Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Nandhakumar, J.; Panourgias, N.S.; Scarbrough, H. (2013)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: QA76
he development of information systems and software applications increasingly needs to deliver culturally rich and affective experiences for user groups. In this paper, we explore how the collaborative practices across different expert groups can enable this experiential dimension of use to be integrated into the development of a software product. In an empirical study of computer games development—an arena in which the novelty and richness of the user experience is central to competitive success—we identify the challenges of conceptualizing and realizing a desired user experience when it cannot be readily specified in an initial design template, nor represented within the expertise of existing groups. Our study develops a theoretical framework to address these challenges. Through this framework, we are able to show how achieving a desired user experience requires developer groups to not only work across the boundaries that arise from specialized expertise, but also across wider fields centred on cultural production and software development, respectively. We find that their ability to do this is supported by distinctive “envisioning practices” that sustain an emerging shared “vision” for each game. The key research contributions that we then make are (a) grounding envisioning practices as a means of theorizing the collaborative practices centred on conceptualizing the user experience; (b) identifying how these practices are interwoven with the “producing practices” of software development, thus enabling collaboration to span expert groups and disparate fields; and (c) theorizing the role of vision as an emerging conceptual boundary object in these practices.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Agarwal R, Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quart. 24(4):665-694.
    • Allhutter D, Hofmann R (2010) Deconstructive design as an approach for opening trading zones. Vallverdú J, ed. Thinking Machines and the Philosophy of Computer Science: Concepts and Principles (Idea Group Inc., Calgary, Canada), 175-192.
    • Aoyama Y, Izushi H (2003) Hardware gimmick or cultural innovation? Technological, cultural, and social foundations of the Japanese video game industry. Res. Policy 32(3):423-444.
    • Barrett M, Oborn E, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J (2012) Reconfiguring boundary relations: Robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1448-1466.
    • Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ. Sci. 14(3):312-330.
    • Bechky BA (2006) Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organ. Sci. 17(1):3-21.
    • Berente N, Baxterand R, Lyytinen K (2010) Dynamics of interorganizational knowledge creation and information technology use across object worlds: The case of an innovative construction project. Construction Management Econom. 28(6):569-588.
    • Bergman M, Lyytinen K, Mark G (2007) Boundary objects in design: An ecological view of design artifacts. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 8(11):546-568.
    • Boland R, Lyytinenand K, Yoo Y (2007) Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organ. Sci. 18(4):631-647.
    • Boudreau MC, Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organ. Sci. 16(1):3-8.
    • Bourdieu P (1990) The Logic of Practice (Polity, Cambridge, UK).
    • Bourdieu P, Johnson R (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (Columbia University Press, New York).
    • Braudy L, Cohen M (2004) Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings (Oxford University Press, New York).
    • Brown AD, Stacey P, Nandhakumar J (2008) Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human Relations 61(8):1035-1062.
    • Byrd, TA, Cossick KL, Zmud RW (1992) A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques. MIS Quart. 16(1):117-138.
    • Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4):442-455.
    • Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15(5):555-568.
    • Carroll JM (1995) Scenario-based design: Envisioning work and technology in system development. (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 408.
    • Chiasson MW, Davidson E (2005) Taking industry seriously in information systems research. MIS Quart. 29(4):591-605.
    • Cohendet P, Simon LT (2007) Playing across the playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. J. Organ. Behav. 28(5):587-605.
    • Csikszentmihalyi M (1991) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience: Steps Toward Enhancing the Quality of Life (Harper Collins Publishers, New York).
    • Davidson E, Pai D (2004) Making sense of technological frames: Promise, progress, and potential. Kaplan B, Truex D, Wastell D, Wood-Harpe T, DeGross J, eds., Relevant Theory and Informed Practice: Looking Forward from a 20 Year Perspective on IS Research (Kluwer, Boston), 473-491.
    • Davidson EJ (2002) Technology frames and framing: A sociocognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quart. 26(4):329-358.
    • Deci EL (1975) Intrinsic Motivation (Plenum Press, New York).
    • Deterding S, Sicart M, Nacke L, O'Hara K, Dixon D (2011) Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts. Proc. Annual Conf. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Comput. Systems (ACM, New York). 2011.
    • Eisenhardt K, Graebner M (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Management J. 50(1):25-32.
    • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. 14(4):532-550.
    • Engels F, McLellan D (2009) The Condition of the Working Class in England (Oxford University Press, New York).
    • Ewenstein B, Whyte J (2007) Beyond words: Aesthetic knowledge and knowing in organizations. Organ. Stud. 28(5):689-708.
    • Ewenstein B, Whyte J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as “epistemic objects.” Organ. Stud. 30(1):7-30.
    • Faraj S, Sproull L (2000) Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Sci. 46(12):1554-1568.
    • Green L, Miles I, Rutter J (2007) Hidden innovation in the creative sectors. Report, the National Endowment for Science, Technology, and the Arts, London.
    • Hargadon AB, Bechky BA (2006) When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. 17(4):484-500.
    • Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience-a research agenda. Behav. Inform. Tech. 25(2):91-97.
    • Henderson K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscriptive devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Sci., Tech., Human Values 16(4):448-473.
    • Hesmondhalgh D (2006) Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media, Culture Soc. 28(2):211-231.
    • Hsu CL, Lu HP (2004) Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Inform. Management 41(7):853-868.
    • Iivari J, Isomaki H, Pekkola S (2010) The user-The great unknown of systems development: Reasons, forms, challenges, experiences and intellectual contributions of user involvement. Inform. Systems J. 20(2):109-117.
    • Jarke M, Pohl K (1993) Vision driven system engineering. Prakash N, Rolland C, Pernici B, eds. Proc. IFIP WG8.1 Working Conf. Inform. System Development Process. (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 3-20.
    • Johnson D, Wiles J (2003) Effective affective user interface design in games. Ergonomics 46(13-14):1332-1345.
    • Kellogg KC, Orlikowski WJ, Yates JA (2006) Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organ. Sci. 17(1):22-44.
    • Kerr A (2002) Representing users in the design of digital games. Proc. Comput. Games and Digital Cultures Conf., Tampere, Finland.
    • Lamb R, Kling R (2003) Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quart. 27(2):197-236.
    • Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Management Rev. 24(4):691-710.
    • Leonardi PM (2011) Innovation blindness: Culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts. Organ. Sci. 22(2):347-369.
    • Leonardi PM, Barley SR (2010) What's under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):1-51.
    • Levina N (2005) Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects. Inform. Systems Res. 16(2):109-130.
    • Levina N, Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quart. 29(2):335-363.
    • Lin C-P, Bhattacherjee A (2010) Extending technology usage models to interactive hedonic technologies: A theoretical model and empirical test. Inform. Systems J. 20(2):163-181.
    • Majchrzak A, More PHB, Faraj S (2012) Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organ. Sci. 23(4):951-970.
    • Monteiro E, Jarulaitisand G, Hepsø V (2012) The family resemblance of technologically mediated work practices. Inform. Organ. 22(3):169-187.
    • Nicolini D (2009) Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching lenses and trailing connections. Organ. Stud. 30:1391-1418.
    • Okhuysen GA, Bechky BA (2009) Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Acad. Management Ann. 3:463-502.
    • Orlikowski WJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ. Sci. 11(4):404-428.
    • Orlikowski WJ (2010) Practice in research: Phenomenon, perspective, and philosophy. Golsorkhi D, Rouleau L, Seidl D, Vaara E, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 22-33.
    • Orlikowski WJ, Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Inform. Systems Res. 2(1):1-28.
    • Orlikowski WJ, Gash DC (1994) Technological frames-Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 12(2):174-207.
    • Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organ. Sci. 1(3):267-292.
    • Potts J, Cunningham S, Hartley J, Ormerod P (2008) Social network markets: A new definition of the creative industries. J. Cultural Econom. 32(3):167-185.
    • PricewaterhouseCoopers (2008) Global entertainment and media outlook: 2008-2012. (PricewaterhouseCoopers, New York).
    • Rafaeli A, Vilnai-Yavetz I (2004) Emotion as a connection of physical artifacts and organizations. Organ. Sci. 15(6):671-686.
    • Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (1995) Managing Technology in Society (Pinter Publishers, London).
    • Roberto MA, Carioggia GM (2003) Electronic Arts: The Blockbuster Strategy Harvard Business School Case 304-013, Cambridge, MA.
    • Schatzki TR, Knorr-Cetina K, von Savigny E (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (Routledge, New York).
    • Schultze U (2010) Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: A review. J. Inf. Technol. 25(4):434-449.
    • Schultze U (2011) The avatar as sociomaterial entanglement: A performative perspective on identity, agency and world-making in virtual worlds. Proc. Internet. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association of Information Systems, Shanghai), http://aisel.aisnet.org/ icis2011/proceeding/hci/11.
    • Schultze U, Leahy MM (2009) The avatar-self relationship: Enacting presence in second life. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association of Information Systems, Phoenix), http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2009/12.
    • Schultze U, Orlikowski WJ (2010) Research commentary-Virtual worlds: A performative perspective on globally distributed, immersive work. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):810-821.
    • Stacey P, Nandhakumar J (2009) A temporal perspective of the computer game development process. Inform. Systems J. 19(5):479-497.
    • Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci., Tech. Human Values 35(5):601-617.
    • Star SLh, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-1939. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3):387-420.
    • Swanson EB, Ramiller NC (1997) The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organ. Sci. 8(5):458-474.
    • Thom J, Millen D, DiMicco J (2012) Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. Proc. Conf. Comput. Supported Cooperative Work (ACM, New York).
    • Tschang FT (2007) Balancing the tensions between rationalization and creativity in the video games industry. Organ. Sci. 18(6):989-1005.
    • Tschang TF, Szczypula J (2006) Idea creation, constructivism and evolution as key characteristics in the videogame artifact design process. Eur. Management J. 24(4):270-287.
    • Van der Heijden H (2004) User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quart. 28(4):695-704.
    • Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 74(4):74-81.
    • Wasko M, Teigl R, Leidner D, Jarvenpaa S (2011) Stepping into the Internet: New ventures in virtual worlds. MIS Quart. 35(3):645-652.
    • Whyte JK, Cardellino P (2010) Learning by design: Visual practices and organizational transformation in schools. Design Issues 26(2):59-69.
    • Winter SJ, Butler BS (2011) Creating bigger problems: Grand challenges as boundary objects and the legitimacy of the information systems field. J. Inf. Technol. 26(2):99-108.
    • Woolgar S (1991) Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. Law J, ed. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (Routledge, London), 58-95.
    • Zackariasson P, Styhre A, Wilson TL (2006a) Phronesis and creativity: Knowledge work in video game development. Creativity and Innovation Management 15(4):419-429.
    • Zackariasson P, Walfisz M, Wilson TL (2006b) Management of creativity in video game development. Services Marketing Quart. 27(4):73-97.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok