The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collaborating on Multiparty Information Systems Development Projects: A Collective Reflection-in-Action View
Open accessAbstract
Growth of Web-based applications has drawn a great number of diverse stakeholders and specialists into the information systems development (ISD) practice. Marketing, strategy, and graphic design professionals have joined technical developers, business managers, and users in the development of Web-based applications. Often, these specialists work for different organizations with distinct histories and cultures. A longitudinal, qualitative field study of a Web-based application development project was undertaken to develop an in-depth understanding of the collaborative practices that unfold among diverse professionals on ISD projects. The paper proposes that multiparty collaborative practice can be understood as constituting a “collective reflection-in-action” cycle through which an information systems (IS) design emerges as a result of agents producing, sharing, and reflecting on explicit objects. Depending on their control over the various economic and cultural (intellectual) resources brought to the project and developed on the project, agents influence the design in distinctive ways. They use this control to either “add to,” “ignore,” or “challenge” the work produced by others. Which of these modes of collective reflection-in-action are enacted on the project influences whose expertise will be reflected in the final design. Implications for the study of boundary objects, multiparty collaboration, and organizational learning in contemporary ISD are drawn.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 · Cited by 4,957
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196745 · Cited by 1,736
Suchman, L. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/223248.223263 · Cited by 991
Lest we remember: Organizational forgetting and the production of knowledge
Bowker, G. C. (1997) · Accounting, Management and Information Technologies · doi:10.1016/s0959-8022(97)90001-1 · Cited by 68
Cited by
The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft
Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11.001 · Cited by 1,941
Lebovitz, S., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Levina, N. (2022) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1549 · Cited by 632
Self-citationBoundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams
Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2010) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726709355657 · Cited by 194
Research Note—IT Outsourcing and the Impact of Advisors on Clients and Vendors
Bapna, R., Gupta, A., Ray, G., & Singh, S. (2016) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2016.0645 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Levina, N.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 109-130
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2171630108
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 42.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.