Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Sharing Meaning Across Occupational
Communities: The Transformation of
Understanding on a Production Floor
Beth A. Bechky
Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616
babechky@ucdavis.edu
Abstract and Clark (1992) suggest that all the different func-
This paper suggests that knowledge is shared in organizations tional groups should be actively involved in the phases
through the transformation of occupational communities’ sit- of development, and point out that a firm’s choice of
uated understandings of their work. In this paper, I link the timing, frequency, direction, and medium of communica-
misunderstandings between engineers, technicians, and assem- tion can affect the success of this integration. However,
blers on a production floor to their work contexts, and demon- even in instances where communication is successful,
strate how members of these communities overcome such
creating shared understandings may still be problem-
problems by cocreating common ground that transforms their
understanding of the product and the production process. In atic (Fiol 1994). Occupational communities, because of
particular, I find that the communities’ knowledge-sharing dif- the specialization inherent in performing their own tasks
ficulties are rooted in differences in their language, the locus successfully, have different perspectives on the work and
of their practice, and their conceptualization of the product. the organization (Dougherty 1992, Boland and Tenkasi
When communication problems arise, if members of these 1995, Carlile 1997). They also develop local understand-
communities provide solutions which invoke the differences ings as a consequence of differences in expertise and
in the work contexts and create common ground between the experience (Jelinek and Schoonhoven 1990). The dif-
communities, they can transform the understandings of others ferences in perspectives across these communities can
and generate a richer understanding of the product and the result in trouble sharing knowledge in a way that leads to
problems they face.
greater understanding. Managers who want to capitalize
(Knowledge Sharing; Problem Solving; Occupational Communities)
on the coordination of diverse functions face the chal-
lenge of integrating the understandings of the different
groups across the organization.
There is increasing practical and theoretical interest in Much of the research that conceptualizes these
how organizations can manage, organize, and integrate challenges has emphasized general processes that orga-
knowledge. Because the number of knowledge workers nizations use to codify and transfer knowledge across
is rising (Blackler et al. 1993) and knowledge has always boundaries. This work suggests that organizations use
been important to the functioning of organizations, the structures and processes such as routines and standard
successful pursuit of these activities may create com- operating procedures to codify and transfer knowledge
petitive advantage. In particular, in analyzing product from localized contexts (March and Simon 1958, Levitt
development and manufacturing firms, industry watch- and March 1988, Huber 1991, Cohen and Bacdayan
ers suggest that managing knowledge through the use of 1994). Other scholars have observed that successful
concurrent engineering and cross-functional teams will knowledge transfer is not so simple, and emphasize that
improve time to market, technology transfer, and innova- the tacitness of much knowledge often makes codifica-
tion (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi 1995, Leonard and Sensiper tion, transfer, and subsequent replication of routines and
1998). standard operating procedures difficult (Nonaka 1991,
While research on product development has stressed 1994; Nelson and Winter 1982; Kogut and Zander 1992).
the importance of cross-functional integration (Adler This latter perspective suggests the inherent “stickiness”
1995, Wheelwright and Clark 1992, Clark and Fujimoto of certain knowledge within localized contexts due
1991), scholars and practitioners also recognize that inte- to social and cognitive constraints (von Hippel 1994,
grating such communities can be difficult. Wheelwright Nelson and Winter 1982). For example, individuals may
Organization Science © 2003 INFORMS 1047-7039/03/1403/0312$05.00
Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003, pp. 312–330 1526-5455 electronic ISSNBETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
not be able to articulate the “how to” of an act even of knowledge could potentially signify multiple con-
when they wish to do so (Polanyi 1958, 1967). As well, tents. This poses a problem for the notion of knowledge
motivational and cultural constraints may further impede transfer because if an expression of knowledge means
such transfer (Szulanski 1996). something different to the receiver than it does to the
Although this work has significantly enhanced our communicator, then it is not clear what knowledge is
understanding of why knowledge management and inte- being transferred.
gration is so difficult, it treats “knowledge” as a given. Similarly, sociolinguists have demonstrated the impor-
While theorists realize that the mechanical notion of tance of context for understanding language. Not only
knowledge transfer is a limited one, it persists in our do words signify a variety of contents, but such con-
thinking about knowledge in organizations, implying tents depend on the situation, context, and community
that communication of knowledge is a simple process in which people are expressing themselves (Cicourel
(Reddy 1979). Conceptualizing knowledge in organi- 1981, Blom and Gumperz 1972). When people assume
zations with the impoverished metaphor of knowledge they are speaking with other members of their speech
transfer has several implications. Simple knowledge community, they also assume a common understanding
transfer assumes a referential theory of meaning and that influences their ways of talking (Garfinkel 1967).
implies that within organizations, meaning is universal These understandings change depending on the commu-
and context is relatively homogeneous. Yet in prac- nity, and imply that the knowledge of one community
tice, these assumptions do not hold. Even when knowl- may be unintelligible to another.
edge is made explicit in a codified routine, when it is The reason that knowledge is particular to a commu-
communicated across group boundaries, some organi- nity is that it emerges through situated activity; knowl-
zational members may not understand it because they edge is constructed within a particular social context. As
apply and interpret this knowledge within different con- Lave (1988, p. 175) points out, “knowledge is not pri-
texts. In contrast, literature from numerous perspectives marily a factual commodity it takes on the character
shows that there is an array of meanings in organiza- of a process of knowing.” Because knowledge devel-
tions: Understanding is situational, cultural, and con- ops in relation to the activities in which people engage,
textual. The creation and enactment of organizational what is seen from the outside as being the same activity
knowledge is therefore a complex process involving the actually takes various shapes as it unfolds in practice.
understandings of multiple communities. In this paper, Research on situated cognition illustrates the ways in
my approach is to advance our understanding of the which people’s arithmetic practice, for example, is sit-
implications of situated meaning for knowledge sharing uated in their daily activities: Brazilian children solve
by exploring how local understandings are reconciled math problems much better in the marketplace than they
through a process of transformation that assists the shar- do with pencil and paper, and grocery shoppers also
ing of understanding across communities. have more success with math at the market (Lave 1988).
Knowledge in these studies takes on a very different
character on the basis of the social context within which
it is constructed.
Alternative Perspectives on Within organizations, knowledge is likewise con-
Knowledge Sharing structed and situated. Multiple meanings emerge in
Underlying a metaphor of knowledge transfer is a refer- organizations from various sources, including subcul-
ential theory of meaning: Written or verbal expressions tures, occupations, functions, and networks (Perrow
of knowledge (such as standard operating procedures) 1970, Weick 1979, Van Maanen and Barley 1984,
have a single meaning to which they refer. Knowledge Krackhardt and Kilduff 1990, Martin 1992). As a result
that is transferred is assumed to have the same mean- of specialization and the division of labor, members of
ing for both the person who expresses it and the person different occupational communities have different work
who receives it. However, as semioticians have pointed experiences. Scholars who have studied these commu-
out, when one thinks of an expression as a sign, a vari- nities suggest that individuals make sense of organi-
ety of contents can be expressed by the same signifier zational events from within the occupational context
(Barthes 1967, Eco 1976). For example, the word doctor of their work and, due to unique work cultures (Van
might signify a surgeon in a hospital waiting room about Maanen and Barley 1984), bring very different perspec-
to impart the news of a successful triple bypass, an tives to their collaborative efforts.
image of a doctor on television, or the emotive conno- Occupational communities are one important social
tation of care. This suggests that a particular expression milieu within which knowledge at work is situated (Orr
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003 313BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor 1990, Lave and Wenger 1990, Wenger 1998). Brown and how the understandings of individual communities of Duguid (1991) describe the process by which learners in practice are successfully communicated across groups. organizations are enculturated: They “acquire a particu- However, there is little discussion in the literature about lar community’s subjective viewpoint and learn to speak the interaction between separate communities and the its language” (Brown and Duguid 1991, p. 48). Lave and difficulties of sharing knowledge across boundaries and Wenger’s (1990) idea of legitimate peripheral participa- reaching a synthesis. Authors who examine occupational tion also suggests that communities strongly influence communities tend to limit their analyses to the practices what individuals learn at work. As their research shows, of a single community, rather than investigate what hap- individuals become members of a “community of prac- pens when strong subcultural understandings need to be tice,” learning the appropriate work behaviors and norms communicated among groups. as they increasingly participate in the group’s activi- This paper advances the perspective that knowledge is ties. Participation in such communities, through means shared through a process of transformation, not transfer, such as storytelling and apprenticeship, leads members by analyzing the implications of occupational commu- to share common understandings of their world. nities’ situated understandings of their work for shar- Participation in occupational communities also struc- ing knowledge between communities in organizations. tures the organization of members’ work itself, which In this paper, I link the misunderstandings between engi- has consequences for situating their knowledge. As neers, technicians, and assemblers on a production floor Goodwin and Goodwin (1996, p. 65) illustrate in their to their work contexts, and demonstrate how members of study of airline operations, the work structure of the these communities overcome such problems by cocreat- organization “defines a plurality of perspectives that ing common ground that transforms their understanding entrain in differential fashion what alternative types of of the product and the production process. In particular, workers are expected to see when they look at an air- I find that the communities’ knowledge-sharing difficul- plane.” Through the course of their work, for exam- ties are rooted in their work contexts, which differ on the ple, baggage handlers and maintenance workers learn to basis of their language, the locus of their practice, and “see” the planes and other work objects differently— their conceptualization of the product. When communi- Baggage handlers link the plane number with the flight cation problems arise, if members of these communities on the schedule for which they are loading baggage, provide solutions that invoke the differences in the work while maintenance workers link the plane with its main- contexts and create common ground between the com- tenance history. The fact that each group sees the munities, they can transform the understandings of oth- airplane properly, but differently, is an “ongoing con- ers and generate a richer understanding of the product tingent accomplishment within a community of prac- and the problems they face. tice” (Goodwin and Goodwin 1996, p. 87). Such situated work practice leads to the development of local under- standings in organizations. Methods The image of knowledge presented by the literature on occupational communities depicts groups with strong Research Site subcultural understandings of their work. These sub- I conducted a year-long ethnography at EquipCo (a cultures provide a framework within which members pseudonym), a semiconductor equipment manufactur- interpret organizational events and their work world. As ing company located in Silicon Valley. EquipCo’s 5,000 Schon (1983, p. 271) points out in his study of profes- employees built the large and complex machines that sionals’ practice, these different frameworks mean that other firms, such as Intel, use to fabricate semicon- “the art of one practice tends to be opaque to the practi- ductor devices. Of these 5,000 employees, approxi- tioners of another.” Therefore, occupational communities mately 1,800 were directly involved in the production within organizations can be expected to have different process: 570 design engineers, 90 drafters, 60 manu- domains of substantive knowledge and heterogeneous facturing engineers, 140 engineering and manufacturing ways of learning (Orr 1996, Van Maanen and Barley technicians, 220 assemblers, and the remainder non- 1984, Boland and Tenkasi 1995). Such heterogeneous technical administrative support such as planners and understandings belie the idea that transfer of knowledge schedulers. In 1996, the year of the study, EquipCo’s between communities is simple. revenues surpassed $1 billion, and the firm was Because the creation and enactment of organizational named one of the top 10 process equipment com- knowledge is a complex process involving the members panies in the semiconductor industry for the seventh of multiple communities, it is important to understand year running (VSLI Research 1996). EquipCo primarily 314 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003
BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
produced wafer-etching equipment, but also manufac- discovered ways to make the product easier to manufac-
tured other semiconductor-processing equipment. Many ture. The technicians sat at benches in an open room,
of EquipCo’s products were customized to meet the and built the machines on the floor space between their
requirements of a particular wafer-fabrication facility. benches. With tools strewn across benches and parts
EquipCo was an ideal site to study the dynamics piled up in boxes all over the room, the technicians’
of cross-occupational knowledge sharing. As a high- lab was a more chaotic work environment than was
tech manufacturing firm that designed its own products, engineering.
EquipCo had a strong formal organization, character- After several prototypes were built and the engineers
ized by the importance of the distribution of engineering and technicians believed that the drawings were mostly
drawings. Additionally, EquipCo faced a quickly chang- correct, which was accomplished in two to three months,
ing market, and therefore new prototypes were being the assemblers were brought into the production process.
built all the time. The many occupational communi- Members of the assembly team trained in the techni-
ties involved in the production process needed to effec- cians’ lab, consulting with the technicians about how
tively share their knowledge to get these machines out to build the machine properly. Assemblers had access
the door. In a manufacturing organization, much of the to the technicians’ binders of “redlined” drawings and
feedback about the production process occurs during sometimes to the latest engineering drawings,1 and they
product “handoffs,” when responsibility for the product were told to use only the drawings as a guide to building
shifts from engineering to prototyping to manufacturing. the machine. However, they rarely used the drawings for
These handoffs provided many opportunities to witness guidance, finding it easier and more effective to ask the
the ways in which the informal social and work organi- technicians or other assemblers for help, or to look at
zation made the transformation of local understandings a prototype that was already built. After a one- to two-
possible. month training period, the assemblers felt comfortable
A basic description of EquipCo’s production process building a product on their own, and they moved back
is a prerequisite to understanding how knowledge was into the final assembly area to build the machines. The
shared. The work of production at EquipCo progressed final assembly area was in a clean room, an environment
in phases, from design through prototyping and into final that mandated that workers wear a special clean-room
manufacturing. Each new product took from six months suit, known as a “bunny suit,” along with gloves, boots,
to a year to progress from inception to routine manu-
and a hood in order to reduce the dust particles that
facture in final assembly. In the design phase, a team
could land on the machines and cause air leaks or other
of engineers developed a new product, working together
contamination. This environment was sterile, but loud
and using drawings from previous designs. After design-
and somewhat uncomfortable because the air circulation
ing the layout of a new machine as a group, the members
system in the spacious clean area kept the room quite
of the engineering team divided up responsibility for the
cold, while the constant downdraft made it difficult for
bills of materials and the assembly and install drawings
assemblers to hear one another, as did the hoods worn
that detail the design of the machine, and worked indi-
vidually to complete them. The design process lasted by every member of the team.
from three to six months, depending on the product.
Although the engineers met weekly for updates on each Data Sources
product and frequently visited one another’s cubicles Because I was interested in obtaining the perspective of
to discuss projects, engineers spent most of their time several different groups involved in the production pro-
alone, and the engineering area was generally quiet and cess, fieldwork proceeded in several stages. My aim was
calm. to gather information about the work involved in the pro-
After the engineers created the basic structure for the duction of a new product, with a particular focus on the
drawings and sent the bills of materials to the planners interaction between members of different occupational
to start ordering material, they would send the prelimi- groups as the product was transformed from an idea to
nary engineering drawings to the technicians’ lab. This a prototype to an established product. I started my field-
started the prototyping, or build verification, phase of work in the technicians’ lab, as this was the site for
the production process, in which the technicians verified many of the product hand-offs in which I was interested,
the engineering drawings and modified them. The tech- and this provided a base of understanding for the sub-
nicians started building from scratch using the prelimi- sequent study of both assemblers and engineers. In all
nary engineering drawings. Their work entailed making three areas, I gathered data from participant observation,
changes to the drawings and the machine itself as they informal and formal interviews, and documents.
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003 315BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
Participant Observation began the process of handing-off their projects to man-
ufacturing. When the final assemblers that learned to
Technicians. I began my study at EquipCo by observ-
build the two projects returned to manufacturing after
ing and working in the technicians’ lab three to four
the training period, I moved into the clean room with the
days a week. The technician group was comprised of
six-person team. The assembly team had one woman,
27 members, 2 of whom were women. About one quar-
and all of its members were either Latino or Asian.
ter of the group was Asian, Latino, or black. Most
Assemblers were not required to have any formal edu-
technicians held two-year associate’s degrees from tech-
cation, and were hired based on their previous assembly
nical programs in junior colleges in subjects such as
experience. However, at least half of the assemblers in
electronics, although some of the advanced technicians
had received bachelor’s degrees from a technical college the new products team that I studied had a high school
such as DeVry, and several had not completed any post- degree, and one had some additional technical school
secondary education. training.
I first explained my role as a researcher who would My role as a member of this group never varied once
be “hanging out” in the lab and assured the technicians they realized that I was willing to help and was relatively
that I would maintain confidentiality. Building rapport capable: I worked building machines every day for four
is not an instantaneous process; after several weeks of months. Upon entering the clean room, we had fewer
working in the lab, however, most of the technicians interactions with members of other groups. Occasionally
seemed comfortable with my presence. Each morning I a manufacturing engineer, manager, or technician came
asked to join a specific individual for the day and gave into the parts staging area (which was adjacent to the
him or her the opportunity to refuse. In the five months clean room and not particle-free) or called to ask a ques-
that I worked in the lab, only one person (a newly hired tion, but very few people were willing to don a bunny
technician) said that he would rather not have me along suit to enter the building area.
as an observer. Engineers. Having seen the transition from prototype
My fieldwork in the technicians’ lab comprised to manufacturing, I was also interested in the transition
observing a different technician each day and working from design to prototype. While working with the tech-
alongside many of them, building subassemblies and nicians, I had made the acquaintance of several design
making cables. Over the course of the study, I spent engineers, one of whom agreed to let me work with her
at least two to three days with each of 26 technicians. for a few months. Of the 15 members of her team, two
Additionally, I cultivated relationships with several peo- were women, and about 40% were Asian. The design
ple who acted as “key informants” and I worked with engineers typically held a bachelor’s or master’s degree
those individuals most often, focusing on the projects in a discipline such as chemical, mechanical, electrical,
to which they were assigned. These informants provided or industrial engineering, or in computer science. They
me with exhaustive detail about their work and the cul- were assisted by drafters who held two-year associate’s
ture of EquipCo, while teaching me skills ranging from degrees and had therefore been trained in design and
soldering and reading engineering drawings to finding drafting skills and the use of computer drafting tools.
the quickest route to work in 6 a.m. Silicon Valley traf- I shadowed four or five members of the engineering
fic. Most of the technicians also invited me to lunch and team for two to three days apiece, although I spent the
to bars and parties after work, and I often attended. bulk of my time with the designer who invited me to
There were many other people circulating around the join the group. In engineering, my role consisted mostly
lab and interacting with the technicians, including design of observation rather than participation because most of
and manufacturing engineers, assemblers, schedulers, the work was done on the computer, on the phone, or in
planners, and parts personnel. Therefore, my constant meetings, and I was not qualified to help.
presence in the technicians’ lab afforded me access to
the two other occupational areas in which I had an inter-
Interviews
est: final assembly and design engineering. As a result,
In addition to the spontaneous, informal interviews that
I spent a bit more time in the technicians’ lab than in
regularly occurred while I was observing the work, I
the other areas because in this area I could gather data
arranged formal interviews with several informants in
detailing the interactions of all three of the communities
each occupational group. The use of drawings was obvi-
on a daily basis.
ously an important part of the work of all the occupa-
Assemblers. After a few months in the technicians’ tions involved in the production process, and I felt that
lab, two of my key informants among the technicians I needed to clarify this use through more formal means.
316 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
I brought two sets of assembly drawings with bills of boundaries. Instead, organization members worked to
materials to each interview, and had informants describe create common ground, demonstrating their understand-
how they would use the drawings. The structure of these ing of a problem in ways that could be integrated into the
interviews was slightly different for the designers than context of other communities. This transformation gen-
for the technicians and assemblers. I asked the designers erated a more broadly shared understanding that allowed
to describe how they went about creating the drawings for the knowledge to be used across the organization.
from start to finish, and then we discussed what they
thought were the most important aspects of the draw-
ing. In contrast, I asked the technicians and assemblers Local Work Contexts: Locus of
to describe what they would do when they received the Practice, Conceptualization of the
drawings. They discussed both the order in which they Product, and Language
would examine the drawings and how they would build At EquipCo, each occupational community represented
the parts illustrated by the drawings, as well as explain- a different work context with distinct understandings of
ing what the most important aspects of the drawings the product and the production process. The key dimen-
were for building purposes. sions of the differences in work contexts—the locus of
the communities’ practice, their conceptualization of the
Documents and Artifacts product and process, and their distinct languages—are
Other important sources of data were the written mate- summarized in Table 1. The greatest contrast in con-
rial and objects that each of the groups used to sup- text existed between engineers, who rarely touched or
port and perform their work. The documents included even saw the machines while focusing on drawing their
engineering drawings, bills of materials, and meeting designs; and assemblers, who spent all of their time
agendas and notes. As mentioned above, documents, par- building machines. The work context of these two com-
ticularly drawings, were a key element in the production munities lay within the separate spheres of design and
process, as they nominally served as the formal inputs production, while the context of the technicians, work-
and outputs for the different occupational groups in the ing between the other two communities, overlapped that
study. I also closely studied the prototypes and products of the other two groups.
built by the technicians and assemblers. These distinctions in work context were not always
conspicuous during the everyday work of EquipCo,
because the understandings of the three groups were also
Analysis similar in many ways, since they all were working to
I followed a grounded theory approach of compar-
produce the same products in the same company. Also,
ison and contrast (Glaser and Strauss 1967, Strauss
the technicians mediated the communication between
and Corbin 1990) in analyzing the data. This approach
the other two communities, which allowed production to
entailed an iterative process of theoretical sampling,
proceed smoothly. However, the distinctions are key to
comparing and contrasting examples from the data
analyzing how knowledge is shared at EquipCo, because
to build theoretical categories which were then com-
they served as the taken-for-granted obstacles to the
pared and interrelated to form the basis for this paper.
communities’ understanding of one another. Analyzing
I analyzed data and adjusted categories periodically
these differences clarifies the causes of misunderstand-
throughout the fieldwork to confirm the test categories
ings at EquipCo and creates a lever for determining how
and further focus my study. At the end of the fieldwork,
such obstacles are overcome.
I reanalyzed field notes and the memos I had produced
during the study to determine how the understandings Engineers’ Work Context: Conceptual Drawing. The
and practices of the occupational communities differed, design of machines formed the essence of engineers’
and the impact that this had on sharing knowledge in work; engineers created drawings for others to use in
the production process. In this paper, I begin with a building. The locus of engineers’ practice, or the core
description of the work contexts of the three groups— nature of the work they performed every day, therefore,
the locus of practices, conceptualization of the prod- was conceptual. Engineers’ daily work entailed consid-
uct, and production process and languages that differed ering many representations of the product, envisioning
across these communities—and illustrate these context in their heads, on computer screens, and on paper the
differences with examples of communication across the machine-to-be. Engineers’ practice was relatively distant
groups. Because of these differences in context, the from the physical product because they did not build
groups could not simply transfer knowledge across their the machine itself. Instead, they focused on designing a
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003 317BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
Table 1 Key Differences in the Work Context of the Three Occupational Communities
Engineers Assemblers Technicians
Work Produce drawings Build machine Build prototypes and correct
drawings
Locus of Practice Conceptual Physical Conceptual and
physical
Conceptualization Schematic: Form, fit, Spatio-temporal and processual: Manufacturability: Will the
of Product and function How and in what order is the machine work and can it be
machine built? easily built?
Language Engineering drawing Language of the machine Engineering drawing
language language and language of
the machine
Exemplar “It’s way more crowded “This valve goes around the Assembler’s “motor” reported
than it looked on my other side.” to engineer as “harmonic
screen!” cable”
new product based on their ideas about how to improve from others. The engineers at EquipCo used drawings
on the function and appearance of previous EquipCo as their primary means of communication, often pulling
products. documents out in the course of conversation, and they
Because the locus of engineers’ practice was the con- spoke the language of engineering documentation flu-
cept of the machine, their knowledge centered on cre- ently. To engineers, the drawings precisely signified their
ating drawings that would illustrate how the machine ideas about the design and function of the machine, and
would look at each point of completion. Their con- engineers would often refer to the drawings as though
ceptualization of the product and the production pro- they were talking about the actual machine. When an
cess, therefore, could be characterized as a schematic engineer said “the turbo pump,” she was far more likely
understanding rather than as a processual understanding. to be referring to an assembly drawing of the pump than
Engineers were most concerned with issues of form, fit, to the pump itself. In this way, engineers’ talk echoed
and function—Their goal was to design a product that the precise, standardized language of the drawings, and
worked and was aesthetically satisfying. While the pro- engineers only had a rudimentary understanding of the
cess of building a machine was critical to the organiza- language of the physical machine.
tion, knowledge about building was not emphasized in
the engineering area. Assemblers’ Work Context: Physical Building. In con-
As engineers’ practice was primarily the conceptual trast, assemblers’ work was structured, physical, and
work of design, engineers’ encounters with and inter- concrete. The locus of assemblers’ practice was the
pretations of the product were filtered through the lens physical manipulation of the parts comprising the
of the drawings on which they spent most of their machine: Assemblers built in a clean room and followed
time. Their infrequent contact with the physical machine detailed specifications that allowed them little discretion
resulted in great surprise when they discovered that about how to build the final product. They worked with
the actual machine did not look like the CAD pack- the machine in a hands-on manner, building small dis-
age and the picture in their heads led them to believe crete chunks and installing them on a frame to create the
that it would. For example, upon his first encounter finished product.
with the product in the technicians’ lab, one engineer Assemblers’ understanding of the product was
who worked on the design exclaimed, “It’s way more grounded in the context of their concrete daily encoun-
crowded than it looked on my screen!” ters with the machine, and their knowledge was colored
Engineers’ conceptual orientation and their design by their view of the machine as a device that was built in
knowledge of the machine were reflected in the lan- a sequential series of subassemblies. As a result of this
guage in which they communicated. Engineers trafficked physical practice, assemblers conceptualized the produc-
mainly in the written symbols of the engineering trade, tion process in a spatiotemporal and processual manner.
the drawings. As Henderson (1995) points out, engineers Building a machine was conceived as a process of cre-
depend on drawings as both tools to solidify their ideas ating larger and larger subassemblies which had to fit
and as boundary objects to elicit feedback and buy-in together spatially in a certain way and therefore could
318 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
only be placed on the machine in a particular tempo- only the concrete language of the machine, and under-
ral order. Therefore, although assemblers were gener- stood very little of the conceptual drawing language.
ally unaware of the specifics of how the machine should Assemblers’ communication depended on the shared
function, they were quite knowledgeable about where the context of their concrete work building the machine, and
parts belonged, how the parts fit together and, equally was simpler when the assemblers physically interacted
importantly, in what order they should be assembled. around the machine. This also is distinguishable from
Because assemblers used the physical machine rather the communication of engineers, in which interactions
than the drawings as a representation of the building were fixed around the drawings rather than the machine.
process, they rarely referred to drawings in the course
Technicians’ Work Context: Spanning the Boundary
of conversation. Their language was embedded in the
Between Engineers and Assemblers. Technicians’ work
concrete context of building the machine, and depended
took place at a bench in a lab and involved challeng-
on the physical reference point offered by the machine
ing hands-on experience with the product, building a
itself. Therefore, if an assembler referred to the “turbo machine from the ground up. Technicians labored at the
pump,” he was probably about to install it on the empirical interface between engineering and manufac-
machine. In the course of their work, assemblers did not turing, translating the requirements of each group for the
need to know the names of the parts of the machine, other (Barley 1996, Barley and Bechky 1994). Techni-
and in practice, assemblers frequently did not refer to cians took the engineers’ conceptual representations and
the parts by name. When they were standing right next built concrete machines, and the locus of their practice,
to the machine, they pointed to the part in question; if therefore, was both conceptual and physical. Their work
they were away from the machine, they would gesture required interpretation of drawings, which focused their
and offer a description. practice more on the conceptual than did the work of
Because most of their talk occurred in the presence the assemblers. At the same time, however, technicians’
of the physical objects about which they were talking, work building the new machines centered their practice
assemblers communicated by constantly gesturing and on the physical far more than that of the engineers.
watching one another move around the machine. Their Technicians’ primary responsibility was to generate
vocabulary referred to the physicality and spatial rela- the redlined drawings that illustrated the changes engi-
tionships of the machine, and even when interpreting neers needed to make to the documentation to improve
drawings they used locational phrases such as “this valve manufacturability. Therefore, manufacturability proved
goes around the other side” and “install the manifold to be the means by which they conceptualized the prod-
here, next to the pump.” In interaction, assemblers often uct and the production process; technicians had a sense
used what sociolinguists call “deictic terms” (Tanz 1980, that the design of the product was changeable, and their
Cicourel 1990), which are terms that link talk with its goal was to make sure the product worked while at the
spatiotemporal and personal context and are used to same time making it as easy to manufacture as possible.
point out or specify, such as the pronoun “this.” Because technicians spanned the boundary between
For instance, while two assemblers, Andrew and Abe, engineering and manufacturing, they were conversant in
were building a chamber together, a bolt scratched the both the language of drawings and that of the machine,
side of a lifter for the chamber, and they coordinated but they were clearly more comfortable with the hands-
their investigation of the problem with minimal verbal on language of the machine. For instance, engineers
exchange. Andrew pointed it out and said, “Uh, oh, knew every part by its proper name, which they used to
it’s a big scratch, it’s all the way down.” Abe looked label the corner of every drawing. In contrast, when I
at it and the two of them loosened the bolts on the asked technicians in the process of building a subassem-
frame and started to pull on the lifter. Andrew swung his bly “what are you building?” frequently they would not
arms upward, saying, “Let’s see if it works, go up,” and know the official name of the subassembly, and would
pushed the button to move the lifter upward. When it check that corner of the drawing to find out what it
didn’t move, he asked, “How come?” and Abe, pointing was called. However, they would know the part’s general
to the bolts on the frame, replied, “Because we tightened function and where it would be located on the machine.
these, we need to loosen them.” Technicians’ role entailed relating to both drawings
This exchange typified the communication of assem- and machines, and they therefore shared an understand-
blers: It contained very few spoken words, and most of ing of aspects of the product and production process
the meaning was indicated through gestures and deic- with both engineers and assemblers. While engineers
tic terms.2 In contrast with engineers, assemblers spoke and technicians shared a conceptual understanding of
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003 319BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
the machine through their design activities, technicians focused on different aspects of the machine and placed
and assemblers shared the physical relationship that importance on different issues. These differences in con-
was rooted in building. This dual understanding allowed text across the groups manifested themselves in a partic-
technicians to smooth the relations in the production ular type of misunderstanding between groups that I will
process and ease the transition of the machine from an call a decontextualization. A decontextualization was the
abstract idea to a concrete finished product. context-based use of different words and concepts to talk
These key distinctions in the work context across the about the same object.
three communities manifested themselves frequently in Decontextualization occurred when people from dif-
interaction between members of the different groups. ferent groups met to discuss a problem, and brought dif-
As sociologists of science have shown, groups interpret ferent understandings of the problem to their discussion.
technologies in different ways, based on the social con- Engineers and assemblers did not share the same con-
texts in which they encounter them (Pinch and Bijker text in working with the technology, and therefore they
1987, Mulkay 1979). Similarly, at EquipCo, the differ- talked about the same object in different ways. Because
ences in the groups’ understandings of the product and engineers had a more static, schematic conceptualization
process reflected the different contexts in which they of the production process while assemblers understood
worked and the manner in which they worked with the it spatially and temporally, even in situations where they
technologies of the machines and the drawings. were discussing the same machine, they often did not
These distinctions are vital to an analysis of shared have the perspective and context that was required to
understanding at EquipCo, as they suggest the near understand the others’ comments. In decontextualiza-
impossibility of a simple transfer of knowledge between tions, the machine or situation was presented in language
the three groups. As described above, the understand- that was assumed to be universal and unproblematic, but
ing of assemblers and engineers was quite different, in fact the words were incomprehensible to those who
and even the understanding of the technicians, while did not share an understanding of the context of the
overlapping, was distinct from that of the other two situation.
communities. These understandings were important for For example, one day in final assembly, an engi-
accomplishing the work within this specialized division neer, Evan, came to the parts room in the assemblers’
of labor and were taken for granted within each com- area to ask Abe about some scratches and chips on the
munity. Therefore, when production flowed smoothly it inside of one of the chambers. Evan inquired, “How did
was difficult to discern the differences in understand- the chips get there?” Abe, gesturing upward with both
ings across groups. However, when members of differ- hands, responded, “When you lift the plate, a screw gets
ent communities needed to interact to fix problems that caught.” Evan looked puzzled. After repeating the words
arose, these differences became apparent in the com- and gesture several times to no avail, Abe said, “I’ll
munication difficulties between the groups. Below, I show you,” and went back into the lab, returning with
describe such difficulties and then explain how shared the upper plate of the chamber cover. He showed the
understanding was reached through a process of trans- plate to Evan, pointing out the screw on the corner that
formation, in which the groups overcame the obstacles moved and caused scratches inside the chamber.
created by the differences in their work contexts through The assembler, Abe, had begun by answering Evan’s
the creation of common ground. question without being able to refer to the machine,
since they were outside of the clean room. The engineer
did not understand Abe’s response because he did not
Manifestation of Different experience the same work context as the assembler. Evan
Understandings: Decontextualizations lacked the assembler’s concrete physical understanding
The lack of shared context and understanding of the of the machine and knowledge about how the machine
product manifested in the manner in which each group was assembled. Therefore, he did not realize the signif-
communicated about the machine, drawing, or produc- icance of Abe’s upward gestures and did not recognize
tion problem. Because the engineers had a concep- the motion as an action of the machine until the assem-
tual, schematic understanding of the machine while the bler brought the part forward to provide an illustration
assemblers had a physical, spatio-temporal one, they of how the problem occurred in context.
used different terms to describe the product. Similar In these kinds of communication difficulties, differ-
to the functional groups in Dougherty’s (1992) study ent understandings of the product and process emerged
of interpretive problems in the product innovation pro- from the work contexts of the communities. Engineers’
cess, members of different communities at EquipCo also understanding was fixed in the conceptual context of
320 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
their drawing work while, in contrast, the understanding this instance (Example 1), which occurred one after-
of assemblers centered on their concrete work building noon in the technicians’ lab, an assembler tried to trans-
the machine. Both these understandings were necessary late the language of the machine for an engineer, but
to create a working final product from an engineering when it did not move the participants toward enriched
design, but their divergent nature did not allow for the understanding, he augmented it with a concrete exam-
straightforward transfer of knowledge that is suggested ple of the problem. The assembler, Arturo, and the lead
by some of the literature on organizational knowledge assembler, Andrew, were helping an engineer with some
and learning. Instead, the situated understanding of the details on the design of a fixture to lift the turbo pump.
groups had to be reconciled in some way that could Edward, the engineer, said, “The fixture can lift it up
allow for understanding to spread across the communi- about 8 21 inches.” Pointing to the legs at the bottom
ties. This was accomplished through informal interaction of the pump, which was sitting on the floor next to
between members of all the communities that resulted the machine, Arturo asked, “Can these four feet be sit-
in transforming the local understanding of the groups to ting there?” Andrew, the lead, clarified, “He’s talking
create richer, more broadly shared understandings. about the legs of the pump, can those fit on the fix-
ture?” Edward wanted to know if they could install the
legs afterward, but the assembler indicated not: “They
Transformation of Local Understandings
have to come first.” Again, the lead assembler expanded,
While the technicians often discovered and contextu- “The pump comes down with the legs on, will there be
alized discrepancies in local understanding during the clearance?”
course of their prototyping work, some problems slipped After some more discussion, Edward, the engineer,
through the cracks in the production process. These returned to the issue of the legs, asking, “Can we take
problems interrupted the workflows of engineers, tech- the standouts off?” Arturo, the assembler, said that it
nicians, and assemblers, and brought together members would be harder to grab the pump, and Edward replied,
of different occupational groups with different under- “But if you have the jack you don’t need to grab it.”
standings of the product and the production process. The “Then how will you get it on the jack?” replied Arturo,
different perspectives that arose during these kinds of annoyed. Andrew illustrated, putting his hands around
informal interactions around problems with the machine the pump on the floor. “Out here you can lift it up,” he
resulted in opportunities to transform understandings said. Moving his hands to the area under the chamber
across the occupational communities. where the pump fit on the machine, he continued, “But
in there you can’t.”
Transformation. Transformation occurred when a
In this example, an understanding of many of the
member of one community came to understand how
assembler’s comments required taken-for-granted knowl-
knowledge from another community fit within the con- edge about the process by which the machine was put
text of his own work, enriching and altering what he together. The assembler knew which parts fit where
knew. In transformations, an individual’s understanding and in what order they needed to be assembled: He
of the product, process, or organization was expanded, had a spatio-temporal, processual understanding of the
not merely by the introduction of new knowledge, but machine. Therefore, he made comments such as “They
by placing that knowledge within her own locus of prac- have to come first,” referring to the point in the assem-
tice in such a way that it enhanced the individual’s bly process at which the legs should be attached to the
understanding of her work world, enabling her to see pump. In contrast, the engineer, Edward, knew how the
that world in a new light. As I will describe below, machine was designed to work and had a conceptual
misunderstandings between the groups were reconciled understanding of how the parts should fit together: He
through the use of tangible definitions to cocreate com- had a schematic understanding of the machine. Edward
mon ground. In the creation of common ground, the did not have a contextual sense of the order of assem-
members of the groups were able to recontextualize local bly, and he therefore did not understand much of what
understandings, providing the context needed to create the assembler said. The lead assembler, however, real-
shared understanding across communities. ized that the engineer needed extra context and tried to
The ability of transformations to create broader, translate the assembler’s talk into terms familiar to the
shared understanding can best be seen through an engineer, by using the term legs rather than feet and
extended example. This example is summarized in clarifying why the clearance was necessary.
Table 2, which provides several representative exam- This translation proved unworkable, however, because
ples of the transformations that I saw at EquipCo. In it was unable to invoke the elements of the work context
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003 321322
Table 2 Transformations
Event Interactants Prior Understanding Manifestation Reconciliation New Understanding
(1) Turbo pump fixture Engineer (Edward) Fixture has to fit under “Can you install the
turbo pump. legs afterward?”
Assembler (Arturo) Fixture has to fit under “They have to come first.”
turbo pump when (Decontextualization)
hands are also there.
Lead Assembler (Andrew) “The pump comes down
with the legs on; will
there be clearance?”
Engineer (Edward) “Can we take the None
standouts off?”
Lead Assembler (Andrew) Demonstrates by moving Engineer and assembler
his hands around the together measure the
pump on the floor: distances they need, a
“Out here you can lift long discussion
it up,” and in the area ensues in which engi-
where it will be on the neer asks assemblers
machine: “But in there questions about
BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
you can’t.” (Tangible exactly what they’ll
definition) need.
(2) Electrode slide Assembler (Art) Slide is part that “The slide has six holes.” Pulls out part and points
physically slides. to holes. (Tangible def-
inition)
Engineer (Edward) Slide is electrode slide. “No, the slide has 10.” “Oh! That’s on a different
part, I thought we
changed that part
a year ago.”
(3) Chamber chips Engineer (Evan) Problem with chips, “How did they get there?” “So now I know
doesn’t know cause. the cause.”
Assembler (Abe) Problem with chips, Gestures upward: “When Returns with plate and “Now he knows, we’ve
knows the cause. you lift the plate a demonstrates how the known for a while, but
screw gets caught.” plate moves, pointing nobody listens to us
(Decontextualization) at screw. (Tangible because we’re final
definition) assembly.”
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003Table 2 (cont’d.)
Event Interactants Prior Understanding Manifestation Reconciliation New Understanding
(4) Plasma starter Technician (Tara) Fitting should be at Looking at drawing: “It figures. Okay, well just
a 90 degree angle to “How did those fittings make sure it stays
the chamber. get reversed?” put.”
Assembler (Abe) Fitting is in the “Tim (tech) says it goes Pointing at the part on
right place. this way.” machine, swiveling his
(Decontextualization) hands: “When we got
the part from vacuum,
the entire block was
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003
reversed, not just
the fittings.” (Tangible
definition)
(5) Short cable Engineer (Eric) Cable should fit “Can we attach the
on machine. dash 57 cable?”
BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor
Technician (Tom) Cables are down “No, that isn’t the
rev and will not fit. right cable.” (Decontex-
tualization)
Engineer (Eric) “Yes it is.”
Technician (Tom) “No, it’s not. I don’t think
we have the right one
here; they are all
too short.”
Engineer (Eric) “Just attach it.”
Technician (Tom) Attaches the cable. “Oh, no. And it also is
(Tangible definition) right up against
the manifold.”
323BETH A. BECHKY Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor necessary to make clear to the engineer how the assem- it difficult to come to a verbal reconciliation. Instead, bler’s comments would have meaning for the way he individuals used tangible definitions, referring to exam- designed the fixture. Therefore, Andrew gave a physical ples that physically exhibited the problem,3 to provide demonstration of the process by which the assemblers the means needed for members of other communities to built the machine. This concrete example transformed come to a shared understanding. In this way, they recon- the building knowledge of the assemblers, which had textualized the problem and created common ground. been expressed verbally in the language of the machine, A tangible definition defined a problem with the via a physical demonstration of lifting the pump that machine in a material way: It could be touched and the engineer could fit within the context of his own did not depend on verbalization. Most often a tangible design practice. The engineer left with a more concrete definition was provided by illustrating the problem on understanding of the process by which the machine was the actual part in question, as the evidence in Table 2 assembled, which informed his design of this particular demonstrates. For instance, one morning in final assem- fixture as well as changed his conceptualization of the bly there was a misunderstanding regarding a problem production process and how he would need to design with the frame of the machine (Table 2, Example 2). other fixtures in the future. Edward, an engineer, came to the door of the assem- Shared Understanding Through Transformation. In blers’ lab and asked the assembler, Art, what the prob- order to develop shared understanding between groups lem was. Art replied, “The holes for the slide don’t line that had different work contexts, members of the groups up.” Edward asked, “What do you mean, for the slide? had to cocreate some common ground (Clark 1996). There wasn’t a problem with the electrode slide. It’s the Common ground is the “sum of mutual, common, or one with the ten holes, only nine of which get screws, joint knowledge, beliefs, and suppositions” (Clark 1996, right?” Art corrected Edward, saying, “No, it has six p. 93). Transformations created common ground by holes.” Edward disagreed: “No, 10.” Art then went to invoking the key differences in work contexts—the lan- the parts area and pulled the frame out of a box to show guage, the locus of practice, and the conceptualization of Edward the holes, and Edward realized that Art was talk- the product and production process. Because the groups’ ing about a different set of holes, not the holes for the understandings were rooted in these differences, only by electrode slide. To the engineer, the word “slide” con- bringing these differences to their attention could their noted the formal term “electrode slide” in the lexicon of understanding be transformed. the engineering drawing language. For the assembler, on For instance, in the example above, simply trying the other hand, the “slide” was one of a class of parts in to clarify the language differences did not help the the concrete language of the machine: parts that phys- engineer grasp the assembler’s meaning. By physically ically slide. In this misunderstanding, the different lan- demonstrating the problem, however, the assembler pro- guages of the engineer and the assembler were causing vided some common ground—He lifted the part that was confusion. Further elaborating verbally could not solve familiar to the engineer from his schematics and demon- the problem. Instead, a demonstration with a tangible strated that in physically assembling the part, his hands definition of the part bypassed the language differences, would need to fit under the machine. This demonstration using the physical locus of practice of the assembler to invoked both the locus of practice and the conceptu- provide the context of the part for the engineer. alization of the product. The physical locus of prac- Similarly, in the problem with the chamber chips tice of the assembler was visible to the engineer, who described earlier (Table 2, Example 3), the engineer did was able to relate that to his conceptual locus. Sim- not understand the language that the assembler used to ilarly, the assembler demonstrated the spatiotemporal describe the problem. Additionally, the engineer lacked and processual aspects of his conceptualization to the the knowledge of the assembler’s work context, the engineer, who could then build this understanding into spatiotemporal conception of the machine that would his schematic conceptualization of the product. Making allow him to understand the assembler’s gesture depict- these differences visible and concrete created a joint set- ing the movement inside the chamber. The problem was ting where the engineer’s understanding was broadened recontextualized for the engineer by the assembler when by incorporating an understanding of some of the ele- he demonstrated with the part to which he was referring, ments of the assembler’s work context. which made the work context of his description clear At EquipCo, transformations frequently could not be to the engineer. The engineer did not understand the performed verbally or through the written language of assembler’s initial description of the problem, because the drawings. In cases of decontextualization, the differ- his schematic conceptualization of the product did not ent languages caused muddled communication that made contain the processual context of which parts moved 324 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 3, May–June 2003
You can also read
