will have several meetings in order to work out the kinks that are more

characteristic of projects in a volatile environment. At the beginning of a project, a hierarchical

design organization is likely to engage in a collective sense-making process (Weick, 2005) and

search for appropriate routines to be enacted (Pentland & Feldman, 2005). At the same time the

influence of the dynamic trait is also evident in the frequency of interplay. Because of the need

for clarification prone to projects in a volatile environment, the frequency of interplay will be

high. But over time, as the project gets into its groove and appropriate organization routines are

enacted, the influence of the hierarchical trait will be more evident – requiring less interplay and

encouraging more digital work and organizing (Argyres, 1999). Thus we propose:

P4.1: The balance of materiality for a dynamic hierarchical project-based organizational

form will be heavier on the physical side toward the beginning of a project, but then will tend

toward the virtual side over time.

23  

P4.2: The frequency of interplay between physical and virtual materiality will be

relatively higher for a dynamic hierarchical project-based organizational form toward the

beginning of a project, but then will decrease over time.

These propositions are summarized in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3

Summary of Propositions

Next we introduce the notion of routines and the methodology of sequence analysis and then

conclude with implications for theory and practice.

SEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND GENERAL DISCUSSION

To empirically test these theoretical arguments we recommend that it is fruitful to

conceive of project tasks as “routines” and to identify patterns in these routines through sequence

analysis. Nelson and Winter (1982) proposed routines as a unit of analysis for evolutionary

economics similar to how genes are used in understanding biological theory. Profitable firms will

grow from the natural selection of successful routines, while unprofitable firms will decline.

Power Structure

Less Centralized More Centralized

En

viro

nm

enta

l V

olat

ilit y

Less Volatile

Balance: Physical Digital

Interplay: More Less

Balance: Digital

Interplay: Less

More Volatile

Balance: Physical

Interplay: More

Balance: Physical Digital

Interplay: More Less

24  

New routines are adopted by firms through “searches” playing a similar role as mutations in

biological evolutionary theory (Nelson & Winter, 1982). A business model consists of a set of

routines, and a strategy for replicating a successful business model requires knowing which

elements of routines contribute to success in various environments (Winter & Szulanski, 2001).

The design processes in work routines are becoming increasingly critical as modularity with

decentralized control provides greater freedom for innovation; hence, managers will need to gain

an inner understanding of the design process and routines to ensure that the various modules fit

together (Baldwin & Clark, 1997).

We introduce sequence analysis in this research because this method will enable us to

analyze and compare the sequences of design activity routines involving the entanglement of

digital artifacts with physical work practices. Work process routines consist of sequences of events

which transform inputs to outputs; these sequences of events or actions usually involve more than one

task, which, can cause work processes to vary over time (Pentland, 2003). How and why organizations

change is a key question for researchers in management (Van De Ven & Poole, 1995). Variability in work

processes can have either a positive or negative effect on outcomes. While variability can indicate

flexibility, adaptation, and ability to learn, it can also signify lack of control and poor quality (Pentland,

2003). Process theory enables analysis to go beyond a “black box” view of just inputs and outputs, and to

explain how and why successful or unsuccessful outputs result based on their development paths through

25  

time (Van de Ven & Poole, 1990). Opportunities exist when sequences of events or activities can be

identified and associated with positive outcomes (Abbott, 1990). Thus, we recommend using sequence

analysis for identifying the specific mutations in organizational routines that may contribute to positive or

negative outcomes. 

Sequence analysis was first used in biochemistry for analyzing DNA patterns, and has

subsequently been used in the social sciences (Shoval & Isaacson, 2007; Wilson, 2001, 2006). However,

to our knowledge, this method has yet to be employed in the study of design processes. Sequence analysis

will enable researchers to analyze the order of events of design process routines evolving through the

mutating entanglements of digital and physical materiality in tasks, tools, and outcomes. In short,

sequence analysis results should reveal the “DNA” of organizational design work.

We propose that work routines in any project-based design organization can be represented as a

sequence by concatenating a consistent set of categorical identifiers that describe a particular

task or project. Sequence analysis can be quite useful for analyzing consistent sequences

describing work routines (Abbott, 1990; Wilson, 2006). Every substantial design task includes1

1) a set of team members who have roles, 2) a design object, 3) a tool for assisting the team

members, 4) an activity, and 5) an affordance (the general intent of the task). Each of these

categories will have a common set of instances across all types of design tasks, but each design

task will have its own unique combination (or sequence) of instances. We can represent each of

26  

these instances with an identifier and then concatenate the set of identifiers to create a sequence.

Table 3 shows how we might map instances to identifiers.

TABLE 3

Mapping Instances to Identifiers for Sequencing Category Instance Identifier

Role Project Manager R1 Design Engineer R2 Modeler R3

Design Object User Interface D1 Locking Mechanism D2 Product physical form D3

Tool CAD T1 Email T2 Whiteboard T3

Activity Discuss user interface A1 Design user interface A2 Model physical form A3

Affordance Consensus Z1 Generation Z2 Representation Z3

For example, if we have a design task that involves the design engineer and the modeler,

discussing the user interface, using the whiteboard, the sequence would look something like this:

R2R3D1T3A1Z1. Now let’s say a similar task is done using email instead of the whiteboard, the

sequence would look like this: R2R3D1T2A1Z1. If we also know the outcomes of these tasks,

such as whether the task successfully resulted in consensus, whether it expanded understanding,

or whether the discussion was efficiently conducted, we can then discover if certain mutations, or

differences between sequences, seem to be correlated with certain outcomes. In this example,

the underlined identifiers illustrate a mutation between similar sequences.

27  

R2R3D1T3A1Z1

R2R3D1T2A1Z1

Sequencing especially becomes useful as the number of tasks under scrutiny increases. For

comparing only two tasks, it would be easier to perform the analysis without bothering with

sequencing, but if we are comparing hundreds or thousands of tasks, sequencing provides a

consistent and automatable method of analysis. Real sequences will also be significantly more

complex than this simple example. Through sequence analysis techniques available in packages

like Stata or ClustalG, distance matrices can be used to calculate percent differences between

sequences – something which would be otherwise impossible. Thus we may see to what degree

sets of sequences are similar and compare their outcomes in order to draw some inferences about

correlation between work routines and outcomes. Then the mutations between routines will

stand out as possible areas for organizational change.

Lastly, sequences can be concatenated to form meta-sequences that describe entire

projects or phases of projects. Utilizing this capability, patterns of interplay between physical

and virtual organizing can be discovered, as well as balance load. For example, we will easily be

able to parse out the frequency of switching back and forth between digital and physical tools

(assuming the materiality of the tool is represented in the sequence). Additionally we may

discover balance shifts from physical to virtual tools, or vice versa as described in the

propositions above.

28  

Researchers as well as practitioners should benefit from this research. We extend the

theoretical concepts of virtuality and materiality by providing a means for measuring and

analyzing the balancing and entangling roles of digital and physical materiality and their effects

in organizational routines. We also provide an innovative way in applying sequence analysis

with ethnographic data for studying design process routines.

Sequence analysis enables us to analyze and compare the sequences and outcomes of

design team activity routines involving the entanglement of digital artifacts with physical work

in various environments. Using sequence analysis will allow us to discover correlations between

certain outcomes and certain patterns or mutations between work routines. Patterns and

correlations we hope to find in future research include: 1) efficiencies for completing projects on

time and within budget can be gained through increased automation by replacing physical with

digital routines; 2) effectiveness can be enhanced through the reordering of sequences for greater

accuracy and fewer errors, which in turn, can improve project quality; and 3) transformations of

work routines can emerge by introducing new activities facilitating new types of affordances and

innovation.

The propositions we’ve made in this paper explain the balance and interplay of

materiality in four different forms of project-based organizations. These propositions are not a

report of findings, but an argument for what configuration of work routines would be most likely

29  

and effective. Actual organizations may follow entirely different routines based on established

practices and procedures within their respective organizations. Thus the implications of our

propositions are that if organizations are finding “kinks” in their design projects, these kinks may

be due to a too heavy reliance upon one type of materiality or another, or a difficulty in

switching back and forth between physical and digital routines. For example, if physical

methods are being used when digital methods are more natural, this misalignment of routines

will become a stumbling block to progress. We may find through future research and sequence

analysis that certain patterns of balance and interplay are correlated with greater efficiency,

effectiveness, or innovation – and that these patterns are different for different forms of

organizations.

Future research would be most fruitful if data was collected from firms of varying degrees of

managerial control and environmental volatility working on innovative design projects.

Empirically establishing the propositions in this paper would inform design team project

managers how their project outcomes can be managed by adjustments in work routines. Project

managers would be able to optimize work sequences, combining the use of digital and physical

tools and collaboration methods based on the requirements and environments of their particular

projects, industries, and strategies.

30  

CONCLUSION

In contemporary organizations, bits constantly meet atoms and data streams constantly

collide with flesh. But all project-based organizations do not work under the same circumstances,

and they do not all require the same balance of digital and physical materiality nor local or

remote interaction. However, we assert that the patterns of interplay between the digital and

physical, between the co-located and remote, will help us identify the “design DNA” of

contemporary innovative design processes. In this attempt to capture the character of that DNA,

we take an early step in understanding processes through the interplay of modes of action, and

thus can potentially enable researchers to compare different projects across organizations, and

for practitioners to understand some of the situations that bring about favorable design outcomes.

In this paper we have discussed the state of knowledge regarding virtual and physical materiality,

and have applied the implications of this understanding to project-based design organizations. By

reviewing and classifying research into virtuality, we have developed a framework that helps us

think through the notion of virtuality more precisely. Further, by classifying projects according

to varying degrees and combinations of power centrality and environmental volatility, we

generated propositions about the patterns we expect to detect in empirical settings. We have also

suggested that sequence analysis would allow us to empirically test these propositions. Sequence

analysis provides an automated way of quickly discovering patterns and mutations in the DNA of

31  

organizations. These patterns and mutations in work routines may be simple indicators for

focusing organizational change.

32  

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. 1990. A primer on sequence methods. Organization Science: 375‐392. 

Ahuja, M. K., & Carley, K. M. 1999. Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization Science: 

741‐757. 

Apgar, M. 1998. The Alternative Workplace: Changing Where and How People Work. Harvard Business 

Review, 76(3): 121‐136. 

Argyres, N. S. 1999. The Impact of Information Technology on Coordination: Evidence From the B‐2 

"Stealth" Bomber. Organization Science, 10(2): 162‐180. 

Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 1997. Managing in the Age of Modularity Harvard Business Review, 75(5): 

84‐93. 

Barley, S. R. 1996. Technicians in the Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into 

Organization Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3). 

Beck, J. C., & Wade, M. 2004. Got game: Harvard Business Press. 

Berente, N., R. Baxter, and K. Lyytinen. 2007. A Dynamic View of Interorganizational Knowledge Creation 

Practices across Object Worlds, Academy of Management Annual Meeting (OCIS Division). 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Berente, N., Srinivasan, N., Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Jr, & Lyytinen, K. 2007. Binate Diversity and the Rolling 

Edge of Design Networks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th International 

Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Montreal, Canada. 

Boland, J. 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., Jr, & Tenkasi, R. V. 1995. Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of 

Knowing. Organization Science, 6(4): 350‐372. 

Boland, R. J., & Schultze, U. 1995. From Work to Activity: Technology and the Narrative of Progress. 

Paper presented at the IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Technology and 

Changes in Organizational Work. 

Brady, & Davies. 2004. Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning. 

Organization Studies, 25(9): 1601. 

Brooks, J. M. 2007. Virtuality and Virtualization. In S. K. Crowston, S., Wynn, E. (Ed.), International 

Federation for Information Processing, Vol. 236: 201‐213. Boston: Springer. 

Burris, B. H. 1993. Technocracy at work: State University of New York Press. 

Cascio, W. F. 2000. Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive (1993‐2005): 

81‐90. 

33  

Castronova, E. 2008. A Test of the Law of Demand in a Virtual World: Exploring the Petri Dish Approach 

to Social Science. SSRN eLibrary. 

Chesbrough, H. W. T., D. J. 1996. When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation. Harvard Business 

Review: 65‐73. 

Child, J., Heavens, S., & Studies, J. I. o. M. 1998. The social constitution of organizations and its 

implications for organizational learning: Judge Institute of Management Studies. 

Child, J., & McGrath, R. G. 2001. Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an information‐

intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal: 1135‐1148. 

Clegg, S. R., D. Courpasson, & N. Phillips. 2006. Power and Organizations. Sage Publications. 

Davenport, T. H., & Pearlson, K. 1998. Two cheers for the virtual office. Sloan Management Review, 

39(4): 51. 

Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. 1992. The virtual corporation: Harper Collins New York, NY. 

Davies, A. H., M. 2005. The business of projects: managing innovation in complex products and 

systems: Cambridge University Press. 

Davis, N., Compton, L. & Mackey, J. 2009. Field Experience with a Virtual School’s Teacher: How can it 

be done? Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education 

International Conference 2009. 

DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1998. Paradox in project‐based enterprise. California Management 

Review, 40(2): 125‐139. 

DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. 1999. Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual 

organizations. Organization Science: 693‐703. 

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive 

Structuration Theory. Organization Science, 5(2): 121‐147. 

Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. 2001. Mastering virtual teams: Jossey‐Bass San Francisco. 

Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Bowker, G. C., Knobel, C. P., Science, T. C. f., Society, a., Michigan, U. o., 

University, S. C., Science, T., Society, P., & Information, S. o. 2007. Understanding Infrastructure 

Dynamics, Tensions, and Design: NSF. 

Foster, I., Kesselman, C., & Tuecke, S. 2001. The anatomy of the grid: Enabling scalable virtual 

organizations. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 15(3): 200. 

Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations: Addison‐Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. 

Boston, MA, USA. 

Galbraith, J. R. 2002. Organizing to deliver solutions. Organizational Dynamics, 31(2): 194‐207. 

Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. 2000. Innovation in project‐based, service‐enhanced firms: the construction 

of complex products and systems. Research Policy, 29(7): 955‐972. 

Gibson, R., & Bennis, W. 1998. Rethinking the future: Nicholas Brealey Publishing London. 

Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. . 

34  

Handy, C. 1995. Trust and the virtual corporation. Harvard Business Review, 73(3): 40‐50. 

Hansen, S., Berente, N., Pike, J., & Bateman, P. J. 2009. Productivity and Play in Organizations: Executive 

Perspectives of the Real‐World Organizational Value of Immersive Virtual Environments. 

Artifact, 2(3). 

Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. 2008. Design theory for adaptive complexity in information infrastructures. 

submitted to Journal of Information Technology   

Hedlund, G. 1986. The Hypermodern MNC: A hierarchy? Human Resource Management, 25(1): 9‐35. 

Issue, E.‐I. 2009. Special Issue on e‐Infrastructure. JAIS, 10(5). 

JAIS. 2009. Special Issue on e‐Infrastructure. JAIS, 10(5). 

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. 1999. Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization 

Science, 10(6): 791‐815. 

Jin, L., & Robey, D. 2002. An Interpretive Analysis of the Relationship Between Virtual and Material 

Representations in an E‐business Company: A Participant Observation Study: Georgia State 

University  

Joyce, W. F., McGee, V. E., & Slocum, J. W. 1997. Designing Lateral Organizations: An Analysis of the 

Benefits, Costs, and Enablers of Nonhierarchical Organizational Forms*. Decision Sciences, 

28(1): 1‐25. 

Katzy, B., Evaristo, R., & Zigurs, I. 2000. Knowledge management in virtual projects: A research agenda, 

Proceedings of the Thirty‐Third Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences. 

King, J. L. 1983. Centralized versus decentralized computing: organizational considerations and 

management options. ACM Computing Surveys, 15(4): 319. 

Laurel, B. 1991. Computers as theatre. Reading, MA. 

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsh, J. W. 1967. Organization and Environment Boston: Harvard Business School 

Press. 

Leonardi, P. M. 2007. Activating the Informational Capabilities of Information Technology for 

Organizational Change. Organization Science, 18(5): 813‐831. 

Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. 2008. Materiality and Change: Challenges to Building Better Theory about 

Technology and Organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3): 159‐176. 

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. 1997. Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with 

technology: Wiley New York. 

Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. 2000. Technology adaptation: The case of a 

computer‐supported inter‐organizational virtual team. MIS quarterly: 569‐600. 

Malaby, T. M. 2007. Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture, 2(2): 95‐113. 

Mennecke, B. E., Terando, W. D., Janvrin, D. J., & Dilla, W. N. 2007. It's just a game, or is it? Real money, 

real income, and real taxes in virtual worlds. The Communications of the Association for 

Information Systems, 20(1): 15. 

35  

Mowshowitz, A. 1997. Virtual organization. Commun. ACM, 40(9): 30‐37. 

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change: Belknap Press/Harvard 

University Press: Cambridge. 

Nonaka, I. A., & Takeuchi, H. A. 1995. The Knowledge‐creating Company: How Japanese Companies 

Create the Dynamics of Innovation: Oxford University Press US.  . 

Orlikowski, W. J. 2007. Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies, 

28(9): 1435‐1448. 

Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. 2008. Chapter 10: Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of 

Technology, Work and Organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2: 433 ‐ 474. 

Pentland, B. T. 2003. Sequential Variety in Work Processes. Organization Science, 14(5): 528‐540. 

Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. 2005. Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and 

Corporate Change, 14(5): 793‐815. 

Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. 2003. Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams. MIS 

Quarterly, 27(3): 365‐395. 

Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. 2004. Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for 

future research. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1): 7. 

Rennecker, J. A. 2002. The Situated Nature of Virtual Teamwork: Understanding the Constitutive Role of. 

Place” In the Enactment of Virtual Work Configuration,” Sprouts: Working Papers on 

Information Environments, Systems and Organizations, 2(3): 115‐139. 

Robey, D., & Jin, L. 2004. Studying virtual work in teams, organizations, and communities. The Handbook 

for Information Systems Research, 1. 

Robey, D., Schwaig, K. S., & Jin, L. 2003. Intertwining material and virtual work. Information and 

Organization, 13(2): 111‐129. 

Schultze, U., & Boland, R. J. 2000. Place, space and knowledge work: A study of outsourced computer 

systems administrators. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(3): 187‐

219. 

Schultze, U., & Orlikowski, W. . 2001. Metaphors of virtualiity: Shaping an emergent reality. . 

Information and Organization, 11(1): 45‐77. 

Schwab, A. M., A.S. 2008. Learning in Hybrid‐Project Systems: The Effects of Project Performance on 

Repeated Collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6): 1117. 

Shoval, N., & Isaacson, M. 2007. Sequence alignment as a method for human activity analysis in space 

and time. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2): 282‐297. 

Söderlund, J. 2008. Competence Dynamics and Learning Processes in Project‐Based Firms: Shifting, 

Adapting and Leveraging. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1): 41. 

Sotto, R. 1997. The virtual organisation. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 7(1): 

37‐51. 

36  

Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., & DeFillippi. 2004. Project‐based organizations, embeddedness and repositories 

of knowledge: Editorial. Organization Studies, 25(9): 1475. 

Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw‐Hill. 

Vaast, & Levina. 2006. Multiple faces of codification: organizational redesign in an IT organization. 

Organization Science, 17(2): 190. 

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1990. Methods for Studying Innovation Development in The Minnesota 

Innovation Research Program. Organization Science, 1(3): 313‐335. 

Van De Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy 

of Management Review, 20(3): 510‐540. 

Venkatraman, M., & Henderson, J. C. 1998. Real Strategies for Virtual Organizing. Sloan management 

review, 40(1): 33. 

Volkoff, O., D. M. Strong, et al. . 2007. Technological Embeddedness and Organizational Change. 

Organization Science 18(5): 832. 

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. 

Organization Science, 16(4): 409. 

Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Dixon, G. R. 1994. Inside teams: How 20 world‐class organizations are 

winning through teamwork: Jossey‐Bass, San Francisco, Calif. 

Whitley, R. 2006. Project‐based firms: new organizational form or variations on a theme? Industrial and 

Corporate Change(1): 77. 

Wilson, C. 2001. Activity patterns of Canadian women: Application of ClustalG sequence alignment 

software. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 

1777(‐1): 55‐67. 

Wilson, C. 2006. Reliability of sequence‐alignment analysis of social processes: Monte Carlo tests of 

ClustalG software. Environment and Planning A, 38(1): 187. 

Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. 2001. Replication as Strategy. Organization Science, 12(6): 730‐743. 

Yates, J. A. 1989. Control through communication: The rise of system in American management. 

Boston: MIT Press. 

Yee, N. 2006. The Labor of Fun: How Video Games Blur the Boundaries of Work and Play. Games and 

Culture, 1(1): 68‐71. 

Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. 2004. Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do? 

Information and Organization, 14(1): 27‐58. 

Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Jr., & Lyytinen, K. 2006. From Organization Design to Organization Designing. 

Organization Science, 17(2): 215‐229. 

Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., & Richard J. Boland, J. 2008. Distributed Innovation in Classes of Networks. Paper 

presented at the Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences ‐ 

2008, Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii. 

37  

Zuboff, S. 1989. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic 

Books.