Alternatives Considered But Not Disclosed: The Ambiguous Role of PowerPoint in Cross-Project Learning

Dennis Schoeneborn Alternatives Considered But Not Disclosed

VS RESEARCH

Dennis Schoeneborn

Alternatives Considered But Not Disclosed The Ambiguous Role of PowerPoint in Cross-Project Learning

With a foreword by Prof. Dr. Alexander T. Nicolai

VS RESEARCH

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at .

Dissertation Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, 2007

1st Edition 2008 All rights reserved © Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag und VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008 Editorial Office: Christina M. Brian / Dr. Tatjana Rollnik-Manke Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag and VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften are companies of Springer Science+Business Media. www.duv.de www.vs-verlag.de No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise without prior permission of the copyright holder.

Registered and/or industrial names, trade names, trade descriptions etc. cited in this publication are part of the law for trade-mark protection and may not be used free in any form or by any means even if this is not specifically marked. Cover design: KünkelLopka Medienentwicklung, Heidelberg Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-8350-7011-0

Forewordȱ ȱ

Mostȱ ofȱ usȱ willȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ tellȱ someȱ “adventureȱ stories”ȱ fromȱ workingȱ withȱ presentationȱ software.ȱ Presentingȱ resultsȱ toȱ audiencesȱ byȱ usingȱ PowerPointȱ(orȱsimilarȱtools)ȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱwidelyȱestablishedȱstandard.ȱ Thus,ȱ itȱ representsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ rareȱ technologiesȱ thatȱ hasȱ diffusedȱ hoȬ mogenouslyȱ intoȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ business,ȱ academia,ȱ education,ȱ andȱ evenȱ politics,ȱasȱtheȱrecentȱexampleȱofȱAlȱGoreȱwinningȱtheȱNobelȱPeaceȱPrizeȱ inȱ2007ȱ(notȱonlyȱbutȱalso)ȱbyȱmeansȱofȱaȱslideȱshowȱhasȱillustrated.ȱHowȬ ever,ȱmanyȱusersȱwouldȱdescribeȱtheirȱdependencyȱonȱpresentationȱsoftȬ wareȱ asȱ aȱ loveȬandȬhateȱ relationshipȱ –ȱ anȱ estimationȱ famouslyȱ exempliȬ fiedȱbyȱTufte’sȱcriticalȱessayȱonȱPowerPoint.ȱ Inȱaȱveryȱoriginalȱway,ȱDennisȱSchoeneborn’sȱdissertationȱpointsȱoutȱ anȱaspectȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱneglectedȱinȱpreviousȱdiscussionsȱonȱpresentationȱ software,ȱ butȱ whichȱ isȱ highlyȱ relevantȱ forȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱinȱprojectȱorganizations:ȱToȱwhatȱdegreeȱdoesȱtheȱusageȱofȱ presentationȱsoftwareȱforȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱinfluenceȱ theȱ effectivenessȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ strategiesȱ thatȱ relyȱ onȱ exȬ actlyȱtheseȱpresentationȱdocuments?ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ anȱ outstandingȱ featureȱ ofȱ Dennisȱ Schoeneborn’sȱ studyȱ thatȱ itȱ succeedsȱ inȱ combiningȱ streamsȱ fromȱ aȱ wideȱ rangeȱ ofȱ academicȱ disciȬ plines:ȱtheȱcomparablyȱabstractȱliteratureȱonȱorganizationalȱcommunicaȬ tionȱ andȱ Luhmann’sȱ theoryȱ ofȱ socialȱ systems,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ theȱ moreȱ pragmatic,ȱ downȬtoȬearthȱ topicsȱ suchȱ asȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ orȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ informationȱ andȱ communicationȱ technologiesȱ inȱ enterprises,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand.ȱApartȱfromȱrareȱexceptions,ȱforȱexample,ȱ Willke’sȱ workȱ onȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ orȱ Baecker’sȱ essaysȱ onȱ manȬ agementȱfromȱaȱsocialȱsystemsȱperspective,ȱtheseȱtopicsȱhaveȱpreviouslyȱ beenȱunconnected.ȱ

6

Forewordȱ

ȱ

Asȱitȱturnsȱout,ȱitȱhasȱbeenȱanȱexcellentȱchoiceȱbyȱtheȱauthorȱtoȱconȬ centrateȱonȱtheȱconceptȱofȱcontingencyȱasȱaȱbridgeȱbetweenȱtheseȱfieldsȱ–ȱ aȱ conceptȱ thatȱ hasȱ generallyȱ beenȱ underestimatedȱ inȱ theȱ internationalȱ literatureȱonȱorganizationalȱbehavior.ȱTheȱstudyȱfillsȱthisȱresearchȱgapȱinȱ aȱthoughtfulȱandȱinstructiveȱmanner.ȱTheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱcontingencyȱisȱ madeȱ visibleȱ inȱ organizationalȱ decisionȱ processesȱ isȱ bothȱ relevantȱ andȱ original.ȱFurthermore,ȱitȱrefersȱtoȱrecentȱinternationalȱdebatesȱonȱtheȱconȬ stitutiveȱconditionsȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱandȱexpandsȱthemȱ byȱintroducingȱcontingencyȱasȱaȱnewȱcriterion.ȱȱ Theȱempiricalȱpartȱofȱtheȱstudyȱyieldsȱdiverseȱnewȱinsights,ȱparticuȬ larlyȱonȱtheȱroleȱofȱPowerPointȱinȱcorporateȱcommunication,ȱtheȱsignifiȬ canceȱ ofȱ genres,ȱ andȱ theirȱ evolutionaryȱ development.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ part,ȱ theȱ authorȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱcombinedȱchoiceȱofȱdocumentȱanalysesȱandȱqualiȬ tativeȱ interviewsȱ isȱ anȱ appropriateȱ meansȱ toȱ investigateȱ theȱ researchȱ question.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ studyȱ generatesȱ aȱ rareȱ andȱ valuableȱ setȱ ofȱ data:ȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱthatȱareȱdrawnȱfromȱconsultants’ȱknowlȬ edgeȱ managementȱ databases.ȱ Onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ theȱanalyses,ȱ theȱ authorȱ isȱ ableȱtoȱindicateȱthatȱanȱabstractȱtheoryȱdevelopmentȱbasedȱonȱtheȱsocialȱ systemsȱparadigmȱcanȱbeȱfruitfullyȱillustratedȱbyȱempiricalȱfindings.ȱThisȱ alsoȱholdsȱtrueȱforȱaȱskillfulȱdiscussionȱofȱresults.ȱȱ Inȱclosing,ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱwishȱtheȱreadersȱofȱthisȱvolumeȱanȱenjoyȬ ableȱ journeyȱ intoȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ contingencyȱ andȱ itsȱ relevanceȱ forȱ orgaȬ nizationalȱcommunication.ȱDennisȱSchoenebornȱhasȱpursuedȱhisȱresearchȱ questionȱ inȱ aȱ thoroughȱ andȱ dedicatedȱ way.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ alsoȱ reflectedȱ byȱ hisȱ originalȱ ideaȱ toȱ applyȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ contingencyȱ visibilizationȱ toȱ thisȱ studyȱ itself.ȱ Althoughȱ representingȱ theȱ finalȱ chapter,ȱ thisȱ outlineȱ mightȱ evenȱbeȱaȱgoodȱstartingȱpointȱforȱreadingȱintoȱtheȱstudy.ȱ ȱ ProfessorȱDr.ȱAlexanderȱT.ȱNicolaiȱ

Prefaceȱ

Iȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱexpressȱmyȱsincereȱgratitudeȱtoȱ ȱ ƒ myȱsupervisors,ȱProfessorȱAlexanderȱT.ȱNicolaiȱandȱProfessorȱAnnaȬ Mariaȱ TheisȬBerglmair,ȱ forȱ theirȱ faithȱ inȱ me,ȱ theirȱ steadyȱ support,ȱ andȱmanyȱstimulatingȱdiscussionsȱthroughoutȱtheȱresearchȱprocess,ȱ ƒ ProfessorȱSueȱNewellȱforȱtheȱnewȱperspectivesȱsheȱaddedȱtoȱmyȱreȬ searchȱprojectȱandȱforȱhavingȱgivenȱmeȱtheȱchanceȱtoȱspendȱaȱwonȬ derfulȱandȱinspiringȱtimeȱatȱBentleyȱCollege,ȱ ƒ myȱ sponsor,ȱtheȱ Foundationȱ ofȱ Germanȱ Businessȱ(StiftungȱderȱDeutȬ schenȱWirtschaft;ȱsdw),ȱforȱendorsingȱtheȱinterdisciplinarityȱofȱmyȱreȬ searchȱproject,ȱȱ ƒ myȱ(anonymous)ȱcorporateȱpartnerȱforȱfacilitatingȱtheȱempiricalȱcaseȱ studyȱand,ȱwithȱthis,ȱtoȱgroundȱtheoryȱinȱorganizationalȱpractice,ȱȱ ƒ theȱ Germanȱ Societyȱ forȱ Knowledgeȱ Managementȱ (Gesellschaftȱ fürȱ Wissensmanagement;ȱGfWM)ȱandȱparticularlyȱitsȱpresident,ȱMrȱUlrichȱ Schmidt,ȱforȱhisȱcontinuousȱandȱhumorousȱsupport,ȱ ƒ myȱfellowȱcolleagueȱMrȱSteffenȱBlaschkeȱforȱbeingȱanȱidealȱintellecȬ tualȱsparringȱpartnerȱandȱkindredȱspirit,ȱ ƒ myȱ fellowȱ doctoralȱ studentsȱ atȱ Bauhausȱ Universityȱ Weimar,ȱ OttoȬ FriedrichȬUniversityȱBamberg,ȱandȱBentleyȱCollegeȱforȱtheirȱfruitfulȱ inputȱ–ȱwithȱspecialȱthanksȱtoȱMrȱMadsȱBendixenȱandȱtheȱotherȱfelȬ lowȱdoctoralȱstudentsȱfromȱtheȱOKLCȱdoctoralȱconsortiumȱ2005,ȱȱ ƒ myȱfamilyȱandȱmyȱcloseȱfriends,ȱwithȱspecialȱthanksȱtoȱmyȱpersonalȱ physicianȱasȱwellȱasȱmyȱlegal/philosophicalȱadvisors,ȱ ƒ lastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱmyȱwifeȱSiljaȱforȱherȱlove,ȱherȱpatience,ȱandȱallȱtheȱ healthyȱfoodȱsheȱcookedȱduringȱourȱunforgettableȱPhDȱstudentȱtime.ȱ ȱ DennisȱSchoenebornȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ ȱ

ȱ TableȱofȱFigures............................................................................................... 13ȱ TableȱofȱAbbreviations .................................................................................. 15ȱ 1ȱ

Introduction............................................................................................ 17ȱ 1.1ȱ ScopeȱofȱtheȱStudy.................................................................... 17ȱ 1.2ȱ RelevanceȱofȱtheȱStudy ............................................................ 22ȱ 1.3ȱ StructureȱofȱtheȱStudy.............................................................. 24ȱ

2ȱ

ParadigmaticȱPerspective:ȱOrganizationsȱasȱCommunications .... 29ȱ 2.1ȱ ȱTheȱCommunicationȱasȱConstitutiveȱofȱOrganizationsȱ (CCO)ȱPerspective.................................................................... 30ȱ 2.2ȱ TheȱTheoryȱofȱSocialȱSystemsȱ(TSS)ȱPerspective.................. 34ȱ 2.3ȱ SimilaritiesȱandȱDifferencesȱofȱtheȱCCOȱandȱtheȱȱ TSSȱPerspective......................................................................... 39ȱ

3ȱ

TheoreticalȱAnalysis:ȱTheȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱȱ ContingencyȱinȱOrganizationalȱCommunication ............................ 47ȱ 3.1ȱ AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDuality............. 48ȱ 3.1.1ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱ inȱOrganizations ....................................................................... 48ȱ 3.1.2ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱProjectȱ Organizations............................................................................ 55ȱ 3.1.3ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱConsultingȱ Firms .......................................................................................... 64ȱ

10

TableȱofȱContentsȱ

ȱ

3.2ȱ 3.2.1ȱ 3.2.2ȱ 3.2.3ȱ 3.3ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDuality........ 69ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱ Communication ........................................................................ 69ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱProjectȱ Documentation ......................................................................... 77ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱPowerPointȱ Presentations............................................................................. 84ȱ Synthesis:ȱTheȱTwoȱForcesȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱ (InȬ)Visibility............................................................................. 91ȱ

4ȱ

Methodology:ȱHowȱtoȱInvestigateȱtheȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱ ContingencyȱȱinȱtheȱPracticeȱofȱProjectȱDocumentation .................. 97ȱ 4.1ȱ BasicȱMethodologicalȱConsiderations ................................... 97ȱ 4.1.1ȱ TheȱEmpiricalȱAccessibilityȱofȱtheȱResearchȱIssue............... 97ȱ 4.1.2ȱ InterrelationsȱBetweenȱTheoryȱandȱEmpiricalȱData............ 99ȱ 4.1.3ȱ CaseȱStudyȱApproach............................................................ 101ȱ 4.2ȱ CaseȱSelectionȱandȱDescription ............................................ 103ȱ 4.3ȱ MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudy ................................... 105ȱ 4.3.1ȱ EmpiricalȱMethods................................................................. 107ȱ 4.3.2ȱ SamplingȱandȱDataȱGathering.............................................. 110ȱ 4.3.3ȱ DataȱAnalysis.......................................................................... 114ȱ

5ȱ

EmpiricalȱAnalysis:ȱExploringȱtheȱȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱ ContingencyȱinȱtheȱPracticeȱofȱProjectȱDocumentation ................. 119ȱ 5.1ȱ EmpiricalȱResultsȱFromȱanȱArchaeologicalȱExpedition .... 119ȱ 5.1.1ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱCrossȬȱ ProjectȱLearningȱDatabases................................................... 120ȱ 5.1.2ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱȱ PowerPointȱSubȬGenres ........................................................ 130ȱ 5.1.3ȱ Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱSelectedȱ PowerPointȱȱPresentations .................................................... 143ȱ

TableȱofȱContents

11ȱ

ȱ

5.2ȱ

5.2.1ȱ

5.2.2ȱ

5.2.3ȱ 5.3ȱ 6ȱ

ȱDiscussion:ȱFunctionsȱandȱConsequencesȱofȱtheȱȱ (InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱtheȱPracticeȱȱ ofȱProjectȱDocumentation...................................................... 151ȱ TheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDuality:ȱTheȱȱ (InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱPowerPointȬȱ BasedȱProjectȱDocumentation............................................... 151ȱ TheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDuality:ȱTheȱȱ (InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱandȱtheȱProjectȱ Organization’sȱAutopoiesis .................................................. 155ȱ Synthesis:ȱTheȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱȱ andȱCrossȬProjectȱForgetfulness........................................... 160ȱ AȱReȬReadingȱofȱtheȱStudyȱfromȱaȱPractitioner’sȱStance .. 164ȱ

ConclusionȱandȱOutlook.................................................................... 169ȱ 6.1ȱ ConcludingȱRemarks ............................................................. 169ȱ 6.2ȱ OutlookȱtoȱFutureȱResearch.................................................. 173ȱ 6.3ȱ AȱSelfȬReflectionȱonȱtheȱLimitationsȱandȱContingenciesȱ ofȱThisȱStudy ........................................................................... 175ȱ

References ...................................................................................................... 181ȱ

TableȱofȱFiguresȱ

ȱ Figureȱ1:ȱ

TheȱTwoȬSidedȱAnalysisȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱ Visibilizationȱ(DCV)................................................................. 48ȱ

Figureȱ2:ȱ

GuidingȱDistinctionsȱofȱtheȱEmpiricalȱAnalysis .................. 94ȱ

Figureȱ3:ȱ

SamplingȱProcedureȱofȱtheȱDocumentȱAnalysis................ 111ȱ

Figureȱ4:ȱ

FileȱSizeȱperȱSlideȱandȱWordsȱperȱSlideȱinȱPowerPointȬ BasedȱProjectȱDocuments ...................................................... 127ȱ

Figureȱ5:ȱ

Exampleȱofȱtheȱ“OneȬPageȱCitation”ȱSubȬGenre............... 131ȱ

Figureȱ6:ȱ

Exampleȱofȱtheȱ“FinalȱClientȱPresentation”ȱSubȬGenre.... 133ȱ

Figureȱ7:ȱ

Exampleȱofȱtheȱ“LessonsȱLearned”ȱSubȬGenre.................. 135ȱ

Figureȱ8:ȱ

SubȬTypologyȱofȱPowerPointȱPresentationsȱinȱProjectȱ Documentation ....................................................................... 136ȱ

Figureȱ9:ȱ

DevelopmentȱofȱtheȱCriticalȱReflectionȱQuotaȱinȱProjectȱ Documents .............................................................................. 139ȱ

Figureȱ10:ȱ

PowerPointȱSubȬGenresȱandȱtheȱThreeȱLevelsȱofȱDCV .... 142ȱ

Figureȱ11:ȱ

FirstȱExampleȱofȱExplicitȱDecisionȱContingencyȱ Visibilization ........................................................................... 147ȱ

Figureȱ12:ȱ

SecondȱExampleȱofȱExplicitȱDecisionȱContingencyȱ Visibilization ........................................................................... 149ȱ

TableȱofȱAbbreviationsȱ

CCOȱ ȱ CPLȱȱ ȱ DCVȱ ȱ TSSȱȱ ȱ

ȱ

CommunicationȱasȱConstitutiveȱofȱOrganizationsȱ

ȱ

CrossȬProjectȱLearningȱ

ȱ

DecisionȱContingencyȱVisibilizationȱ

ȱ

TheoryȱofȱSocialȱSystemsȱ

1 Introductionȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.1 ScopeȱofȱtheȱStudyȱ ȱ Imagineȱtheȱfollowingȱsituation:ȱYouȱstartȱworkingȱinȱaȱnewȱjobȱandȱyouȱ haveȱtoȱdealȱwithȱaȱtaskȱunfamiliarȱtoȱyou.ȱItȱisȱknownȱtoȱyouȱthatȱthereȱ haveȱbeenȱprojectsȱbeforeȱwhichȱhadȱdealtȱwithȱtheȱsameȱkindȱofȱissues.ȱ However,ȱtheȱemployeesȱinvolvedȱinȱtheseȱprojectsȱhaveȱalreadyȱleftȱtheȱ firmȱandȱyouȱcannotȱgetȱholdȱofȱthemȱanymore.ȱTheȱonlyȱmeansȱtoȱmakeȱ senseȱofȱtheirȱworkȱareȱsomeȱwrittenȱdocuments,ȱtheȱcommunicativeȱtraȬ cesȱtheyȱhaveȱleftȱbehind.ȱByȱbrowsingȱthroughȱtheȱdocuments,ȱyouȱareȱ impressedȱbyȱtheirȱachievements,ȱtheyȱhaveȱleftȱextensiveȱdocumentationȱ ofȱ theirȱ successȱ inȱ fulfillingȱ theȱ particularȱ tasksȱ youȱ areȱ supposedȱ toȱ doȱ fromȱ nowȱ on.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ documentsȱ comeȱ shortȱ onȱ anyȱ informationȱ regardingȱtheȱprocessesȱandȱmethodologyȱbehindȱtheirȱsuccess.ȱTheȱpresȬ entationȱofȱresultsȱdoesȱnotȱallowȱyouȱtoȱgetȱanȱideaȱofȱdecisiveȱsituationsȱ theȱprojectȱteamȱwasȱfacing,ȱwhatȱalternativesȱtheyȱhadȱconsidered,ȱandȱ whyȱtheyȱhadȱchosenȱtheȱwayȱtheyȱproceededȱinȱtheȱend.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱ theȱ documentsȱ lackȱ anyȱ informationȱ ofȱ theȱ contingencyȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ process.ȱ Letȱusȱtakeȱaȱcloserȱlookȱonȱtheȱconceptȱofȱcontingencyȱbeforeȱweȱwillȱ returnȱtoȱtheȱdescribedȱsituation.ȱTheȱconceptȱofȱcontingency,ȱdespiteȱitsȱ fundamentalityȱandȱimportanceȱinȱmodernȱandȱpostȬmodernȱphilosophyȱ (cf.ȱ Sartre,ȱ 1956;ȱ Luhmann,ȱ 1984;ȱ Rorty,ȱ 1989;ȱ Bauman,ȱ 1991;ȱ Derrida,ȱ 2002),ȱisȱnotȱveryȱcommonȱtoȱuseȱinȱeverydayȱlanguage.ȱInȱitsȱphilosophiȬ calȱ meaning,ȱ whichȱ linksȱ backȱ toȱ ancientȱ philosopherȱ Aristotleȱ (Beyes,ȱ 2003:ȱ10),ȱtheȱtermȱcontingencyȱnegatesȱbothȱnecessityȱandȱimpossibilityȱ (Luhmann,ȱ1988:ȱ183).ȱInȱthisȱsense,ȱcontingencyȱdescribesȱaȱstateȱofȱtheȱ worldȱwhichȱisȱasȱitȱisȱ–ȱbutȱwhichȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱdifferentȱ(Luhmann:ȱ

18

Introductionȱ

ȱ

1984:ȱ152).ȱFramedȱthisȱway,ȱcontingencyȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱalternativesȱinherȬ entȱ toȱ aȱ givenȱ situation.ȱ Instancesȱ ofȱ contingencyȱ areȱ specifiedȱ byȱ largeȱ degreesȱ ofȱ freedom.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ lookingȱ intoȱ theȱ world’sȱ contingencyȱ meansȱ toȱ exposeȱ itsȱ complexity.ȱ Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ Luhmannȱ suggestsȱ toȱ graspȱ anȱ increasingȱcontingencyȱasȱ theȱdefiningȱ attributeȱ ofȱ theȱmodernȱ ageȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1998:ȱ67).1ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ powerfulȱ resourcesȱ toȱ copeȱ withȱ theȱ modernȱ sociȬ ety’sȱinherentȱcomplexityȱisȱtheȱorganization.ȱAsȱParsonsȱputsȱit,ȱorganizaȬ tionsȱ areȱ “theȱ principleȱ mechanismȱ byȱ which,ȱ inȱ aȱ highlyȱ differentiatedȱ society,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ ‘getȱ thingsȱ done’,ȱ toȱ achieveȱ goalsȱ beyondȱ theȱ reachȱofȱtheȱindividual”ȱ(Parsons,ȱ1960:ȱ41).ȱHowȱdoȱorganizationsȱachieȬ veȱthisȱquality?ȱAuthorsȱinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱadministrativeȱbehaviorȱtheoȬ ryȱ(cf.ȱMarchȱ&ȱSimon,ȱ1958),ȱoneȱprominentȱstreamȱinȱorganizationȱstudȬ ies,ȱargueȱthatȱdecisionsȱcanȱbeȱgraspedȱasȱtheȱconstitutiveȱelementȱofȱorȬ ganizations.ȱ Itȱ isȱ assumedȱ hereȱ thatȱ organizationsȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ reproduceȱ themselvesȱbyȱinterconnectingȱoneȱdecisionȱtoȱtheȱnext.ȱByȱmeansȱofȱthis,ȱ theyȱbecomeȱ“nestedȱhierarchiesȱofȱdecisions”ȱ(Scott,ȱ1998:ȱ51).ȱInȱrecentȱ workȱonȱorganizationsȱasȱdecisionȱsystems,ȱtheȱcommunicativeȱcharacterȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ isȱ emphasizedȱ byȱ definingȱ organizationsȱ asȱ essentiallyȱ conȬ sistingȱofȱinterconnectedȱepisodesȱofȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ46).ȱ Thisȱideaȱtoȱgraspȱdecisionsȱasȱtheȱdefiningȱelementȱofȱorganizationsȱ takesȱusȱbackȱtoȱtheȱconceptȱofȱcontingency.ȱDecisionsȱareȱcontingentȱbyȱ definitionȱbecauseȱtheyȱentailȱtheȱnecessityȱtoȱmakeȱaȱselectionȱamongȱaȱ rangeȱofȱalternatives.ȱFurthermore,ȱinȱtheȱneedȱtoȱinterconnectȱoneȱdeciȬ sionȱ toȱ theȱ next,ȱ organizationsȱ areȱ forcedȱ toȱ maintainȱ anȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ pastȱ decisions.ȱ Asȱ Luhmannȱ argues,ȱ theȱ organization’sȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ itsȱ decisionsȱrequiresȱthatȱaȱdecisionȱisȱmadeȱvisibleȱasȱhavingȱbeenȱaȱdeciȬ

1ȱȱ Theȱ multiȬoptionalityȱ ofȱ today’sȱ livesȱ isȱ describedȱ inȱ aȱ recentȱ novelȱ byȱ Kunkelȱ (2006).ȱ However,ȱ lookingȱ intoȱ theȱ contingencyȱ ofȱ someone’sȱ ownȱ existenceȱ canȱ causeȱ severeȱ feelingsȱofȱvertigoȱorȱnauseaȱ(cf.ȱ Sartre,ȱ1956:ȱ343).ȱAsȱaȱprevention,ȱRortyȱ suggestsȱtoȱ adoptȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱ“liberalȱironist”ȱ–ȱbeingȱdefinedȱasȱ“theȱsortȱofȱpersonȱwhoȱfacesȱ upȱtoȱtheȱcontingencyȱofȱhisȱorȱherȱownȱmostȱcentralȱbeliefsȱandȱdesires”ȱ(Rorty,ȱ1989:ȱ xv).ȱ

ScopeȱofȱtheȱStudy

19ȱ

ȱ

sion,ȱbyȱhighlightingȱtheȱcontingencyȱinherentȱtoȱitȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ64).ȱ Theȱ wayȱ organizationsȱ achieveȱ thisȱ visibilityȱ andȱ connectivityȱ ofȱ theirȱ decisionsȱ remainsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ largelyȱ unexploredȱ issuesȱ inȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ organizationsȱasȱdecisionȱsystemsȱ(Knudsen,ȱ2006:ȱ109).ȱ Itȱcanȱbeȱassumedȱthatȱtheȱvisibilityȱandȱconnectivityȱofȱdecisionsȱisȱ particularlyȱatȱstakeȱinȱperiodsȱofȱorganizationalȱgrowthȱ(cf.ȱGeser,ȱ1982;ȱ Eisenhardtȱ &ȱ Schoonhoven,ȱ 1990;ȱ vonȱ Kroghȱ &ȱ Cusumano,ȱ 2000).ȱ Inȱ aȱ recentȱarticle,ȱKühlȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱcriticalȱstageȱofȱsmallȱfirms’ȱgrowthȱisȱ theȱtransformationȱfromȱaȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱorganizationȱtoȱaȱmoreȱformalȱorganiȬ zationȱ(Kühl,ȱ2002).ȱDecisionȱprocessesȱcanȱeasilyȱbeȱoverviewedȱinȱfaceȬ toȬfaceȱ organizationsȱ byȱ helpȱ ofȱ personalȱ andȱ unmediatedȱ interactions,ȱ whereasȱ formalȱ organizationsȱ needȱ toȱ establishȱ structuresȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ copeȱwithȱtheȱincreasedȱcomplexityȱcausedȱbyȱtheȱdistributedȱcharacterȱofȱ theirȱdecisionȱprocesses:ȱ“InȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱkeepȱallȱorganizationalȱmemȬ bersȱ informedȱ aboutȱ everythingȱ andȱ toȱ keepȱ rigidȱ rulesȱ andȱ hierarchiesȱ dispensed,ȱ [theȱ organization]ȱ isȱ threatenedȱ toȱ suffocate”ȱ (Kühl,ȱ 2002:ȱ 197).ȱThus,ȱwhileȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱprocessesȱisȱnotȱthatȱproblemȬ aticȱinȱsmallȱorganizations,ȱitȱisȱunclearȱhowȱthisȱvisibilityȱisȱactuallyȱacȬ complishedȱinȱbiggerȬsizedȱorganizations.ȱ Inȱaȱsimilarȱvein,ȱLuhmannȱpointsȱtoȱprojectȱorganizationsȱasȱaȱcriticalȱ typeȱ ofȱ organizationȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ visibilityȱ byȱ wonȬ deringȱ howȱ “theȱ projectȱ organizationȱ survivesȱ itsȱ ownȱ projects”ȱ (LuhȬ mann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 273;ȱ ownȱ translation).ȱ Inȱ delegatingȱ decisionȱ processesȱ toȱ workȱgroups,ȱestablishedȱforȱaȱlimitedȱtime,ȱprojectsȱorganizationsȱallowȱ forȱreactingȱflexiblyȱtoȱdynamicȱdemandsȱinȱtheirȱenvironmentȱ(cf.ȱHobȬ day,ȱ2000).ȱHowever,ȱtheȱcomparablyȱlooseȱandȱflexibleȱformȱofȱworkȱinȱ projectȱorganizationsȱwhichȱhaveȱreachedȱaȱcertainȱsizeȱhasȱalsoȱcreatedȱ theȱ problemȱ thatȱ oneȱ handȱ mayȱ notȱ knowȱ whatȱ theȱ otherȱ handȱ isȱ doing.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ decisionsȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ inȱ projectsȱ mayȱ remainȱ uncoordinatedȱ onȱ theȱ organizationalȱ level.ȱ Consequently,ȱ thereȱ haveȱ beenȱ claimsȱ toȱ establishȱ formsȱ ofȱ crossȬprojectȱ learningȱ (CPL)2ȱ (Ayasȱ &ȱ Zeniuk,ȱ 2001;ȱ Keeganȱ &ȱ Turner,ȱ 2001;ȱ Carrickȱ &ȱ Clegg,ȱ 2001;ȱ Newell,ȱ 2ȱȱ Toȱenhanceȱreadability,ȱIȱwillȱuseȱtheȱabbreviationȱCPLȱatȱvariousȱ pointsȱofȱ theȱstudyȱ whenȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱideaȱofȱcrossȬprojectȱlearning,ȱ

20

Introductionȱ

ȱ

2004)ȱinȱorderȱtoȱpreventȱaȱrepetitiveȱreȬinventionȱofȱtheȱwheelȱinȱnewȱproȬ jectsȱ(Lesserȱ&ȱStorck,ȱ2001:ȱ836).ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ haveȱ establishedȱ variousȱ proȬ cessesȱtoȱleverageȱaȱsharingȱofȱexperiencesȱamongȱtheirȱmembers.ȱInȱthisȱ context,ȱrecentȱpublicationsȱpointȱtoȱtheȱhigherȱlearningȱvalueȱfromȱfailȬ ureȱ ratherȱ thanȱ successȱ (Edmondson,ȱ 1996;ȱ Zhaoȱ &ȱ Olivera,ȱ 2006).ȱ Itȱ isȱ assumedȱ hereȱ thatȱ organizationsȱ whichȱ areȱ tooȱ muchȱ focusedȱ onȱ previȬ ousȱachievementsȱtendȱtoȱbecomeȱinertȱinȱtheȱlongȱrunȱ(cf.ȱMiller,ȱ1994).ȱ Muchȱmore,ȱmistakesȱandȱfailureȱallowȱforȱcontinuousȱimprovementsȱofȱ organizationalȱ processesȱ andȱ adaptingȱ toȱ changingȱ environmentalȱ cirȬ cumstancesȱbutȱisȱhardlyȱrealizedȱinȱpracticeȱ(Michailovaȱ&ȱHusted,ȱ2004;ȱ Baumardȱ&ȱStarbuckȱ2005).ȱTheȱhypothesisȱofȱaȱlearningȱvalueȱfromȱfailȬ ureȱ againȱ linksȱ toȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ contingency.ȱ Whileȱ aȱ focusȱ onȱ successȱ contradictsȱ aȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ contingenciesȱ ofȱ pastȱ projectȱ decisionȱ proȬ cesses,ȱtheȱlearningȬfromȬfailureȱprincipleȱinsteadȱimpliesȱtoȱmakeȱvisibleȱ whichȱ mistakesȱ wereȱ madeȱ andȱ whichȱ contingenciesȱ wereȱ facedȱ inȱ theȱ projectȱprocessȱ Moreover,ȱitȱisȱreportedȱthatȱmostȱprocessesȱestablishedȱinȱorganizaȬ tionsȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ crossȬprojectȱ learningȱ relyȱ onȱ textualȱ formsȱ ofȱ documentationȱ(cf.ȱNewellȱetȱal.,ȱ2006).ȱInȱaȱrecentȱstudy,ȱYatesȱandȱOrȬ likowskiȱ(forthcoming)ȱemphasizeȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱcommonȱpracticeȱinȱprojectȱ organizations,ȱ suchȱ asȱ consultingȱ firms,ȱ thatȱ presentationȱ documentsȱ generatedȱ byȱ helpȱ ofȱ theȱ softwareȱ Microsoftȱ PowerPoint3ȱ increasinglyȱ substituteȱ theȱ classicalȱ projectȱ report.ȱ However,ȱ PowerPointȱ isȱ initiallyȱ designedȱtoȱsupportȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱpresentationsȱinȱaȱpersuasiveȱfashionȱ(cf.ȱ Tufte,ȱ2003)ȱratherȱthanȱtoȱgenerateȱanȱelaborateȱdocumentationȱofȱprojectȱ processes.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ linkȱ thisȱ practiceȱ toȱ theȱ organizationalȱ requirementȱ toȱ assureȱaȱconnectivityȱofȱdecisionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingency,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱaskedȱ toȱwhatȱextentȱanȱincreasingȱusageȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱinȱprojectȱ documentationȱmayȱaffectȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱonȱaȱ crossȬprojectȱlevel.ȱ

3ȱȱ Microsoft®ȱ andȱ PowerPoint®ȱ areȱ registeredȱ trademarksȱ ofȱ Microsoftȱ Corporation,ȱ Redmond/WA.ȱ

ScopeȱofȱtheȱStudy

21ȱ

ȱ

Theseȱ considerationsȱ highlightȱ thatȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ contingencyȱ isȱ rightȱatȱtheȱcenterȱofȱallȱorganizationȱtheoriesȱwhichȱassumeȱthatȱorganiȬ zationsȱareȱconstitutedȱbyȱinterȬrelatedȱepisodesȱofȱdecisions.ȱTheȱneedȱtoȱ achieveȱaȱconnectivityȱofȱdecisionsȱandȱwithȱthis,ȱaȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionsȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ acrossȱ theȱ organization,ȱ canȱ beȱ presumedȱ toȱ beȱ especiallyȱ atȱ stakeȱ inȱ projectȱ organizations.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱ doubtfulȱ thatȱ establishedȱ formsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ onȱ aȱ crossȬprojectȱ levelȱ doȱ indeedȱ contributeȱ toȱ aȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingency.ȱ Althoughȱ aȱ highȱ learningȱ valueȱ fromȱ failureȱ isȱ hypothesizes,ȱ itsȱ realizationȱ isȱ oftenȱ conȬ strainedȱinȱpractice.ȱFurthermore,ȱitȱisȱputȱintoȱquestionȱwhetherȱPowerȬ PointȬbasedȱprojectȱdocumentationȱpracticesȱallowȱforȱaȱvisibilityȱofȱdeciȬ sionȱprocessesȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱacrossȱtheȱprojectȱorganization.ȱ Takenȱ together,ȱ theȱ mainȱ researchȱ questionȱ ofȱ thisȱ studyȱ canȱ beȱ inȬ troduced:ȱ Toȱ whatȱ extentȱ doȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ becomeȱ visibilizedȱ PowerȬPointȬbasedȱ practicesȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentaȬ tion?ȱOr,ȱtoȱputȱitȱdifferently,ȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱdoesȱtheȱprojectȱorganizationȱ becomeȱawareȱofȱitsȱownȱdecisionȱhistory,ȱasȱmanifestedȱinȱtextualȱcomȬ munication?ȱ Inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱ theȱ studyȱ followsȱ theȱ objectiveȱ “toȱ observeȱ howȱtheȱorganizationȱobservesȱitself”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ470;ȱownȱtranslaȬ tion).ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱstudyȱaimsȱtoȱintroduceȱtheȱconceptȱofȱdecisionȱconȬ tingencyȱtoȱtheȱfieldȱofȱorganizationȱstudiesȱandȱorganizationalȱcommuȬ nicationȱ–ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱtheȱconceptȱshedsȱnewȱlightȱonȱ existingȱproblemsȱofȱimplementingȱprocessesȱofȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱ andȱCPLȱinȱpracticeȱ(cf.ȱMcDermottȱ&ȱO’Dell,ȱ2001).ȱ Finally,ȱtheȱintroducedȱresearchȱfocusȱallowsȱusȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱiniȬ tiallyȱ describedȱ situation:ȱ Itȱ appearsȱ thatȱ theȱ situationȱ describedȱ aboveȱ appearsȱnotȱtoȱbeȱfarȬfetched.ȱInȱconsultingȱfirms,ȱforȱexample,ȱcharacterȬ izedȱ byȱ aȱ highȱ personnelȱ turnoverȱ andȱ competingȱ inȱ aȱ fastȬpacedȱ busiȬ ness,ȱnewȱemployeesȱareȱoftenȱthrownȱinȱatȱtheȱdeepȱend.ȱInȱcompaniesȱ whichȱhaveȱestablishedȱprocessesȱofȱdocumentationȱonȱpreviousȱprojects,ȱ theȱfirstȱstartingȱpointȱforȱgettingȱfamiliarȱwithȱaȱparticularȱtaskȱoftenȱareȱ textualȱdocuments,ȱasȱexemplifiedȱbyȱtheȱincreasingȱusageȱofȱPowerPointȱ presentationsȱ inȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Seenȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ aȱ jobȱ novice,ȱ whoȱ aimsȱ toȱ learnȱ fromȱ experiencesȱ madeȱ inȱ theȱ past,ȱ itȱ isȱ

22

Introductionȱ

ȱ

exactlyȱ theȱ contingencyȱ inherentȱ toȱ previousȱ decisionȱ processesȱ whichȱ wouldȱ beȱ ofȱ aȱ comparablyȱ highȱ value.ȱ Withȱ respectȱ toȱ aȱ presumablyȱȱ higherȱ learningȱ valueȱ fromȱ failure,ȱ aȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ projectȱ processes,ȱ theȱ contingenciesȱ facedȱ inȱ these,ȱ andȱ alsoȱ mistakesȱ madeȱ embedȱ theȱ comparablyȱ highestȱ learningȱ potentialȱ –ȱ muchȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ presentaȬ tionȱofȱresults.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 1.2 RelevanceȱofȱtheȱStudyȱ ȱ Thisȱ studyȱ investigatesȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ decisionȱ processesȱandȱ theirȱ conȬ tingencyȱ areȱ madeȱ visibleȱ inȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Theȱ studyȱ particularlyȱ concentratesȱ onȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ inȱtheȱvisibilizationȱorȱinvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱifȱappliedȱ forȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱprojectȱdocumentation.ȱTheȱrelevanceȱofȱthisȱstudyȱisȱ threefold:ȱ Withȱ regardsȱ toȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ studies,ȱ theȱ studyȱaimsȱtoȱdeepenȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱhowȱorganizationsȱcomeȱintoȱ beingȱandȱsustainȱtheirȱexistenceȱifȱtheorizedȱasȱessentiallyȱconsistingȱofȱ episodesȱofȱdecisionȱcommunication.ȱWithȱregardsȱtoȱtheȱfieldȱofȱCPL,ȱtheȱ analysisȱ putsȱ forthȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ contingencyȬcenteredȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ contingencyȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ criticalȱ evaluaȬ tionȱofȱexistingȱapproachesȱinȱthisȱfieldȱbyȱaskingȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱdecisionȱ processesȱandȱtheirȱcontingenciesȱareȱinȱfactȱmadeȱvisibleȱinȱtextualȱformsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ studyȱ representsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ systematicȱ investigationsȱ onȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ inȱ orȬ ganizationalȱ communicationȱ and,ȱ particularly,ȱ inȱ processesȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communication,ȱ theȱ studyȱ aimsȱ toȱ conȬ tributeȱ toȱ recentȱ discussionsȱ onȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ organizaȬ tionsȱ asȱ communicativeȱ entitiesȱ (McPheeȱ &ȱ Zaug,ȱ 2000;ȱ Taylor,ȱ 2000a;ȱ Coorenȱ&ȱFairhurst,ȱforthcoming).ȱTheȱstudyȱdevelopsȱaȱsuggestionȱhowȱ theȱ organization’sȱ coreȱ operationsȱ canȱbeȱ approachedȱ empiricallyȱ byȱ foȬ cusingȱ onȱ theȱ organizationalȱ necessityȱ toȱ interconnectȱ episodesȱ ofȱ deciȬ sionȱ communicationȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱ overȱ time.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱ studyȱ

RelevanceȱofȱtheȱStudy

23ȱ

ȱ

alsoȱ representsȱ anȱ illustrationȱ ofȱ howȱ empiricalȱ researchȱ canȱ beȱ conȬ ductedȱbasedȱonȱtheȱratherȱabstractȱtheoryȱofȱsocialȱsystems,ȱorȱtoȱputȱitȱ theȱ otherȱ wayȱ around,ȱ howȱ empiricalȱ researchȱ canȱ enrichȱ theoryȱ develȬ opmentȱinȱtheȱstudyȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱsocialȱsystems.ȱ Byȱ introducingȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ visibilizationȱ (DCV)4ȱ asȱ aȱ constitutiveȱ requirementȱ forȱ organizations,ȱ theȱ studyȱ sugȬ gestsȱtoȱcombineȱpreviouslyȱseparatedȱtheoryȱtraditions:ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱ theȱAngloȬAmericanȱliteratureȱonȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunicationsȱ(e.g.,ȱ Taylor,ȱ2003),ȱandȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱcontinentalȱEuropeanȱliteratureȱ onȱorganizationsȱasȱsocialȱsystemsȱ(e.g.,ȱLuhmann,ȱ2000;ȱAndersen,ȱ2003).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱ studyȱ alsoȱ aimsȱ toȱ buildȱ bridgesȱbetweenȱ twoȱ previȬ ouslyȱ unconnectedȱ bodiesȱ ofȱ researchȱ whichȱ shareȱ aȱ similarȱ perspectiveȱ inȱtheȱstudyȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunication.ȱȱ Theȱ weakȱ mutualȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ bothȱ approachesȱ canȱ beȱ partlyȱ exȬ plainedȱbyȱdelaysȱinȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱextensiveȱworkȱofȱLuhmann’sȱ workȱ onȱ theȱ socialȱ systemsȱ frameworkȱ fromȱ Germanȱ intoȱ Englishȱ lanȬ guageȱ(Seidlȱ&ȱ Becker,ȱ2006b:ȱ 10).ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ studyȱaimsȱ toȱ contributeȱ toȱ makingȱtheȱworkȱofȱLuhmannȱonȱorganizationsȱaccessibleȱtoȱanȱinternaȬ tionalȱ readership,ȱ asȱ similarlyȱ accomplishedȱ inȱ recentȱ accountsȱ onȱ hisȱ workȱ inȱ Englishȱ languageȱ (e.g.,ȱ Bakkenȱ &ȱ Hernes,ȱ 2003;ȱ Nassehi,ȱ 2005;ȱ Seidlȱ&ȱBecker,ȱ2006a;ȱ2006b).ȱ Furthermore,ȱ littleȱ isȱ knownȱ soȱ farȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ variousȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ differȱ inȱ theirȱ abilityȱ toȱ supportȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ CPL.ȱThisȱstudyȱaimsȱtoȱenrichȱandȱexpandȱexistingȱtheoriesȱonȱthisȱsubȬ jectȱ whichȱ primarilyȱ originateȱ inȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ managementȱ studiesȱ andȱ informationȱsystem.ȱThisȱisȱrealizedȱbyȱdrawingȱonȱinsightsȱfromȱmediaȱ andȱcommunicationȱstudies,ȱandȱwithinȱthisȱfield,ȱespeciallyȱfromȱorganȬ izationalȱcommunicationȱstudies.ȱInȱthisȱfocus,ȱtheȱstudyȱisȱgroundedȱinȱaȱ researchȱtraditionȱwhichȱemphasizesȱtheȱsocialȱandȱcommunicativeȱcharȬ acterȱ ofȱ anyȱ processesȱ whichȱ attemptȱ toȱ initiateȱ anȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ experiȬ encesȱamongȱorganizationalȱmembers.ȱMoreover,ȱandȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱ learningȱvalueȱfromȱfailureȱprinciple,ȱitȱisȱtheȱstudy’sȱaimȱtoȱelaborateȱonȱ 4ȱȱ Forȱpracticalȱreasons,ȱIȱwillȱuseȱtheȱabbreviationȱDCVȱatȱvariousȱpointsȱofȱtheȱstudyȱtoȱ referȱtoȱtheȱconceptȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱvisibilization.ȱ

24

Introductionȱ

ȱ

theȱconceptȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱandȱhowȱitȱcanȱexpandȱexistingȱpracȬ ticesȱofȱCPLȱonȱaȱtheoreticalȱlevel.ȱȱ Finally,ȱ inȱ theȱ focusȱ onȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ asȱ aȱ mediumȱ andȱ genreȱofȱprojectȱdocumentation,ȱtheȱstudyȱrelatesȱtoȱrecentȱdebatesȱonȱtheȱ software’sȱ usefulnessȱ inȱ organizationalȱ andȱ educationalȱ communicationȱ (cf.ȱTufte,ȱ2003;ȱYatesȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱforthcoming).ȱDerivedȱfromȱtheȱstuȬ dy’sȱmainȱresearchȱquestion,ȱPowerPointȬbasedȱprojectȱdocumentsȱareȱinȱ theȱ mainȱ focusȱ ofȱ theȱ theoreticalȱandȱempiricalȱ analyses.ȱ Inȱ thisȱrespect,ȱ thisȱstudyȱrepresentsȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȱsystematicȱinvestigationsȱonȱtheȱamȬ biguousȱroleȱPowerPointȱcanȱplayȱinȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱconȬ texts.ȱ Takenȱtogether,ȱitȱisȱthisȱstudy’sȱobjectiveȱtoȱyieldȱevidenceȱrelevantȱ toȱbothȱtheoryȱandȱpractice.ȱWhileȱtheȱprimaryȱtargetȱisȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱ existingȱresearchȱinȱtheȱfieldsȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱandȱCPL,ȱ itȱalsoȱaimsȱtoȱbeȱaccessibleȱtoȱpractitionersȱinȱtheseȱfields.ȱThisȱisȱbasedȱ onȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ anȱ abstractȱ andȱ theoryȬdrivenȱ approachȱ isȱ theȱ essentialȱ preconditionȱ forȱ beingȱ ableȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ differenceȱ toȱ practitioners.ȱ Theȱ introductionȱ ofȱ abstractsȱ conceptsȱ uncommonȱ toȱ useȱ inȱ everydayȱ languageȱisȱaȱburdenȱindeed,ȱinȱanȱidealȱcase,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱreaderȱisȱreȬ wardedȱbyȱanȱalteredȱviewȱonȱaȱpreviouslyȱfamiliarȱdomain.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 1.3 StructureȱofȱtheȱStudyȱ ȱ Theȱstudyȱisȱstructuredȱasȱfollows:ȱChapterȱtwoȱoutlinesȱtheȱparadigmaticȱ perspectiveȱofȱtheȱstudy.ȱTheȱchapterȱbrieflyȱintroducesȱtwoȱframeworksȱ whichȱ shareȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ asȱ communicativeȱ phenomena.ȱ TheȱperspectiveȱtoȱgraspȱcommunicationȱasȱtheȱconstitutiveȱofȱorganizaȬ tionsȱ(Taylorȱ&ȱvanȱEvery,ȱ2000;ȱCooren,ȱ2000;ȱ2004;ȱCastor,ȱ2005;ȱCoorenȱ &ȱFairhurst,ȱforthcoming),ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱrepresentsȱaȱtheoreticalȱfraȬ meworkȱ ofȱ growingȱ prominenceȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ studȬ ies.ȱTheȱbasicȱideaȱofȱthisȱframeworkȱisȱtoȱgoȱbeyondȱtheȱnotionȱofȱcomȬ municationȱoccurringȱinȱorganizationsȱbyȱassertingȱthatȱorganizationsȱareȱ essentiallyȱ consistingȱ ofȱ interȬrelatedȱ networksȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (cf.ȱ

StructureȱofȱtheȱStudy

25ȱ

ȱ

chapterȱ 2.1).ȱ Theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1964;ȱ1981c;ȱ1984;ȱ2000;ȱBaecker,ȱ1993;ȱ1999;ȱ2003;ȱBakkenȱ&ȱHernes,ȱ2003;ȱ Hernesȱ &ȱ Bakken,ȱ 2003:ȱ Andersen,ȱ 2003;ȱ Seidl,ȱ 2006a;ȱ 2006b;ȱ Seidlȱ &ȱȱ Becker,ȱ2006a;ȱ2006b),ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱdefinesȱorganizationsȱasȱsocialȱ systemsȱ whichȱ differȱ fromȱ theirȱ environmentȱ inȱ theirȱ mostȱ basicȱ operaȬ tion:ȱtheȱcommunicationȱofȱdecisionsȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ2.2).ȱBasedȱonȱtheȱastonȬ ishmentȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ lackȱ ofȱ mutualȱ perceptionȱ inȱ bothȱ theoryȱ tradiȬ tions,ȱ theȱ chapterȱ comparesȱ andȱ contrastsȱ ideasȱ fromȱ bothȱ frameworksȱ (cf.ȱchapterȱ2.3).ȱȱ ChapterȱthreeȱpresentsȱtheȱtheoreticalȱanalysisȱwhichȱisȱseparatedȱinȬ toȱtwoȱpartsȱbasedȱonȱtheȱideaȱthatȱorganizationsȱandȱcommunicationȱareȱ essentiallyȱ intertwined:ȱ Inȱ aȱ firstȱ step,ȱ theȱ organizationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ orȬ ganizationȬcommunicationȱ dualityȱ isȱ highlightedȱ byȱ analyzingȱ howȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ organization’sȱ autopoiesisȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.1).ȱTheȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱorganizationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱ coinȱproceedsȱfromȱgeneralȱtoȱmoreȱconcreteȱconsiderations.ȱThisȱprocessȱ ofȱ narrowingȱ downȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ visibilityȱ followsȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ thisȱ issueȱ isȱ particularlyȱ relevantȱ inȱ organizationsȱ withȱ distributedȱ decisionȱ processesȱ (suchȱ asȱ projectȱ organizations),ȱ andȱ evenȱ moreȱ soȱ inȱ firmsȱ withȱ aȱ particularȱ emphasisȱ onȱ impressionȱ manȬ agementȱtechniquesȱ(suchȱasȱconsultingȱfirms).ȱ Inȱ aȱ secondȱ step,ȱ theȱ communicationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȬ communicationȱdualityȱisȱhighlightedȱbyȱaskingȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱaȱvisibiliȬ zationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱisȱachievedȱinȱcommunicationȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ 3.2).ȱAgain,ȱtheȱanalysisȱproceedsȱfromȱaȱgeneralȱanalysisȱofȱcommunicaȬ tionȱ asȱ performativeȱ speechȱ actsȱ toȱ theȱ moreȱ specificȱ caseȱ ofȱ textuallyȱ documentedȱ communication,ȱ andȱ itȱ arrivesȱ atȱ theȱ examinationȱ ofȱ theȱ ambiguousȱroleȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱforȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdeciȬ sionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Insightsȱ generatedȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱofȱbothȱsidesȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱareȱcrossȬcomparedȱinȱaȱsynthesisȱinȱ chapterȱ3.3.ȱThisȱchapterȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱconȬ tingencyȱinȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱresidesȱinȱbetweenȱtwoȱopposȬ ingȱpowers:ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtheȱnecessityȱtoȱachieveȱsomeȱformȱofȱdeciȬ sionȱ contingencyȱ visibilityȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ interconnectȱ presentȱ

26

Introductionȱ

ȱ

decisionsȱtoȱpastȱdecisions,ȱandȱtheȱtendencyȱtoȱinvisibilizeȱdecisionȱconȬ tingencyȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱaȱconsistentȱpresentation,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand.ȱ Chapterȱ fourȱ presentsȱ aȱ methodologyȱ forȱ theȱ investigationȱ ofȱ deciȬ sionȱ contingencyȱ visibilityȱ inȱ empiricalȱ practice.ȱ Theȱ outlineȱ startsȱ withȱ fundamentalȱconsiderationsȱonȱtheȱempiricalȱaccessibilityȱofȱtheȱresearchȱ issueȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ empiricalȱ methodsȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 4.1).ȱ Basedȱ onȱ theȱ asȬ sumptionȱthatȱqualitativeȱformsȱofȱempiricalȱresearchȱallowȱforȱaȱcontexȬ tualȱenrichmentȱofȱtheoreticalȱconsiderations,ȱaȱcaseȱstudyȱdesignȱisȱpreȬ sentedȱwhichȱaimsȱtoȱgenerateȱanȱempiricalȱreconstructionȱofȱtheȱvisibiliȬ zationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ projectȱ documentationȱ practicesȱ ofȱ anȱ actualȱorganization.ȱTheȱparticularȱcaseȱorganizationȱchosenȱforȱtheȱanaȬ lysisȱ isȱ aȱ multiȬnationalȱ consultingȱ firmȱ whichȱ isȱ introducedȱ inȱ itsȱ mainȱ characteristicsȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 4.2).ȱ Theȱ researchȱ designȱcombinesȱ aȱ trianguȬ latedȱmethodologyȱinvolvingȱanalysesȱofȱprojectȱdocumentsȱdrawnȱfromȱ twoȱcompanyȬwideȱCPLȱdatabasesȱasȱwellȱasȱqualitativeȱinterviewsȱconȬ ductedȱwithȱmembersȱofȱtheȱcompanyȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.3).ȱ Chapterȱ fiveȱ startsȱ withȱ aȱ presentationȱ ofȱ empiricalȱ findingsȱ generȬ atedȱbyȱtheȱcaseȱstudyȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1).ȱTheȱpresentationȱofȱtheseȱfindingsȱ againȱproceedsȱfromȱaȱmoreȱgeneralȱtoȱsuccessivelyȱmoreȱconcreteȱlevels:ȱ Inȱ aȱ firstȱ step,ȱ theȱ CPLȱ databasesȱ inȱ useȱ atȱ theȱ caseȱ companyȱ areȱ deȬ scribedȱandȱaȱtypologyȱofȱtheȱmostȱcommonȱgenresȱofȱprojectȱdocumentaȬ tionȱisȱgenerated.ȱInȱaȱsecondȱstep,ȱthisȱtypologyȱisȱusedȱtoȱanalyzeȱdifferȬ encesȱinȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingency.ȱInȱaȱthirdȱstep,ȱaȱfewȱ examplesȱ whereȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ explicitlyȱ visibilizedȱ areȱ examȬ inedȱinȱmoreȱdetail.ȱȱ TheȱfindingsȱofȱtheȱcaseȱstudyȱareȱlinkedȱbackȱtoȱtheȱtheoreticalȱfraȬ meworkȱ underlyingȱ thisȱ studyȱ inȱ chapterȱ 5.2.ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ successionȱ ofȱ analyticȱ stepsȱ isȱ reverted:ȱ Inȱ aȱ firstȱ step,ȱ theȱ resultsȱ areȱ linkedȱ toȱ conȬ siderationsȱonȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoin.ȱTheȱempiricalȱresultsȱ allowȱforȱaȱrevisedȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱroleȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱ inȱprojectȱdocumentationȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱopaquenessȱofȱdecisionȱproȬ cessesȱ inȱ crossȬprojectȱ communication.ȱ Inȱ aȱ secondȱ step,ȱ theȱ resultsȱ areȱ linkedȱtoȱconsiderationsȱonȱtheȱorganizationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoin.ȱByȱmeansȱ ofȱthis,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱshownȱthatȱtheȱorganizationalȱinstitutionalizationȱofȱCPLȱ

StructureȱofȱtheȱStudy

27ȱ

ȱ

processesȱ doesȱ notȱ significantlyȱ alterȱ theȱ wayȱ theȱ projectȱ organizationȱ handlesȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ visibility.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ opaquenessȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ crossȬprojectȱ communicationȱ alȬ lowsȱforȱexaminingȱhowȱprojectsȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱoverarchingȱprojectȱorganiȬ zationsȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ asȱ communications.ȱ Theȱ discussionȱisȱsynthesizedȱinȱaȱreȬdescriptionȱofȱCPLȱfromȱaȱsystemsȱtheoȬ reticalȱstandpointȱandȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱconstitutiveȱconditionsȱforȱtheȱ emergenceȱofȱprojectȱorganizationsȱoutȱofȱcommunication.ȱȱ Basedȱonȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱtheoreticallyȱgainedȱinsightsȱcannotȱbeȱ transferredȱtoȱpracticeȱinȱaȱfrictionlessȱmanner,ȱaȱreȬreadingȱofȱtheȱstudy‘sȱ findingsȱfromȱaȱpractitioner’sȱstanceȱisȱoutlinedȱwhichȱoffersȱoneȱofȱsevȬ eralȱcontingentȱwaysȱhowȱtheȱresultsȱmayȱinspireȱindividualsȱworkingȱinȱ organizationsȱwhichȱtakeȱupȱtheȱchallengeȱofȱCPLȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.3).ȱ Chapterȱsixȱsummarizesȱtheȱstudy’sȱcentralȱinsightsȱinȱformȱofȱconȬ cludingȱremarksȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ6.1).ȱMoreover,ȱideasȱareȱpresentedȱhowȱtheȱ studyȱmayȱinspireȱfutureȱresearchȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱorganizationalȱcommuȬ nicationȱandȱCPLȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ6.2).ȱTheȱstudyȱconcludesȱinȱaȱselfȬreflectionȱ onȱcontingenciesȱfacedȱinȱthisȱresearchȱstudyȱitselfȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ6.3).ȱ Theȱlinearityȱinȱtheȱwayȱthisȱstudyȱisȱpresentedȱdoesȱnotȱdenyȱthatȱitȱ canȱbeȱusefulȱtoȱstartȱreadingȱsomewhereȱinȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱmanuscriptȱ andȱ toȱ goȱ backȱ andȱ forthȱ fromȱ thereȱ inȱ aȱ contingent,ȱ iterativeȱ process.ȱ Similarlyȱtoȱtheȱwayȱtheȱphenomenaȱofȱorganizationȱandȱcommunicationȱ areȱintertwined,ȱoneȱsometimesȱneedsȱtoȱlookȱfromȱbothȱsidesȱtoȱanȱissueȱ inȱorderȱtoȱenhanceȱitsȱunderstandingȱ(cf.ȱLuhmann,ȱ1981b).ȱThroughoutȱ theȱstudy,ȱthisȱwayȱofȱlookingȱonȱtheȱsameȱissueȱfromȱvariousȱanklesȱsoȱ thatȱsomeȱaspectsȱareȱputȱupfrontȱwhileȱothersȱremainȱinȱtheȱbackgroundȱ willȱprevail.ȱ

2 ParadigmaticȱPerspective:ȱOrganizationsȱasȱ Communicationsȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Inȱthisȱchapter,ȱtheȱparadigmaticȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱstudyȱisȱintroduced.ȱ AccordingȱtoȱKuhnȱ(1962),ȱtheȱconceptȱofȱparadigmȱrefersȱtoȱaȱsetȱofȱepisȬ temologicalȱ andȱ methodologicalȱ assumptionsȱ sharedȱ byȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ reȬ searchers.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ monographȱ “Theȱ structureȱ ofȱ scientificȱ revolutions”,ȱ Kuhnȱ introducesȱ fourȱ primaryȱfunctionsȱ ofȱ paradigms:ȱ(1)ȱ theyȱserveȱasȱ spotlightsȱwhichȱmeansȱthatȱtheyȱenableȱtheirȱfollowersȱtoȱidentifyȱaȱcerȬ tainȱ setȱ ofȱ problemsȱ andȱ theyȱ usuallyȱ alsoȱ deliverȱ aȱ certainȱ setȱ ofȱ toolsȱ howȱtoȱapproachȱtheseȱproblems,ȱ(2)ȱtheyȱareȱuniversalisticȱinȱtheirȱambiȬ tionȱwhichȱmeansȱthatȱtheyȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱinȱprincipleȱapplicableȱtoȱallȱkindsȱ ofȱproblemsȱcoveredȱbyȱtheȱdiscipline,ȱ(3)ȱtheyȱrequireȱsomeȱformȱofȱconȬ sensusȱ byȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ researchersȱ whoȱ followȱ theȱ paradigmȱ inȱ itsȱ mostȱ basicȱ assumptions,ȱ andȱ (4)ȱ theyȱ areȱ incommensurableȱ whichȱ meansȱ thatȱ theyȱ usuallyȱ cannotȱ beȱ easilyȱ combinedȱ withȱ otherȱ paradigmsȱ dueȱ toȱ mutuallyȱ contradictingȱ epistemologicalȱ andȱ methodologicalȱ assumpȬ tions.5ȱ Moreover,ȱ Kuhnȱ (1962)ȱ theorizesȱ paradigmsȱ asȱ beingȱ subjectȱ toȱ revolutionaryȱratherȱthanȱevolutionaryȱchangesȱoverȱtime.ȱ Inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communication,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ toȱ graspȱ orȬ ganizationsȱ primarilyȱ asȱ communicativeȱ entitiesȱ hasȱ recentlyȱ gainedȱ inȬ creasingȱattention.ȱTheȱnotionȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunicationsȱfulfillsȱ allȱfourȱcriteriaȱofȱaȱparadigmȱoutlinedȱbyȱKuhnȱ(1962):ȱItȱshedsȱlightȱonȱaȱ 5ȱȱ Kuhnȱ (1962)ȱ putsȱ forthȱ aȱ ratherȱ rigidȱ notionȱ ofȱ paradigmsȱ whichȱ impliesȱ thatȱ aȱ disciȬ plineȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ calledȱ scientificȱ ifȱ theȱ vastȱ majorityȱ ofȱ scientistsȱ agreeȱ onȱ theȱ sameȱ epistemologicalȱ andȱ methodologicalȱ assumptions.ȱ Followingȱ thisȱ argument,ȱ noȱ singleȱ disciplineȱinȱtheȱsocialȱsciencesȱcouldȱbeȱcalledȱscientific,ȱbecauseȱmostȱcommonlyȱvariȬ ousȱparadigmsȱcoȬexistȱhere.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱconceptȱofȱparadigmȱisȱusedȱinȱitsȱlessȱrigidȱ formȱasȱintroducedȱbyȱFriedrichȱ(1970),ȱforȱexample.ȱȱ

30

ParadigmaticȱPerspectiveȱȱ

ȱ

newȱsetȱofȱproblems,ȱi.e.,ȱhowȱorganizationsȱareȱconstitutedȱbyȱcommuniȬ cation,ȱitȱhasȱaȱuniversalisticȱclaimȱinȱthatȱitȱgraspsȱallȱkindsȱofȱorganizaȬ tionsȱ asȱ communications,ȱ itȱ isȱ largelyȱ incommensurableȱ toȱ otherȱ paraȬ digmsȱ whichȱ approachȱ organizationsȱ inȱ aȱ conventionalȱ manner,ȱ andȱ itȱ hasȱ foundȱ aȱ growingȱ groupȱ ofȱ followersȱ whichȱ shareȱ itsȱ mostȱ basicȱ asȬ sumptionsȱ(cf.ȱCastor,ȱ2005),ȱinȱbothȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱstudȬ iesȱ (Taylorȱ &ȱ vanȱ Every,ȱ 2000)ȱ andȱ inȱ socialȱ systemsȱ theoryȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1984;ȱ2000).ȱItȱisȱthisȱchapter’sȱaimȱtoȱpointȱhowȱtheseȱtwoȱtraditionsȱdifȬ ferȱ inȱ theirȱ viewȱ onȱ organizationsȱ andȱ inȱ theirȱ assumptionsȱ onȱ howȱ orȬ ganizationsȱasȱsocialȱsystemsȱemergeȱoutȱofȱcommunication.ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.1 TheȱCommunicationȱasȱConstitutiveȱofȱOrganizationsȱ(CCO)ȱ Perspectiveȱȱ ȱ Organizationalȱ communicationȱ representsȱ aȱ transȬdisciplinaryȱ fieldȱ ofȱ studyȱwhichȱresidesȱatȱtheȱintersectionȱofȱmediaȱandȱcommunicationȱstuȬ dies,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱmanagementȱandȱorganizationȱstudies,ȱonȱtheȱ otherȱhand.6ȱInȱaȱhistoricalȱoverview,ȱTaylorȱ(2003:ȱ3)ȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱtheȱ fieldȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱhasȱitsȱoriginsȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱ andȱ thatȱ itȱ reachesȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ periodȱ betweenȱ midȱ 19thȱ centuryȱ andȱ WorldȱWarȱI.ȱDuringȱthisȱtime,ȱimmigrationȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱcreatedȱ theȱdemandȱ“toȱtrainȱpeopleȱinȱtheȱelementaryȱtechniquesȱofȱcommunicaȬ tion:ȱhowȱtoȱwriteȱaȱcoherentȱpaperȱandȱdeliverȱanȱeffectiveȱtalk”ȱ(Taylor,ȱ 2003:ȱ 3).ȱ Inȱ theseȱ earlyȱ days,ȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ wasȱ moreȱ commonȱ toȱ callȱ “industrialȱ communication”ȱ orȱ “businessȱ communication”ȱ(Taylor,ȱ2003:ȱ3).ȱTaylorȱgoesȱonȱtoȱreport:ȱ“WorldȱWarȱ IIȱ gaveȱ aȱ boostȱ toȱ theȱ fieldȱ becauseȱ theȱ USȱ armyȱ neededȱ peopleȱ withȱ communicationȱ skillsȱ toȱ beȱ trainedȱ inȱ aȱ hurry.ȱ Theȱ fieldȱ flourished”ȱȱ 6ȱȱ Thisȱtransdisciplinaryȱstateȱisȱalsoȱmanifestedȱinȱinstitutionalizedȱform:ȱResearchersȱinȱ theȱfieldȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱareȱmembersȱofȱbothȱtheȱInternationalȱComȬ municationȱAssociationȱ(ICA;ȱOrganizationalȱCommunicationȱDivision)ȱandȱtheȱAcadȬ emyȱ ofȱ Managementȱ (AoM;ȱ Organizationalȱ Communicationȱ andȱ Informationȱ Systemsȱ Division).ȱ

TheȱCCOȱPerspectiveȱ

31ȱ

(Taylor,ȱ 2003:ȱ 4).ȱ Inȱ theȱ 1950s,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ 1960s,ȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ managedȱ toȱ establishȱ itselfȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱinȱtheȱsocialȱsciencesȱbyȱgroundingȱitȱinȱaȱmoreȱscientificȱmethodolȬ ogy:ȱ “Byȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ decade,ȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ (itsȱ newȱ title)ȱwasȱanȱacceptedȱfieldȱwithinȱtheȱlargerȱcommunity:ȱtheȱsecondȱlargȬ estȱdivisionȱ(afterȱmassȱmedia)ȱinȱtheȱInternationalȱCommunicationȱAssoȬ ciationȱ(ICA)”ȱ(Taylor,ȱ2003:ȱ4).ȱȱ However,ȱlikeȱmostȱfieldsȱinȱtheȱsocialȱsciencesȱ(Friedrichs,ȱ1970),ȱtheȱ historyȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱasȱaȱfieldȱhasȱbeenȱdeterminedȱ byȱcompetingȱparadigmsȱ(Corman,ȱ2000;ȱTaylor,ȱ2000b)ȱwhichȱshapedȱitsȱ developmentȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱdecades.7ȱInȱaȱhistoricalȱaccount,ȱClairȱevaȬ luatesȱ theȱ field’sȱ paradigmaticȱ eclecticismȱ asȱ beingȱ bothȱ advantageousȱ andȱdisadvantageous:ȱȱ ȱ Ourȱeclecticȱpastȱprovidedȱusȱwithȱtheȱmeansȱtoȱopenȱourȱarmsȱtoȱmultipleȱ perspectivesȱ fromȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ disciplinesȱ andȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ createȱ ourȱ ownȱ compellingȱ theoriesȱ andȱ perspectives.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beȱ thisȱ sameȱ eclecticismȱ thatȱ drivesȱcontemporaryȱscholarsȱtoȱattemptȱtoȱtidyȱthingsȱupȱaȱbitȱthroughȱmeȬ tatheoreticalȱmodels.ȱWeȱmayȱfindȱaȱgreatȱdealȱofȱheuristicȱvalue,ȱasȱwellȱasȱ efficiencyȱandȱeffectiveness,ȱinȱthatȱkindȱofȱmetatheoreticalȱtidiness,ȱbutȱweȱ mayȱ alsoȱ findȱ thatȱ itȱ obfuscatesȱ theȱ beautyȱ andȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ unȬ managedȱfield.ȱ(Clair,ȱ1999:ȱ290)ȱ ȱ

Theȱ paradigmaticȱ differencesȱ inȱ theȱ understandingȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ canȱ beȱ describedȱ byȱ drawingȱ onȱ threeȱ rootȱ metaphorsȱ whichȱsymbolizeȱtheȱdifferingȱviewsȱonȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱorganiȬ zationsȱ andȱ communication.ȱ Inȱ aȱ paperȱ presentedȱ onȱ theȱ 1993ȱ Annualȱ ConferenceȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱCommunicationȱAssociationȱ(ICA),ȱSmithȱ differentiatesȱthreeȱofȱsuchȱmetaphors:ȱ ȱ

7ȱȱ Paradigmaticȱdebatesȱofȱthisȱkindȱhaveȱtakenȱplaceȱinȱcomparableȱformȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱ organizationȱstudies,ȱseeȱtheȱdebateȱbetweenȱPfefferȱ(1993)ȱandȱvanȱMaanenȱ(1995),ȱforȱ instance.ȱ

32

ParadigmaticȱPerspectiveȱȱ

ȱ

(1)ȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ containerȱ inȱ whichȱ communicationȱ occursȱ (...),ȱ (2)ȱ orȬ ganizationȱ asȱ eitherȱ producedȱ byȱ orȱ producingȱ communication,ȱ andȱ finallyȱ (3)ȱ anȱ equivalenceȱ –ȱ organizationȱ andȱ communicationȱ asȱ reallyȱ theȱ sameȱ thing,ȱbutȱwithȱaȱdifferentȱname.ȱ(Smith,ȱ1993;ȱcitedȱbyȱTaylor,ȱ2003:ȱ7)ȱ ȱ

AȱgrowingȱbodyȱofȱliteratureȱinȱtheȱstudyȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicaȬ tionȱfollowsȱtheȱthirdȱrootȱmetaphorȱwhichȱassumesȱanȱisomorphicȱrelaȬ tionshipȱbetweenȱorganizationȱandȱcommunicationȱ(Fairhurstȱ&ȱPutnam,ȱ 1999).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ view,ȱ organizationsȱ areȱ constitutedȱ byȱ actsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ and,ȱ viceȬversa,ȱ actsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ tendȱ toȱ promoteȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ structuresȱ (Taylorȱ &ȱ vanȱ Every,ȱ 2000).ȱ Asȱ Castorȱ highlights,ȱ “organizationalȱ communicationȱ scholarsȱ (...)ȱ areȱ becomingȱincreasinglyȱinterestedȱinȱtheȱcommunicationȱasȱconstitutiveȱofȱ organizationsȱ (CCO)ȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ viewsȱ organizationsȱ asȱ sociallyȱ constructedȱ throughȱ communication”ȱ (Castor,ȱ 2005:ȱ 480).8ȱ Accordingly,ȱ theȱ authorsȱ ofȱ theȱ CCOȱ perspectiveȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ comȬ municationȱforȱorganizationsȱinȱtheirȱdefinitionȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱessenȬ tiallyȱ consistingȱ ofȱ “(nothingȱ moreȱ andȱ nothingȱ lessȱ than)ȱ interȬrelatedȱ networksȱofȱcommunication”ȱ(Taylor,ȱ2003:ȱ12).ȱȱ Theȱ CCOȱ approachȱ attemptsȱ aȱ radicalȱshiftȱ inȱ perspective:ȱ Itȱ rejectsȱ theȱnotionȱofȱorganizationsȱbeingȱconstitutedȱbyȱtheirȱmembers,ȱasȱexemȬ plifiedȱ byȱ theȱ assertion:ȱ “Theȱ businessȱ organizationȱ consistsȱ fundamenȬ tallyȱ ofȱ individualsȈȱ (Leeȱ &ȱ Lawrence,ȱ 1985:ȱ 52).ȱ Instead,ȱ itȱ adaptsȱ aȱ somewhatȱ counterȬintuitiveȱ andȱ abstractȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȱ asȱ beingȱ constitutedȱ byȱ ephemeralȱ actsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ beȱ itȱ verbalȱ communicationȱ orȱ manifestedȱ textsȱ (Coorenȱ &ȱ Taylor,ȱ 1997;ȱ Heatonȱ &ȱ Taylor,ȱ2002;ȱTaylorȱ&ȱRobichaud,ȱ2004;ȱCooren,ȱ2004):ȱ„Anȱorganizationȱ isȱnotȱaȱphysicalȱstructureȱ–ȱaȱcollectionȱofȱpeopleȱ(orȱcomputers),ȱjoinedȱ

8ȱȱ Throughoutȱthisȱ study,ȱIȱwillȱuseȱtheȱabbreviationȱCCOȱtoȱreferȱtoȱthisȱgrowingȱparaȬ digmȱ withinȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ whichȱ assumesȱ aȱ constitutiveȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱorganizationsȱandȱcommunication.ȱ

TheȱCCOȱPerspectiveȱ

33ȱ

byȱ materialȱ channelsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ butȱ aȱ constructionȱ madeȱ outȱ ofȱ conversation“ȱ(Taylor,ȱ1993:ȱ22).9ȱȱ Framedȱlikeȱthis,ȱtheȱCCOȱapproachȱtranscendsȱconventionalȱtheoriȬ zationsȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ andȱ offersȱ anȱ alternativeȱ perspective,ȱ closelyȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ mediaȱ andȱ communicationȱ studies.ȱ Whatȱ makesȱ thisȱ perspectiveȱ particularlyȱ attractiveȱ isȱ thatȱ itȱ opensȱ commonȱ groundȱ forȱ theȱ crossȬdisciplinaryȱ studyȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ asȱ communicationȱ pheȬ nomena:ȱ“If,ȱindeed,ȱtheȱtwoȱconstructsȱareȱisomorphic,ȱthenȱallȱorganizaȬ tionalȱ theoriesȱ containȱ implicitȱ notionȱ aboutȱ communicationȱ andȱ allȱ communicationȱtheories,ȱinȱturn,ȱprovideȱimportantȱinsightsȱaboutȱorgaȬ nizing”ȱ (Putnam,ȱ Phillipsȱ &ȱ Chapman,ȱ 1996:ȱ 396).ȱ Inȱ recentȱ years,ȱ theȱ CCOȱ approachȱ hasȱ beenȱ used,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ toȱ analyzeȱ howȱ textsȱ shapeȱ organizationsȱ(Cooren,ȱ2004),ȱhowȱsocialȱrealityȱisȱcommunicativelyȱconȬ structedȱinȱdecisionȱmakingȱ(Castor,ȱ2005),ȱandȱhowȱinteractionsȱscaleȱupȱ toȱorganizationsȱ(Coorenȱ&ȱFairhurst,ȱforthcoming).ȱȱ TheȱparadigmaticȱperspectiveȱtoȱgraspȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunicaȬ tiveȱphenomenaȱalsoȱcorrespondsȱwithȱearlierȱworkȱinȱtheȱsocialȱpsycholȬ ogyȱofȱorganizationȱbyȱWeickȱandȱcolleaguesȱ(Weick,ȱ1979;ȱ1995;ȱDaftȱ&ȱ Weick,ȱ 1984;ȱ Weickȱ &ȱ Roberts,ȱ 1993;ȱ Weick,ȱ Sutcliffeȱ &ȱ Obstfeld,ȱ 2005).ȱ Weickȱ affirmsȱ thatȱ “theȱ communicationȱ activityȱ isȱ theȱ organization”ȱ (Weick,ȱ1995:ȱ75;ȱownȱemphasisȱadded).ȱHence,ȱheȱunderstandȱorganizaȬ tionsȱasȱongoingȱprocessesȱofȱcommunicationȱwhichȱconstructȱtheirȱworldȱ fromȱ oneȱ communicativeȱ episodeȱ toȱ theȱ next,ȱ inȱ actu.ȱ Consequently,ȱ heȱ prefersȱ theȱ dynamicȱ termȱ “organizing”ȱ referringȱ toȱ anȱ activityȱ inȱ comȬ parisonȱ toȱ theȱ ratherȱ staticȱ termȱ “organization”ȱ (cf.ȱ Weick,ȱ 1979;ȱ Weick,ȱ Sutcliffeȱ&ȱObstfeld,ȱ2005).ȱAsȱTaylorȱetȱal.ȱsummarize:ȱ“Communicationȱ isȱtheȱcoreȱprocessȱinȱorganizations,ȱor,ȱinȱWeick’sȱterms,ȱtheȱcoreȱprocessȱ ofȱorganizing”ȱ(Taylorȱetȱal.,ȱ2001:ȱ100;ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal).ȱ

9ȱȱ Onȱaȱmoreȱconcreteȱlevel,ȱthisȱratherȱabstractȱnotionȱofȱorganizationsȱcorrespondsȱwithȱ Mintzberg’sȱempiricalȱfindingsȱthatȱcommunicationȱaccountsȱforȱmoreȱthanȱ80ȱpercentȱ ofȱaȱmanager’sȱdailyȱactivitiesȱ(cf.ȱMintzberg,ȱ1973).ȱ

34

ParadigmaticȱPerspectiveȱ

ȱ

TheȱcomparablyȱlongȱreachingȱtraditionȱofȱorganizationalȱcommuniȬ cationȱ asȱ aȱ fieldȱ inȱ Northernȱ Americaȱ andȱ itsȱ significantȱ growthȱ withinȱ mediaȱandȱcommunicationȱstudiesȱupȱuntilȱtodayȱwasȱnotȱequallyȱsharedȱ inȱotherȱworldȱregionsȱwithȱaȱcomparablyȱstrongȱresearchȱtraditionȱsuchȱ asȱ Europeȱ orȱ Asia.10ȱ Thisȱ mayȱ beȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ reasonsȱ whyȱ inȱ theȱ estabȬ lishedȱ bodyȱ ofȱ literatureȱ onȱ theȱ CCOȱ perspectiveȱ thereȱ areȱ hardlyȱ anyȱ linksȱtoȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱsocialȱsystemsȱ(TSS)ȱdevelopedȱbyȱLuhmannȱ(1984;ȱ 2000)11ȱ –ȱalthoughȱthisȱframeworkȱsharesȱtheȱmostȱfundamentalȱassumpȬ tionȱ ofȱ theȱ CCOȱ approach:ȱ aȱ constitutiveȱ viewȱ onȱ theȱ relationshipȱ beȬ tweenȱcommunicationȱandȱorganization.ȱDespiteȱthisȱparadigmaticȱparalȬ lelȱ toȱ theȱ CCOȱ perspective,12ȱ theȱ TSSȱ frameworkȱ hasȱ onlyȱ foundȱ weakȱ receptionȱinȱtheȱliteratureȱonȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱthusȱfar.13ȱInȱ theȱnextȱsection,ȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱonȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunicationsȱ isȱintroducedȱinȱaȱbasicȱoutline.ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.2 TheȱTheoryȱofȱSocialȱSystemsȱ(TSS)ȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ Theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ representsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mainȱ schoolsȱ ofȱ thoughtȱinȱtheȱGermanȱspeakingȱsocialȱsciencesȱ(Seidlȱ&ȱBecker,ȱ2006b:ȱ8).ȱ ItȱhasȱbeenȱtheȱprojectȱofȱsociologistȱNiklasȱLuhmannȱ(1984;ȱ2000)ȱtoȱdeȬ velopȱaȱuniversalȱframeworkȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱallȱsocialȱphenomȬ enaȱ andȱ whichȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theoryȬconsistentȱ descripȬ tionsȱ (Knodt,ȱ 1995).ȱ Hisȱ workȱ standsȱ inȱ aȱ traditionȱ ofȱ systemicȱ worldȬ 10ȱȱ Earlierȱ overviewsȱ onȱ studiesȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ outsideȱ ofȱ NorthȱAmericaȱareȱprovidedȱbyȱWiio,ȱGoldhaberȱandȱYatesȱ(1981),ȱKieserȱandȱHegeleȱ (1998),ȱandȱKieserȱandȱMüllerȱ(2003).ȱ 11ȱȱ Forȱpracticalȱreasons,ȱIȱ willȱuseȱtheȱabbreviationȱTSSȱatȱvariousȱpointsȱofȱ theȱstudyȱtoȱ referȱtoȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱsocialȱsystemsȱframework.ȱ 12ȱȱ Andȱ despiteȱ toȱ theȱ fact,ȱ seenȱ fromȱ theȱ oppositeȱ side,ȱ thatȱ theȱ CCOȱ perspectiveȱ origiȬ nallyȱ rootsȱ inȱ (open)ȱ systemȱ theories,ȱ asȱ Taylor,ȱ Flanagin,ȱ Cheneyȱ andȱ Seiboldȱ (2001:ȱ 108)ȱhighlight.ȱ 13ȱȱ Toȱmentionȱsomeȱremarkableȱexceptions:ȱHatchȱ(1997)ȱincludesȱaȱshortȱintroductionȱtoȱ theȱTSSȱframeworkȱinȱherȱmonographȱ“OrganizationȱTheory”.ȱMoreover,ȱTaylorȱ(2001)ȱ acknowledgesȱLuhmann’sȱworkȱbyȱdrawingȱonȱhisȱarticleȱ“WhatȱisȱCommunication?”ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ1992).ȱ

TheȱTSSȱPerspectiveȱ

35ȱ

viewsȱ rootedȱ inȱ generalȱ systemsȱ theoryȱ (vonȱ Bertalanffy),ȱ sociologyȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ (Parsons),ȱ cyberneticsȱ (vonȱ Foerster),ȱ andȱ mathematicsȱ (SpencerȱBrown).ȱWithȱtheȱautopoieticȱturnȱofȱhisȱtheory,ȱLuhmannȱ(1984)ȱ transcendsȱtheȱworkȱofȱhisȱtheoreticalȱancestors,ȱandȱconcentratesȱonȱtheȱ selfȬreproducingȱcapabilitiesȱofȱsocialȱsystems.14ȱAlthoughȱtheȱtheoryȱhasȱ beenȱcriticizedȱforȱitsȱfocusȱonȱsystemicȱphenomenaȱratherȱthanȱindividȬ ualȱactionȱ(Schimank,ȱ1985),ȱitsȱsuccessȱisȱmanifestedȱinȱaȱgrowingȱbodyȱ ofȱpublicationsȱnotȱonlyȱinȱtheȱGermanȱbutȱalsoȱinȱtheȱEnglishȱspeakingȱ socialȱsciencesȱinȱrecentȱyearsȱ(e.g.,ȱLee,ȱ2000;ȱMingers,ȱ2002;ȱ2003;ȱKingȱ&ȱ Thornhill,ȱ2003;ȱBakkenȱ&ȱHernes,ȱ2003;ȱHernesȱ&ȱBakken,ȱ2003;ȱNassehi,ȱ 2005;ȱ Seidl,ȱ 2006a;ȱ 2006b;ȱ Seidlȱ &ȱ Becker,ȱ 2006a;ȱ 2006b;ȱ Knudsen,ȱ 2006;ȱ Moeller,ȱ2006).15ȱ Inȱ hisȱ monographȱ “Socialȱ Systems”ȱ (Sozialeȱ Systeme;ȱ publishedȱ inȱ Germanȱ inȱ 1984;ȱ translatedȱ toȱ Englishȱ inȱ 1995),ȱ Luhmannȱ elaboratesȱ onȱ hisȱ basicȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ theȱ world’sȱ evolutionȱ hasȱ putȱ forthȱ notȱ onlyȱ organicȱsystemsȱbutȱalsoȱpsychicȱandȱsocialȱsystems.ȱTheseȱsystemsȱhaveȱ inȱ commonȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ assumedȱ toȱ beȱ autopoieticȱ (Maturanaȱ &ȱ Varela,ȱ 1975)ȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ thatȱ theyȱ “notȱ onlyȱ produceȱ andȱ changeȱ theirȱ ownȱ structures”,ȱ butȱ “everythingȱ thatȱ isȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ unitȱ byȱ theȱ systemȱ isȱ proȬ ducedȱ asȱ aȱ unitȱ byȱ theȱ systemȱ itself”ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1986:ȱ 174).ȱ Psychicȱ sysȬ temsȱoperateȱbyȱmeansȱofȱaȱcontinuousȱ(andȱunstoppable)ȱreproductionȱofȱ thoughtsȱwhichȱleadsȱtoȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱconsciousness.ȱSocialȱsystems,ȱinȱ comparison,ȱoperateȱbyȱmeansȱofȱaȱcontinuousȱreproductionȱofȱcommuȬ nicativeȱ episodes.ȱ Bothȱ systemȱ types,ȱ psychicȱ andȱ socialȱ systems,ȱ shareȱ theȱ processingȱ ofȱ meaningȱ –ȱ aȱ propertyȱ which,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ distinguishesȱ

14ȱȱ TheȱTSSȱframeworkȱinȱtheȱversioȱofȱLuhmannȱ(1995;ȱ2000),ȱhowever,ȱsignificantlyȱ difȬ fersȱfromȱotherȱsystemsȱtheories,ȱespeciallyȱinȱitsȱrigidȱfocusȱonȱcommunicationȱasȱtheȱ keyȱoperationȱofȱsocialȱsystemsȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006a:ȱ11).ȱ 15ȱȱ InȱaȱcriticalȱaccountȱonȱtheȱTSSȱframework,ȱBlühdornȱemphasizesȱthatȱoneȱcanȱ hardlyȱ adaptȱonlyȱsingularȱaspectsȱofȱLuhmann’sȱsocialȱsystemsȱtheoryȱwithoutȱagreeingȱonȱitsȱ epistemologicalȱfoundations:ȱ“TheȱparticularȱproblemȱitȱpresentsȱisȱthatȱitȱdefiesȱaȱpickȬ andȬchooseȱapproach.ȱBecauseȱLuhmannȱwasȱaimingȱforȱnothingȱlessȱthanȱaȱsociologiȬ calȱparadigmȱchange,ȱitȱisȱhardlyȱpossibleȱtoȱadoptȱsomeȱelementsȱofȱhisȱthinkingȱandȱ rejectȱtheȱrest.ȱTheȱtwoȱoptionsȱappearȱtoȱbeȱeitherȱtheȱwholeȱtheoryȱpackageȱorȱnothingȱ atȱall”ȱ(Blühdorn,ȱ2000:ȱ339).ȱ

36

ParadigmaticȱPerspectiveȱȱ

ȱ

themȱ fromȱ mechanicȱ systemsȱ asȱ wellȱasȱ otherȱ autopoieticȱformsȱsuchȱasȱ organicȱ systems.ȱ Luhmannȱ (1984:ȱ 25)ȱ theorizesȱ autopoieticȱ systemsȱ asȱ beingȱ operationallyȱ closed,ȱ butȱ structurallyȱ openȱ forȱ couplingȱ toȱ theirȱ enviȬ ronmentȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ mutualȱ irritationsȱ betweenȱ systems.ȱ Toȱ summarizeȱ Luhmann’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ inȱ hisȱ ownȱ words:ȱ “Socialȱ systemsȱ useȱ communicationsȱ asȱ theirȱ particularȱ modeȱ ofȱ autopoieticȱ reȬ production.ȱ Theirȱ elementsȱ areȱ communicationsȱ whichȱ areȱ recursivelyȱ producedȱ andȱ reproducedȱ byȱ aȱ networkȱ ofȱ communications,ȱ andȱ whichȱ cannotȱexistȱoutsideȱtheȱnetwork”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1986:ȱ174).ȱȱ Startingȱfromȱhere,ȱLuhmannȱdistinguishesȱthreeȱbasicȱtypesȱofȱsocialȱ systems:ȱ Organizationsȱ representȱ theȱ mesoȬlevelȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ –ȱ reȬ sidingȱbetweenȱinteractionsȱ(theȱsmallestȱandȱmostȱelusiveȱformȱofȱsocialȱ gatherings)ȱonȱtheȱmicroȬlevelȱandȱsocietyȱasȱaȱwholeȱ(whichȱencompassesȱ allȱformsȱofȱsocialȱsystems)ȱonȱtheȱmacroȱlevelȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1986:ȱ173).ȱTheȱ systemsȬtheoreticalȱ worldviewȱ leadsȱ toȱ theȱ counterȬintuitiveȱ notionȱ thatȱ humanȱbeingsȱareȱenvironmentalȱtoȱcommunicationȱprocessesȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 1992:ȱ30)ȱinȱthatȱaȱclearȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱcommunicationȱsystemsȱ(“soȬ cialȱ systems”)ȱ andȱ individualȱ humanȱ beingsȱ (“psychicȱ systems”)ȱ isȱ hyȬ pothesized:ȱ “Accordingly,ȱ socialȱ systemsȱ areȱ notȱ comprisedȱ ofȱ personsȱ andȱ actionsȱ butȱ ofȱ communications”ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1989:ȱ 145).ȱ Despiteȱ thisȱ ratherȱ impersonalȱ notionȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ asȱ interȬrelatedȱ setsȱ ofȱ comȬ munications,ȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱassumesȱthatȱsocialȱsystemsȱrequireȱtheȱ participationȱofȱhumanȱbeingsȱinȱcommunicationȱprocessesȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱ ableȱtoȱproceedȱtheirȱautopoiesisȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1990:ȱ281).ȱ Luhmann’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1992)ȱ inȱ principleȱ appliesȱ toȱ allȱ formsȱ ofȱ socialȱ systems.ȱ Thus,ȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ organizations,ȱ Luhmannȱ identifiesȱ aȱ moreȱ specificȱ typeȱ ofȱ communicaȬ tionȱwhichȱisȱuniqueȱinȱitsȱpotentialȱtoȱletȱorganizationalȱstructuresȱemerȬ ge:ȱ theȱ communicationȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1988;ȱ 2000).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱview,ȱtheȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱfunctionȱofȱorganizationsȱisȱtoȱassureȱtheȱ continuousȱreȬproductionȱofȱdecisionsȱoutȱofȱdecisions.ȱDecisions,ȱinȱturn,ȱ areȱ understoodȱ asȱ communicativeȱ actsȱ whichȱ processȱ distinctionsȱ beȬ tweenȱtheoreticallyȱindefinite,ȱbutȱpracticallyȱconstrainedȱalternatives.ȱInȱ theȱwordsȱofȱLuhmann:ȱ

TheȱTSSȱPerspectiveȱ

37ȱ

(...)ȱOrganisedȱsocialȱsystemsȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱsystemsȱmadeȱupȱofȱdeciȬ sions,ȱandȱcapableȱofȱcompletingȱtheȱdecisionsȱthatȱmakeȱthemȱup,ȱthroughȱ theȱ decisionsȱ thatȱ makeȱ themȱ up.ȱ Decisionȱ isȱ notȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ psychoȬ logicalȱmechanism,ȱbutȱasȱaȱmatterȱofȱcommunication,ȱnotȱasȱaȱpsychologicalȱ eventȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱanȱinternallyȱconsciousȱdefinitionȱofȱtheȱself,ȱbutȱasȱaȱsoȬ cialȱevent.ȱThatȱmakesȱitȱimpossibleȱtoȱstateȱthatȱdecisionsȱalreadyȱtakenȱstillȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ communicated.ȱ Decisionsȱ areȱ communications;ȱ somethingȱ thatȱ clearlyȱdoesȱnotȱprecludeȱthatȱoneȱcanȱcommunicateȱaboutȱdecisions.ȱ(LuhȬ mann,ȱ2003:ȱ32)ȱ ȱ

Inȱ hisȱ focusȱ onȱ decisionsȱ asȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ elementȱ ofȱ organizations,ȱ Luhmannȱstandsȱinȱaȱlongȱreachingȱtraditionȱofȱorganizationȱresearch,ȱasȱ Nassehiȱ(2005:ȱ185)ȱpointsȱout.ȱHisȱtheoreticalȱfocusȱlinksȱbackȱtoȱclassicalȱ worksȱofȱWeberȱonȱbureaucracyȱ(Weber,ȱ1958)ȱasȱwellȱasȱorganizationalȱ behaviorȱtheoristsȱsuchȱasȱSimonȱandȱMarchȱ(e.g.,ȱMarchȱ&ȱSimon,ȱ1958;ȱ Cyertȱ&ȱMarch,ȱ1963).16ȱHowever,ȱheȱtranscendsȱtheirȱworkȱbyȱtheȱradicalȱ communicativeȱcharacterȱheȱascribesȱtoȱdecisions.ȱȱ Moreover,ȱ Luhmannȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ ephemeralȱ characterȱ ofȱ deciȬ sionsȱ asȱ communicativeȱ episodes.ȱ Decisionsȱ vanishȱ inȱ theȱ veryȱ momentȱ ofȱcomingȱintoȱexistenceȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1988:ȱ109).ȱTherefore,ȱsocialȱsystemsȱ areȱ imaginedȱ hereȱ asȱ comparablyȱ instableȱ phenomenaȱ whichȱ areȱ onlyȱ ableȱtoȱstabilizeȱthemselvesȱbyȱmaintainingȱaȱcontinuousȱandȱinterlinkedȱ flowȱ ofȱ suchȱ episodes.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Luhmannȱ (2000:ȱ 417),ȱ autopoieticȱ systemsȱareȱalwaysȱendangeredȱinȱtheirȱexistence:ȱtheyȱeitherȱtendȱtoȱloseȱ themselvesȱ inȱ pureȱ selfȬreferentialityȱ withoutȱ theȱ sensitivityȱ toȱ environȬ mentalȱ perturbations,ȱ orȱ theyȱ getȱ absorbedȱ byȱ theirȱ environment.ȱ Theȱ focusȱ onȱ instabilityȱ asȱ theȱ normalȱ caseȱ ofȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ sugȬ gestsȱ takingȱaȱ closerȱlookȱatȱ theȱ environmentalȱ conditionsȱ whichȱ constiȬ tuteȱaȱsuccessfulȱknowledgeȱreproduction.ȱ Theȱ communicatedȱ decisionȱ isȱ seenȱ hereȱ asȱ aȱ comparablyȱ complex,ȱ somewhatȱ provocativeȱ typeȱ ofȱ communication:ȱ Itȱ createsȱ theȱ illusionȱ ofȱ anȱinvariableȱpastȱ(becauseȱtheȱdecisionȱwasȱmade),ȱitȱincreasesȱtheȱprobȬ abilityȱ ofȱ dissentȱ (becauseȱ theȱ considerationȱ ofȱ alternativesȱ canȱ beȱ putȱ intoȱquestion),ȱandȱitȱmakesȱtheȱdemarcationȱofȱpowerȱvisibleȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 16ȱȱ Luhmannȱalsoȱrefersȱtoȱtheirȱworkȱratherȱextensivelyȱ(e.g.,ȱLuhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ11ff.).ȱ

38

ParadigmaticȱPerspectiveȱȱ

ȱ

2000:ȱ67;ȱcf.ȱOrtmannȱ&ȱSalzmann,ȱ2002).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱdecisionsȱentailȱ theirȱ“ownȱselfȬcritique”ȱ(Knudsen,ȱ2006:ȱ110).ȱTheȱprovocativeȱcharacterȱ ofȱdecisionsȱdefinesȱtheirȱinherentȱcapacityȱtoȱcreateȱnewȱdecisionȱnecesȬ sitiesȱ byȱ beingȱ communicated.ȱ Thisȱ way,ȱ decisionsȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ stabilizeȱ theȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ comparablyȱ formalȱ socialȱ systemȱ overȱ timeȱ –ȱ inȱ contrastȱtoȱratherȱelusiveȱsocialȱsystemsȱcalledȱ“interactions”ȱ(Kieserling,ȱ 1999;ȱSeidl,ȱ2006b).ȱȱ InȱtheȱTSSȱframework,ȱdecisionsȱareȱcloselyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ contingencyȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1984;ȱ1993;ȱ2000).ȱLuhmannȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱphilosoȬ phicalȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ whenȱ heȱ asserts:ȱ “Contingencyȱ isȱ theȱ stateȱ whichȱ isȱ reachedȱ ifȱ necessityȱ andȱ impossibilityȱ areȱ negated”ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1988:ȱ 183;ȱ ownȱ translation).17ȱ Decisionsȱ areȱ contingentȱ byȱ definitionȱ beȬ causeȱ inȱaȱ decisionȱusuallyȱ “onlyȱ oneȱconclusionȱ [is]ȱ reachedȱ butȱ othersȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ chosen”ȱ (Andersen,ȱ2003:ȱ245).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ context,ȱitȱ isȱimȬ portantȱtoȱkeepȱinȱmindȱthatȱLuhmann’sȱnotionȱofȱtheȱtermȱcontingencyȱ doesȱnotȱequalȱitsȱnotionȱinȱwhatȱhasȱcomeȱtoȱbeȱknownȱasȱ“contingencyȱ theory”ȱ (Lawrenceȱ &ȱ Lorsch,ȱ 1967;ȱ Donaldson,ȱ 2001)ȱ whereȱ theȱ termȱ rousesȱconnotationsȱtoȱtheȱconceptȱofȱrisk.ȱ Anȱ importantȱ aspectȱ ofȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ inȱ organizationsȱ isȱ thatȱ decisionsȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ identifiedȱ asȱ decisionsȱ ifȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ isȱ madeȱvisible,ȱasȱwell,ȱatȱleastȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱoneȱorȱmoreȱalternativesȱexȬ plicitlyȱtakenȱintoȱconsideration:ȱȱ ȱ

17ȱȱ ThisȱnotionȱofȱcontingencyȱalsoȱequalsȱtheȱusageȱofȱtheȱtermȱinȱactorȬnetworkȱtheory,ȱaȱ frameworkȱthatȱgoesȱbackȱtoȱLatourȱ(1996)ȱasȱwellȱasȱLawȱandȱHassardȱ(1999):ȱ“TheȱnoȬ tionȱ ofȱ contingencyȱ isȱ centralȱ toȱ [actorȬnetworkȱ theory].ȱ Theȱ accomplishmentȱ ofȱ aȱ cerȬ tainȱactorȬnetworkȱisȱalwaysȱjustȱoneȱamongȱ(infinitely)ȱmanyȱpossibleȱoutcomes.ȱConȬ tingencyȱ thenȱ meansȱ thatȱ actorȬnetworksȱ areȱ builtȱ onȱ choices,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ masterȱ planȱ prescribingȱtheȱmobilisationȱofȱtheȱnetworkȱ[…]”ȱ(Noeȱ&ȱAlroe,ȱ2006:ȱ39).ȱ

SimilaritiesȱandȱDifferencesȱ

39ȱ

(...)ȱ Luhmannȱ suggestsȱ conceptualisingȱ decisionȱ asȱ aȱ specificȱ formȱ ofȱ comȬ munication.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ thatȱ decisionsȱ areȱ firstȱ madeȱ andȱ thenȱ communicated;ȱ decisionsȱ areȱ communications.ȱ Asȱ hasȱ beenȱ saidȱ aboutȱ communicationsȱ inȱ general,ȱ decisionȱ communicationsȱ tooȱ areȱ notȱ producedȱ byȱ ‘humanȱ beings’ȱ butȱbyȱtheȱsocialȱsystem,ȱtheȱorganization.ȱWhatȱisȱparticularȱaboutȱdecisionsȱ isȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ ‘compactȱ communications’ȱ (Luhmannȱ 2000:ȱ 185),ȱ whichȱ communicateȱtheirȱownȱcontingencyȱ(...).ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱanȱordinaryȱcommuȬ nication,ȱwhichȱonlyȱcommunicatesȱaȱspecificȱcontentȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱselectedȱ (e.g.,ȱ“Iȱloveȱyou”),ȱaȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱcommunicatesȱalsoȱ–ȱexplicitlyȱ orȱ implicitlyȱ –ȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ alternativesȱ thatȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ selectedȱ inȬ steadȱ(e.g.,ȱ“IȱamȱgoingȱtoȱemployȱcandidateȱAȱandȱnotȱcandidateȱB”).ȱ(Seidl,ȱ 2006a:ȱ39)ȱ

ȱ Thisȱimpliesȱthatȱtheȱcommunicationȱofȱdecisions,ȱandȱwithȱthis,ȱtheȱselfȬ reproducingȱcapabilityȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱsocialȱsystem,ȱdependsȱonȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ itsȱ decisionȱ contingency.ȱ Theȱ existentialȱ characterȱ ofȱ thisȱ aspectȱforȱtheȱorganizationȱcanȱbeȱexplainedȱbyȱdrawingȱonȱtheȱproblemȱ ofȱconnectivityȱ(inȱGerman:ȱAnschlussfähigkeit):ȱ“Inȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱsocialȱ systemsȱtheory,ȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱhowȱtheȱorganizationȱemergesȱisȱposedȱ asȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ strategiesȱ forȱ theȱ increaseȱ ofȱ probabilityȱ forȱtheȱconnectivityȱbetweenȱdecisions”ȱ(Knudsen,ȱ2006:ȱ109).ȱToȱsustainȱ itsȱ autopoieticȱ existence,ȱ theȱ organizationȱ needsȱ toȱ assureȱ thatȱ decisionsȱ canȱbeȱconnectedȱtoȱeachȱotherȱoverȱtime.ȱTherefore,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱincreaseȱ theȱ likelihoodȱ ofȱ connectivity,ȱ theȱ organizationȱ needsȱ toȱ establishȱ strucȬ turesȱwhichȱmakeȱitȱmoreȱlikelyȱthatȱdecisionsȱbecomeȱobservableȱasȱdeȬ cisions.ȱ This,ȱinȱ turn,ȱ isȱachievedȱ byȱ flaggingȱ outȱ thatȱ aȱ choiceȱ hasȱ beenȱ madeȱfromȱaȱrangeȱofȱalternativesȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.2.1).ȱ ȱ ȱ 2.3 SimilaritiesȱandȱDifferencesȱofȱtheȱCCOȱandȱtheȱTSSȱPerspectiveȱ ȱ Inȱitsȱfocusȱonȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱasȱaȱcoreȱrequirementȱ forȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱsocialȱsystems,ȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱ relatesȱtoȱcurrentȱdebatesȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱonȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ conditionsȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ outȱ ofȱ

40

ParadigmaticȱPerspectiveȱȱ

ȱ

communicationȱ (McPheeȱ &ȱ Zaug,ȱ 2000;ȱ Taylor,ȱ 2000a;ȱ Coorenȱ &ȱ FairȬ hurst,ȱforthcoming).18ȱHowever,ȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱhasȱonlyȱfoundȱweakȱ receptionȱ inȱ theȱ Northernȱ Americanȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ fieldȱ thusȱ far.ȱ Thisȱ weakȱreceptionȱmayȱbeȱdueȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱ asȱ aȱ fieldȱ ofȱ studyȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ aȱ strongȱ traditionȱ withinȱ theȱ Germanȱ communityȱ ofȱ mediaȱ andȱ communicationȱ studiesȱ (TheisȬBerglmair,ȱ 2003:ȱ17)19ȱandȱdueȱtoȱaȱcertainȱselfȬcenterednessȱofȱtheȱNorthȬAmericanȱ communityȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱ(Taylor,ȱ2005).ȱȱ Anotherȱ reasonȱ mayȱ lieȱ inȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ upȱ untilȱ today,ȱ Luhmann’sȱ workȱ isȱ onlyȱ partlyȱ translatedȱ inȱ Englishȱ languageȱ (Nassehi,ȱ 2005:ȱ 179).ȱ Asȱ Hernesȱ andȱ Bakkenȱ highlight,ȱ anȱ internationalȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ TSSȱ perspectiveȱ isȱ constrainedȱ byȱ timeȱ lagsȱ inȱ theȱ translationȱ ofȱ Luhmann’sȱ extensiveȱworkȱfromȱGermanȱintoȱEnglishȱlanguage:ȱ ȱ Whereasȱ ‘Socialȱ Systems’ȱ appearedȱ inȱ Englishȱ inȱ 1995,ȱ otherȱ worksȱ ofȱ [Luhmann]ȱ thatȱ dealȱ explicitlyȱ withȱ organizationsȱ (...)ȱ haveȱ notȱ yetȱ beenȱ translatedȱ intoȱ English.ȱ (...)ȱ Luhmann’sȱ autopoiesisȱ hasȱ foundȱ littleȱ resoȬ nanceȱ inȱ mainstreamȱ organizationȱ theory.ȱ Weȱ findȱ thisȱ somewhatȱ surȬ prising,ȱgivenȱthatȱtheȱideaȱofȱrecursivityȱmayȱforceȱusȱtoȱaskȱsomeȱnewȱandȱ provokingȱ questionsȱ aboutȱ ourȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ organization.ȱ (Hernesȱ &ȱ Bakken,ȱ2003:ȱ1513f)ȱ

ȱ SeidlȱandȱBeckerȱshareȱthisȱastonishmentȱandȱaddȱaȱtheoreticalȱexplanaȬ tionȱwhichȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱhermeticȱterminologyȱofȱtheȱTSSȱframework:ȱ

18ȱȱ SeeȱTheisȬBerglmairȱ(2003)ȱforȱanȱearlierȱaccountȱonȱinterrelationsȱbetweenȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱ socialȱsystemsȱandȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱasȱaȱfieldȱofȱstudy.ȱ 19ȱȱ Thisȱ canȱ alsoȱ beȱ shownȱ byȱ consideringȱ theȱ field’sȱ institutionalȱ embeddednessȱ inȱ theȱ DGPuKȱ (Deutscheȱ Gesellschaftȱ fürȱ Publizistikȱ undȱ Kommunikationsforschung),ȱ theȱ Germanȱ associationȱofȱmediaȱandȱcommunicationȱscholars.ȱWithinȱtheȱDGPuK,ȱtheȱdivisionȱasȬ cribedȱ toȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ smallestȱ ones,ȱ whereasȱ itsȱ counterpartȱ onȱ theȱ internationalȱ levelȱ representsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ biggestȱ diviȬ sionsȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱCommunicationȱAssociationȱ(ICA)ȱ(Taylor,ȱFlanagin,ȱCheneyȱ &ȱSeibold,ȱ2001:ȱ107).ȱMoreover,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱmembersȱofȱtheȱGermanȱdivisionalȱequivaȬ lentȱ areȱ committedȱ toȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ Publicȱ Relationsȱ (PR;ȱ cf.ȱ TheisȬBerglmair,ȱ 2005),ȱ aȱ subjectȱfieldȱcommonlyȱregardedȱasȱbeingȱalienȱtoȱtheȱfieldȱofȱorganizationalȱcommuniȬ cationȱinȱtheȱAngloȬAmericanȱtraditionȱ(Cheneyȱ&ȱChristensen,ȱ2004:ȱ510).ȱ

SimilaritiesȱandȱDifferencesȱ

41ȱ

(...)ȱgivenȱtheȱfactȱthatȱLuhmann’sȱtheoryȱhasȱbeenȱaȱclassicalȱtoposȱofȱevenȱ undergraduateȱ coursesȱ inȱ sociologyȱ withinȱ Germanȱ speakingȱ countriesȱ forȱ moreȱthanȱaȱdecade,ȱitȱappearsȱveryȱsurprisingȱthatȱhisȱworksȱhaveȱreceivedȱ comparativelyȱlittleȱseriousȱattentionȱwithinȱtheȱinternationalȱfieldȱofȱorganiȬ zationȱstudies.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱlanguageȱbarrierȱandȱtheȱtimeȱnecessaryȱforȱ translatingȱ hisȱ worksȱ intoȱ English,ȱ theȱ mainȱ reasonsȱ forȱ theȱ ratherȱ hesitantȱ receptionȱsoȱfarȱprobablyȱlieȱinȱtheȱtheoryȱitself.ȱOneȱreasonȱisȱcertainlyȱtheȱ complexityȱ ofȱ Luhmann’sȱ worksȱ andȱ theȱ enormousȱ amountȱ ofȱ topicsȱ andȱ theoreticalȱ traditionsȱ theyȱ cover,ȱ whichȱ makeȱ itȱ veryȱ difficultȱ forȱ firstȬtimeȱ readersȱtoȱaccessȱhisȱworksȱunaidedȱbyȱcommentaries.ȱMoreover,ȱLuhmannȱ developedȱaȱveryȱdistinctiveȱterminologyȱtoȱexpressȱhisȱconcepts,ȱwhichȱpreȬ sentsȱanȱadditionalȱhurdle.ȱBecauseȱofȱthat,ȱitȱisȱoftenȱsaidȱthatȱwhenȱstartingȱ toȱreadȱLuhmannȱitȱtakesȱaȱhundredȱtoȱtwoȱhundredȱpagesȱbeforeȱoneȱactuȬ allyȱunderstandsȱanything.ȱThisȱisȱquiteȱaȱbigȱinvestmentȱinȱtimeȱandȱeffort,ȱ consideringȱ thatȱ oneȱ canȱ neverȱ reallyȱ knowȱ beforehandȱ whatȱ oneȱ willȱ getȱ outȱofȱit.ȱ(Seidlȱ&ȱBecker,ȱ2006b:ȱ10)ȱ ȱ

Theȱ comparablyȱ weakȱ receptionȱ ofȱ theȱ TSSȱ frameworkȱ inȱ internationalȱ organizationȱcommunicationȱstudiesȱdoesȱnotȱdiminishȱitsȱpotentialȱreleȬ vanceȱ forȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ framedȱ asȱ communicativeȱ entities.ȱ Oneȱ majorȱ similarityȱ ofȱ theȱ TSSȱ andȱ theȱ CCOȱ perspectivesȱ liesȱ inȱ theirȱ sharedȱacknowledgementȱofȱtheȱworkȱofȱGiddensȱ(1979;ȱ1984).ȱInȱaȱrecentȱ paper,ȱHernesȱandȱBakkenȱ(2003)ȱoutlineȱtheȱsimilaritiesȱofȱGiddens’sȱandȱ Luhmann’sȱtheories:ȱAȱcommonȱdenominatorȱbetweenȱLuhmann’sȱautoȬ poiesisȱconceptȱandȱGiddens’sȱstructurationȱtheoryȱisȱtheȱexplicitȱfocusȱonȱ recursivity,ȱwhichȱGiddensȱ(1979:ȱ5)ȱplacesȱbetweenȱstructureȱandȱaction:ȱ Theȱdualityȱofȱstructureȱrefersȱtoȱ“theȱessentialȱrecursivenessȱofȱsocialȱlife,ȱ asȱconstitutedȱinȱsocialȱpractices:ȱstructureȱisȱbothȱmediumȱandȱoutcomeȱ ofȱtheȱreproductionȱofȱpractices”ȱ(Hernesȱ&ȱBakken,ȱ2003:ȱ1525).ȱConseȬ quently,ȱ bothȱ Luhmannȱ andȱ Giddensȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ recursiveȱ powerȱ ofȱ socialȱsystems,ȱandȱrelateȱtheȱaspectȱofȱrecursivityȱalsoȱtoȱtheirȱownȱwayȱ ofȱ theorizing.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ structurationȱ theory,ȱ socialȱ systemsȱ exactlyȱ consistȱ ofȱ recurrentȱ practicesȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (Berends,ȱ Boersmaȱ &ȱ Weggeman,ȱ 2003:ȱ 1042).ȱ Similarlyȱ toȱ Giddensȱ (1984),ȱ Luhmannȱ (1986)ȱ understandsȱcommunicationȱasȱbothȱbeingȱproducedȱbyȱtheȱsocialȱsystemȱ

42

ParadigmaticȱPerspectiveȱȱ

ȱ

(whichȱ consistsȱ ofȱ communications)ȱ andȱ beingȱ theȱ drivingȱ forceȱ forȱ theȱ reproductionȱofȱtheȱsystemȱitself.20ȱ Ifȱ weȱ enterȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȬcommuniȬ cationȱrelationshipȱmoreȱdeeply,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱshownȱthatȱLuhmannȱfurtherȬ moreȱ sharesȱ theȱ assumptionȱ withȱ someȱ authorsȱ ofȱ theȱ CCOȱ perspectiveȱ (McPheeȱ&ȱZaug,ȱ2000;ȱCoorenȱ&ȱFairhurst,ȱforthcoming)ȱthatȱnotȱeveryȱ typeȱ ofȱ communicationȱ hasȱ theȱ inherentȱ constitutiveȱ abilityȱ toȱ letȱ anȱ orȬ ganizationȱ emerge.ȱ Instead,ȱ bothȱ approachesȱ assumeȱ certainȱ additionalȱ requirementsȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ anȱ organization.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ TSSȱ andȱtheȱCCOȱperspectivesȱdifferȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱwhichȱcomȬ municativeȱ characteristicsȱ areȱ essentialȱ forȱ theȱ constitutionȱ ofȱ organizaȬ tion.ȱWhileȱLuhmannȱandȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱconcentrateȱ onȱ decisionsȱ asȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ elementȱ ofȱ organizations,ȱ itȱ isȱ inȱ anȱ onȬ goingȱdebateȱwithinȱtheȱCCOȱcommunityȱwhichȱcommunicativeȱcharacȬ teristicsȱcanȱbeȱtheorizedȱasȱtheȱconstitutiveȱelementȱofȱorganizations.21ȱȱ Inȱ aȱ predominantlyȱ supportiveȱ accountȱ onȱ Taylor’sȱ work,ȱ McPheeȱ andȱPooleȱ(2001)ȱexpressȱtheirȱcriticismȱofȱtheȱisomorphismȱassumption:ȱ ȱ OneȱlimitationȱofȱTaylorȱetȱal.’sȱapproachȱisȱthatȱitȱattemptsȱtoȱuseȱcommuniȬ cationȱconceptsȱthatȱapplyȱtoȱallȱinteraction,ȱperhapsȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱideaȱ theȱ organizationȱ andȱ communicationȱ areȱ equivalent,ȱ allȱ communicationȱ shouldȱ beȱ organizational.ȱ Sinceȱ theseȱ conceptsȱ mustȱ ofȱ necessityȱ applyȱ toȱ marriages,ȱ mobs,ȱ andȱ communitiesȱ thatȱ intercommunicate,ȱ theyȱ areȱ hinȬ deredȱ fromȱ findingȱ crucialȱ explanatoryȱ conceptsȱ forȱ specificallyȱ organizaȬ tionalȱcommunication.ȱ(McPheeȱ&ȱPoole,ȱ2001:ȱ534)ȱ ȱ

Inȱ anȱ earlierȱ article,ȱ McPheeȱ andȱ Zaugȱ (2000)ȱ distinguishȱ fourȱ typesȱ ofȱ communicationȱ(“flows”)ȱwhichȱtheyȱassumeȱtoȱbeȱessentialȱforȱtheȱconȬ stitutionȱ ofȱ organizations:ȱ membershipȱ negotiation,ȱ organizationalȱ selfȬ structuring,ȱ activityȱ coordination,ȱ andȱ institutionalȱ positioning.ȱ Theseȱ flowsȱneedȱtoȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱsoftȱsetȱofȱcriteriaȱratherȱthanȱaȱclearȬcutȱdefiniȬ 20ȱȱ Seeȱ Mingersȱ (2003:ȱ 105ff.)ȱ forȱ furtherȱ considerationsȱ onȱ parallelsȱ betweenȱ Luhmann’sȱ andȱGiddens’sȱframeworks.ȱ 21ȱȱ Thisȱaspectȱwillȱbeȱdeepenedȱinȱanȱanalysisȱofȱtextualȱvs.ȱverbalȱmodesȱofȱcommunicaȬ tionȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.2.2)ȱ

SimilaritiesȱandȱDifferencesȱ

43ȱ

tionȱ ofȱ whatȱ itȱ isȱ thatȱ makesȱ communicationȱ organizational.ȱ Seenȱ fromȱ theȱ TSSȱ perspective,ȱ allȱ typesȱ ofȱ communicationȱ mentionedȱ byȱ McPheeȱ andȱ Zaugȱ (2000)ȱ canȱ beȱ integratedȱ inȱ theȱ socialȱ systemsȱ frameworkȱ byȱ graspingȱthemȱasȱsubȬtypesȱofȱdecisions:ȱBeȱitȱtheȱnegotiationȱaboutȱmemȬ berships,ȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ structures,ȱ orȱ theȱ coordinationȱ ofȱ organizaȬ tionalȱactivities,ȱallȱofȱtheseȱprocessesȱfinallyȱcanȱbeȱreducedȱtoȱcommuniȬ cativeȱ episodesȱ thatȱ takeȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ decisions.22ȱ Theȱ communicationȱ ofȱ decisions,ȱ then,ȱ representsȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ underpinningȱ ofȱ theȱ existȬ enceȱofȱorganizations.23ȱ Theȱ distinctionȱ drawnȱ byȱ McPheeȱ andȱ Zaugȱ (2000)ȱ isȱ criticizedȱ byȱ Coorenȱ andȱ Fairhurstȱ (forthcoming)ȱ forȱ approachingȱ theȱ organizationȱ fromȱ aȱ tooȱ deductive,ȱ topȬdownȱ stance.ȱ Instead,ȱ theȱ authorsȱ suggestȱ toȱ transcendȱ theȱ microȬmacroȱ distinctionȱ byȱ focusingȱ onȱ textualȱ agencyȱ inȱ organizations.ȱThisȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱPutnamȱandȱCooren’sȱestimationȱthatȱ “aȱlargeȬscaleȱorganization,ȱwithȱitsȱinertia,ȱrelativeȱstability,ȱandȱcapacityȱ toȱ teleȬactȱ (i.e.,ȱ actȱ fromȱ aȱ distance),ȱ existsȱ throughȱ theȱ effectsȱ ofȱ stableȱ texts”ȱ (Putnamȱ &ȱ Cooren,ȱ 2004:ȱ 325).ȱ Theȱ keyȱ argumentȱ hereȱ isȱthatȱ theȱ constitutionȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ essentiallyȱ reliesȱ onȱ textsȱ asȱ comparablyȱ longȬlastingȱ entitiesȱ whichȱ ensureȱ aȱ stabilizationȱ ofȱ theȱ otherwiseȱ tooȱ ephemeralȱcommunicativeȱcharacterȱofȱorganizations.ȱȱ

22ȱȱ Inȱ theȱ TSSȱ framework,ȱ membershipȱ negotiationsȱ leadȱ toȱ decisionsȱ whoȱ isȱ includedȱ inȱ orȱ excludedȱ fromȱ theȱ organizationȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ contributeȱ toȱ establishingȱ aȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱtheȱorganizationȱandȱitsȱenvironmentȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ112).ȱOrganizationalȱselfȬ structuringȱisȱseenȱhereȱasȱaȱgeneralȱcharacteristicȱofȱallȱautopoieticȱsystemsȱsoȱthatȱreȬ cursiveȱinteractionsȱwithȱtheȱsystem’sȱenvironmentȱleadȱtoȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱsystemȬ inherentȱstructures.ȱThisȱfeature,ȱinȱconsequence,ȱappliesȱtoȱallȱautopoieticȱsystemsȱand,ȱ therefore,ȱalsoȱtoȱorganizations.ȱActivityȱcoordinationȱrelatesȱtoȱorganizationalȱobjectivesȱ whichȱareȱsubsumableȱtoȱdecisions,ȱeither.ȱInstitutionalȱembedding,ȱinȱcontrast,ȱisȱseenȱtoȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ organizationalȱ environmentȱ inȱ theȱ TSSȱ perspectiveȱ (cf.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 383).ȱ 23ȱȱ This,ȱinȱ turn,ȱcontradictsȱMcPheeȱandȱZaug’sȱassertionȱthatȱ“[…]ȱ aȱtheoryȱofȱconstituȬ tionȱ mustȱ beȱ highlyȱ general,ȱ allowingȱ organizationsȱ toȱ occurȱ inȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ ways.ȱ AlȬ thoughȱspecificȱmessagesȱcanȱbeȱdecisiveȱinȱtheȱoutcomeȱofȱaȱdecisionȬmakingȱsession,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ noȱ specificȱ messageȱ orȱ evenȱ decisionȱ sessionȱ isȱ necessaryȱ orȱ decisiveȱ forȱ makingȱtheȱgroupȱofȱmembersȱanȱorganization”ȱ(McPheeȱ&ȱZaug,ȱ2000:ȱnoȱpage).ȱ

44

ParadigmaticȱPerspectiveȱȱ

ȱ

Accordingȱ toȱ Coorenȱ andȱ Fairhurstȱ (forthcoming),ȱ textualȱ andȱ nonȬ humanȱagencyȱenablesȱtoȱstabilizeȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱandȱtoȱ assureȱitsȱsustainableȱexistenceȱoverȱtime.ȱTheȱauthorsȱlinkȱthisȱargumentȱ toȱ Derrida’sȱ notionȱ ofȱ réstanceȱ (Derrida,ȱ 1988)ȱ whatȱ theyȱ translateȱ asȱ “stayingȱcapacity”ȱandȱwhatȱtheyȱdefineȱasȱtheȱkeyȱpropertyȱofȱmachinesȱ andȱ textsȱ (Coorenȱ &ȱ Fairhurst,ȱ forthcoming).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ view,ȱ procedures,ȱ documents,ȱ machines,ȱ computers,ȱ andȱ architecturalȱ elementsȱ signifiȬ cantlyȱ contributeȱ toȱ theȱ emergenceȱ andȱ stabilizationȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ socialȱ system.ȱ Coorenȱ andȱ Fairhurstȱ conclude:ȱ “Ifȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ communicativeȱconstitutionȱofȱorganizationȱmakesȱanyȱsense,ȱitȱisȱforȱusȱ onȱtheȱsoleȱconditionȱthatȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ‘communication’ȱisȱextendedȱtoȱ whatȱnonȬhumansȱdo”ȱ(Coorenȱ&ȱFairhurst,ȱforthcoming:ȱnoȱpage).ȱ InȱcorrespondenceȱtoȱCoorenȱandȱFairhurstȱ(forthcoming),ȱLuhmannȱ alsoȱ highlightsȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ textualȱ agencyȱ inȱ organizationsȱ andȱ connectsȱitȱtoȱtheȱconceptȱofȱorganizationalȱmemory:ȱ ȱ Decisionsȱcanȱonlyȱtakeȱplaceȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱrecursionsȱwhichȱrequireȱsomeȱ formȱofȱ[organizational]ȱmemory.ȱ(...)ȱ[The]ȱorganizationalȱmemoryȱpresupȬ posesȱaȱcontinuousȱreȬimpregnationȱbyȱmeansȱofȱdecisions.ȱTheseȱinterconȬ nectionsȱ explainȱ theȱ constitutive,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ technicalȬsupportiveȱ significanceȱ ofȱtextualityȱforȱorganizations.ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ159;ȱownȱtranslation)ȱ ȱ

Theȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ theȱ TSSȱ andȱ theȱ CCOȱ perspective,ȱ however,ȱ becomeȱmoreȱsignificantȱconsideringȱtheȱviewȱofȱCoorenȱandȱFairhurstȱonȱ theȱorganizationȱasȱaȱcommunicativeȱentityȱ(CoorenȱandȱFairhurst,ȱforthȬ coming).ȱTheyȱdenyȱtheȱnotionȱofȱdecisionsȱasȱtheȱcoreȱoperationȱofȱorgaȬ nizationsȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ sufficiencyȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ flowsȱ introducedȱbyȱMcPheeȱandȱZaugȱ(2000)ȱwhenȱtheyȱwrite:ȱȱ ȱ Forȱexample,ȱaȱgroupȱofȱindividualsȱcanȱorganizeȱthemselvesȱtoȱaccomplishȱ aȱcommonȱobjectiveȱ(forȱexample,ȱmoving)ȱandȱdevelopȱsomeȱpatternsȱofȱinȬ teraction,ȱ butȱ thisȱ doesȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ meansȱ thatȱ thisȱ groupȱ constitutesȱ aȱ formalȱorganizationȱ(forȱexample,ȱaȱmovingȱcompany).ȱTheyȱcouldȱjustȱbeȱaȱ bunchȱ ofȱ friendsȱ tryingȱ toȱ helpȱ oneȱ ofȱ themȱ toȱ move.ȱ (Coorenȱ &ȱ Fairhurst,ȱ forthcoming:ȱnoȱpage)ȱȱ

SimilaritiesȱandȱDifferencesȱ

45ȱ

Ofȱcourse,ȱasȱLuhmannȱ(1988:ȱ170f.)ȱconcedes,ȱdecisionsȱalsoȱexistȱoutsideȱ ofȱorganizations.ȱHowever,ȱonlyȱdecisionsȱhaveȱtheȱinherentȱcapabilityȱtoȱ letȱorganizationalȱstructuresȱemergeȱbyȱbeingȱtiedȱtogetherȱinȱaȱrecursive,ȱ selfȬreferentialȱ system.ȱ Seenȱ fromȱ theȱ TSSȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ situationȱ deȬ scribedȱbyȱCoorenȱandȱFairhurstȱmayȱ(forthcoming)ȱexactlyȱrepresentsȱaȱ referenceȱpointȱwhereȱlooseȱformȱofȱinteractionsȱcanȱtransformȱintoȱmoreȱ formalȱorganizationsȱsystems.ȱOr,ȱtoȱstayȱinȱtheȱpicture,ȱwhenȱtheȱfriendsȱ realizeȱthatȱmovingȱisȱsoȱcharmingȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱwantȱtoȱfoundȱaȱmovingȱ club.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ decisionsȱ themselvesȱ areȱ aȱ necessaryȱ thoughȱ notȱ sufficientȱconditionȱforȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱorganizationsȱoutȱofȱcommuniȬ cation.ȱ Toȱconclude,ȱdespiteȱundeniableȱsimilaritiesȱinȱtheȱbasicȱunderstandȬ ingȱofȱorganizations,ȱtheȱCCOȱandȱtheȱTSSȱperspectivesȱdifferȱinȱtheȱquesȬ tionȱ whatȱ specificȱ conditionsȱ areȱ constitutiveȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ orȬ ganizationsȱoutȱofȱcommunication.ȱEvenȱifȱbothȱapproachesȱacknowledgeȱ theȱroleȱofȱtextualȱartifacts,ȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱtranscendsȱtheȱCCOȱperȬ spectiveȱ inȱ itsȱ specificationȱ thatȱ theȱ communicationȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ repreȬ sentsȱtheȱmainȱconstitutiveȱcharacteristicȱofȱorganizations.ȱWithȱthisȱtheoȬ reticalȱchoice,ȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱpointsȱtoȱaȱquestionȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱsubȬ jectȱtoȱtheoreticalȱandȱempiricalȱinvestigation:ȱHowȱdoesȱtheȱorganizationȱ manageȱ toȱ maintainȱ anȱ interconnectedȱ flowȱ ofȱ communicatedȱ decisionsȱ whichȱareȱdefinedȱasȱephemeral,ȱperishableȱepisodes?ȱȱ Justȱasȱitȱisȱtheȱtypicalȱfunctionȱofȱaȱparadigm,ȱtheȱcombinedȱperspecȬ tiveȱ leadsȱ toȱ theȱ identificationȱ ofȱ aȱ commonȱ problem,ȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ conditionsȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ outȱ ofȱ communication.ȱ Hence,ȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱsuggestsȱtwoȱconditionsȱwhichȱgoȱbeyondȱtheȱ debateȱinȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱresearchȱthusȱfarȱ–ȱthatȱitȱisȱesȬ sentialȱforȱorganizationsȱthatȱtheirȱcommunicationsȱhaveȱtheȱformȱofȱdeȬ cisionsȱandȱthatȱtheyȱbecomeȱvisibleȱasȱdecisionsȱinȱorderȱtoȱestablishȱanȱ processȱ ofȱ selfȬproductionȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ outȱ ofȱ decisions.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱ unclearȱhowȱthisȱvisibilityȱisȱachievedȱinȱorganizationalȱcommunication.ȱ TheȱtheoreticalȱanalysisȱwhichȱisȱoutlinedȱinȱtheȱnextȱchapterȱwillȱconcenȬ trateȱonȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱorganizationalȱcommuniȬ cationȱ–ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱideaȱtoȱgraspȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunications.ȱ

3 TheoreticalȱAnalysis:ȱTheȱ(InȬ)Visibilityȱofȱ DecisionȱContingencyȱinȱOrganizationalȱ Communicationȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱissueȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱvisibilizationȱ(DCV)ȱinȱprojectȱorganiȬ zationsȱ isȱ derivedȱ fromȱ anȱ abstractȱ question:ȱ Whatȱ areȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ conditionsȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ andȱ stabilizationȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ outȱ ofȱ communication?ȱ Theȱ isomorphicȱ viewȱ onȱ theȱ organizationȬcomȬ municationȱ relationshipȱ (Taylorȱ &ȱ vanȱ Every,ȱ 2000)ȱ suggestsȱ toȱ graspȱ organizationalȱcommunicationȱprocessesȱasȱtwoȬsidedȱphenomena.ȱWhileȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationalȱ sideȱ arrivesȱ atȱ theȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ playsȱ aȱ constitutiveȱ roleȱ forȱ theȱ autopoiesisȱofȱorganizations,ȱandȱevenȱmoreȱsoȱforȱprojectȱorganizations,ȱ takingȱaȱlookȱonȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱcanȱhelpȱtoȱdevelopȱanȱunderȬ standingȱ ofȱ DCVȱ asȱ occurringȱ inȱ communication.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ thisȱ issueȱisȱapproachedȱbyȱaȱtwofoldȱanalyticȱprocedureȱwhichȱlinksȱbackȱtoȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ asȱ communicationsȱ introducedȱ inȱ theȱ previȬ ousȱchapter.ȱ Inȱaȱfirstȱstep,ȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱisȱanalyzedȱbyȱhighlightingȱtheȱorganȬ izationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱorganizationȬcommunicationȱdualityȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.1).ȱ Thisȱ allowsȱ forȱ investigatingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ DCVȱ forȱ theȱ autopoiesisȱ ofȱ orȬ ganizationsȱasȱsocialȱsystemsȱandȱapplyingȱthisȱanalysisȱtoȱmoreȱspecificȱ organizationalȱforms,ȱsuchȱasȱprojectȱorganizationsȱand,ȱevenȱmoreȱspeȬ cific,ȱconsultingȱfirms.ȱInȱaȱsecondȱstep,ȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱisȱanalyzedȱbyȱ emphasizingȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱdualityȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.2).ȱThisȱ allowsȱ forȱ investigatingȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ canȱ indeedȱ becomeȱvisibilizedȱbyȱcommunicationȱprocessesȱinitiatedȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱ ofȱCPL.ȱAȱspecialȱemphasisȱisȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱtextualȱformsȱofȱdocuȬ

48

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

mentationȱand,ȱevenȱmoreȱso,ȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱPowerPointȱasȱaȱmediumȱandȱ genreȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱinȱtheirȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱvisibilizationȱ ofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱ(cf.ȱfigureȱ1).ȱ ȱ ȱ

3.1ȱOrganizationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDualityȱ

3.2ȱCommunicationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDualityȱ

3.1.1ȱDCVȱinȱOrganizationsȱ

3.2.1ȱDCVȱinȱCommunicationȱ

3.1.2ȱDCVȱinȱProjectȱOrganizationsȱ

3.2.2ȱDCVȱinȱProjectȱDocumentationȱ

3.1.3ȱDCVȱinȱConsultingȱFirmsȱ

3.2.3ȱDCVȱinȱPowerPointȱPresentationsȱ

ȱ

Figureȱ1:

TheȱTwoȬSidedȱAnalysisȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱVisibilizationȱ(DCV)ȱ

ȱ ȱ

Theȱ analysisȱ concludesȱ inȱ anȱ outlineȱ ofȱ distinctionsȱ andȱ researchȱ quesȬ tionsȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.3)ȱwhichȱwillȱguideȱtheȱempiricalȱanalysisȱtheȱissueȱofȱ DCVȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4ȱandȱ5),ȱinȱaȱnextȱstep.ȱ

ȱ 3.1 AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDualityȱ ȱ 3.1.1 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱOrganizationsȱ ȱ Inȱaȱfirstȱstepȱofȱtheȱanalysis,ȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱvisiȬ bilityȱforȱtheȱautopoiesisȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱsocialȱsystemȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 2000)ȱ isȱ exploredȱ andȱ illuminatedȱ fromȱ variousȱ theoreticalȱ perspectives.ȱ Asȱ arguedȱ aboveȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 1.1ȱ andȱ 2.2),ȱ theȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ selfȬ reproducingȱ systemȱ ofȱ communicatedȱ decisionsȱ requiresȱ atȱ leastȱ someȱ formȱ ofȱ awarenessȱforȱ previousȱ decisionsȱ whereȱ futureȱ decisionsȱ canȱ beȱ basedȱon.ȱTheȱinvestigation,ȱtherefore,ȱbeginsȱwithȱanȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱ specialȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱdecisionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingency.ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

49ȱ

AnȱIllnessȱCalledȱDecisionitisȱ Inȱ Luhmann’sȱ view,ȱ decisionsȱ andȱ contingencyȱ areȱ naturallyȱ intertwinedȱ phenomena.ȱ Decisionsȱ cannotȱ beȱ identifiedȱ asȱ beingȱ decisionsȱ ifȱ theirȱ contingencyȱisȱnotȱmadeȱvisible,ȱatȱleastȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱoneȱorȱmoreȱalterȬ nativesȱ explicitlyȱ takenȱ intoȱ consideration:ȱ “Decisionsȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ comȬ municatedȱ [asȱ decisions]ȱ ifȱ theȱ rejectedȱ alternativesȱ areȱ communicated,ȱ too”ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 64;ȱ ownȱ translation).ȱ Knudsenȱ elaboratesȱ onȱ thisȱ assumption:ȱ“Theȱdecisionȱmustȱcommunicateȱitselfȱasȱaȱdecision,ȱbutȱbyȱ doingȱ thatȱ itȱ alsoȱ communicatesȱ itsȱ ownȱ alternative.ȱ Aȱ decisionȱ cannotȱ helpȱ butȱ communicateȱ itsȱ ownȱ selfȬcritique,ȱ i.e.,ȱ communicateȱ thatȱ itȱ couldȱ alsoȱ haveȱ beenȱ madeȱ differently“ȱ (Knudsen,ȱ 2006:ȱ 110).ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱwithoutȱflaggingȱoutȱthatȱthereȱhaveȱbeenȱseveralȱpossibleȱalternaȬ tivesȱ toȱ aȱ givenȱ situation,ȱ decisionȱ necessityȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ identifiable:ȱ Weȱ haveȱ optionsȱ A,ȱ B,ȱ Cȱ hereȱ –ȱ whatȱ toȱ do?ȱ Thisȱ impliesȱ thatȱ theȱ comȬ municationȱ ofȱ decisions,ȱ andȱ withȱ this,ȱ theȱ successfulȱ autopoiesisȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȱperȱse,ȱrequiresȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱwithinȱtheȱ organization.ȱȱ HowȱdoesȱtheȱorganizationȱmanageȱtoȱinterconnectȱepisodesȱofȱdeciȬ sionȱ communication?ȱ Furthermore,ȱ howȱ doesȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱcontributeȱtoȱthisȱconnectivity?ȱAndersenȱshedsȱlightȱonȱthisȱ questionȱ byȱ drawingȱ onȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ openȱ andȱ fixedȱ continȬ gency:ȱ ȱ Aȱ decisionȱdividesȱ theȱ worldȱ intoȱ aȱ beforeȱandȱanȱafter.ȱ(...).ȱInȱtheȱlightȱofȱ theȱ decision,ȱ ‘beforeȱ theȱ decision’ȱ standsȱ outȱ asȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ openȱ continȬ gencyȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ whichȱ socialȱ expectationsȱ amongȱ theȱ membersȱ willȱ dominateȱinȱtheȱfuture.ȱ(...)ȱAfterȱtheȱdecisionȱthisȱcontingency,ȱthisȱopennessȱ regardingȱtheȱend,ȱappearsȱinȱaȱfixedȱform.ȱ(Andersen,ȱ2003:ȱ244f.)ȱ ȱ

Toȱcommunicateȱaȱdecisionȱmeansȱtoȱtransformȱandȱshiftȱitsȱcontingency.ȱ Everyȱdecisionȱcanȱbecomeȱtheȱdecisionȱpremiseȱforȱnewȱcontingencyȱtoȱ beȱdecidedȱupon.ȱContingencyȱisȱinherentȱtoȱanyȱformȱofȱdecisionȱwhere,ȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ theȱ decision,ȱ previouslyȱ openȱ contingencyȱ isȱ transformedȱ intoȱfixedȱcontingencyȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ170).ȱToȱgiveȱanȱexample,ȱaȱcomȬ

50

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

pany’sȱdecisionȱtoȱinvestȱinȱaȱcertainȱcountryȱ(insteadȱofȱanother)ȱopensȱ upȱnewȱcontingenciesȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱnecessitiesȱforȱfollowȬupȱdecisions:ȱ Whatȱ decisionsȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ madeȱ onȱ marketingȱ activities,ȱ legalȱ issues,ȱ logistics,ȱetc.ȱByȱmeansȱofȱthis,ȱorganizationsȱactȱasȱtheȱproducersȱofȱtheirȱ ownȱ decisiveȱ capacityȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 181).ȱ Organizations,ȱ then,ȱ areȱ ableȱtoȱreproduceȱthemselvesȱbyȱmeansȱofȱtheirȱownȱoperationsȱ–ȱdrivenȱ byȱanȱinherentȱdecisionȱnecessityȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1988:ȱ169).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱ organizationsȱareȱindeterminateȱinȱtheirȱcomplexity.ȱTheȱrangeȱofȱpossiȬ bleȱconnectionsȱofȱelementsȱexceedsȱtheȱrealizableȱconnections.ȱTherefore,ȱ theȱorganizationȱasȱaȱsocialȱsystemȱisȱconstitutedȱbyȱtheȱcontinuousȱneedȱ toȱ realizeȱ selectionsȱ whichȱ communicativelyȱ condenseȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ deciȬ sionsȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1988:ȱ110).ȱConsequently,ȱLuhmannȱdescribesȱorganizaȬ tionsȱ asȱ sufferingȱ fromȱ anȱ illnessȱ heȱ callsȱ decisionitis.ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1981c:ȱ 355).ȱ

TheȱParadoxȱofȱUndecidabilityȱandȱItsȱDeparadoxificationȱ Inȱ theȱ TSSȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ necessityȱ toȱ interconnectȱ decisionsȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱisȱbasedȱonȱaȱparadox:ȱtheȱparadoxȱofȱtheȱundecidabilityȱofȱdecisionsȱ (cf.ȱvonȱFoerster,ȱ1992;ȱDerrida,ȱ2002).ȱLuhmann’sȱunderstandingȱofȱthisȱ paradoxȱcomesȱcloseȱtoȱvonȱFoerster’sȱassertion:ȱ“Onlyȱquestionsȱthatȱareȱ inȱprincipleȱundecidable,ȱweȱcanȱdecide”ȱ(vonȱFoerster:ȱ1992:ȱ14).ȱInȱotherȱ words,ȱquestionsȱ whereȱ anȱ appropriateȱ decisionȱ canȱbeȱ deducedȱdoȱ notȱ haveȱ theȱ impetusȱ toȱ enforceȱ theȱ communicationȱ ofȱ decisions,ȱ andȱ withȱ this,ȱ toȱ letȱ organizationsȱ emerge:ȱ “(...)ȱ ifȱ aȱ decisionȱ canȱ beȱ reachedȱ throughȱabsoluteȱdeduction,ȱcalculation,ȱorȱargumentationȱdoesȱitȱleadȱtoȱ aȱfinalȱclosureȱorȱfixationȱofȱcontingencyȱwithoutȱsimultaneouslyȱpotenȬ tializingȱalternatives.ȱ(...).ȱSoȱcalledȱrationalȱdecisionsȱareȱnotȱdecisionsȱatȱ all”ȱ(Andersen,ȱ2003:ȱ246).ȱThus,ȱwhatȱweȱhaveȱcomeȱtoȱcallȱdecisionsȱinȱ everydayȱ languageȱ doesȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ correspondȱ withȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱtermȱinȱtheȱTSSȱperspective.ȱHere,ȱtheȱinherentȱundecidability,ȱambiȬ guity,ȱ andȱ contingencyȱ insteadȱ becomeȱ theȱ definingȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ deciȬ sion.ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

51ȱ

Moreover,ȱ asȱ Luhmannȱ (2000:ȱ 157)ȱ highlights,ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ beȬ tweenȱdecisionsȱandȱcontingencyȱchangesȱifȱtheȱdecisionȱisȱreconstructedȱ inȱretrospect:ȱNowȱpreviouslyȱopenȱcontingencyȱappearsȱinȱaȱfixedȱform,ȱ butȱ theȱ decisionȱ canȱ beȱ constructedȱ asȱ havingȱ beenȱ contingent,ȱ itȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ proceededȱ differently.ȱ Thisȱ paradoxicalȱ relationshipȱ isȱ sumȬ marizedȱ byȱ Seidl:ȱ “Everyȱ decisionȱ communicatesȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ alternaȬ tivesȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱ–ȱotherwiseȱitȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱaȱdecisionȱ–ȱandȱitȱsimulȬ taneouslyȱcommunicatesȱthatȱsinceȱtheȱdecisionȱhasȱbeenȱmade,ȱthereȱareȱ noȱalternativesȱ–ȱotherwise,ȱagain,ȱitȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱaȱdecisionȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ142)”ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ146;ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal).ȱȱ Inȱthisȱcontext,ȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱenablesȱusȱtoȱobserveȱtheȱorganiȬ zationȱ asȱ aȱ communicativeȱ entityȱ byȱ identifyingȱ systemȬinherentȱ strateȬ giesȱofȱdeparadoxification.ȱAsȱAndersenȱpointsȱout:ȱ ȱ InȱrelationȱtoȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱmakeȱdecisionsȱlookȱdeȬ cidable.ȱ Decisionȱ communicationȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ deparadoxifyȱ itselfȱ byȱ basicallyȱ makingȱfreedomȱlookȱlikeȱrestraint.ȱInȱaȱcertainȱsense,ȱorganizationalȱcommuniȬ cationȱ throughȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ decisionȱ consistsȱ ofȱ nothingȱ butȱ continualȱ atȬ temptsȱtoȱdeparadoxifyȱdecisions.ȱTheȱwayȱtheyȱdoȱisȱanȱempiricalȱquestion.ȱ (Andersen,ȱ2003:ȱ249;ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal)ȱ ȱ

Oneȱ wayȱ toȱ approachȱ theȱ observabilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ empiriȬ callyȱ isȱ toȱ takeȱ aȱ closerȱ lookȱ atȱ strategiesȱ establishedȱinȱ organizationsȱ toȱ overcomeȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ paradoxȱ ofȱ decisionȱ making.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ Andersenȱ distinguishesȱ threeȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ deparadoxificationȱ whichȱ allȱ canȱ beȱ subjectȱ toȱ empiricalȱ investigation:ȱ (1)ȱ temporal,ȱ (2)ȱ social,ȱ andȱ (3)ȱ factualȱdeparadoxificationȱ(Andersen,ȱ2003:ȱ250):ȱȱ Theȱtemporalȱdeparadoxificationȱofȱdecisionsȱmeansȱtoȱovercomeȱtheȱ pressureȱofȱsocialȱexpectationsȱbyȱpostponingȱtheȱdecisionȱinȱtime.ȱTemȬ poralȱdeparadoxificationsȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱempirically,ȱforȱexample,ȱwhenȱitȱ isȱ saidȱ thatȱ aȱ decisionȱ hadȱ neededȱ toȱ ’ripen’ȱ beforeȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ made.ȱ Theȱ socialȱ deparadoxificationȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ meansȱ toȱ justifyȱ theȱ decisionȱ byȱ relatingȱitȱtoȱsocialȱexpectations.ȱEmpirically,ȱthisȱcanȱbeȱobservedȱinȱorȬ ganizationsȱwhenȱthereȱisȱaȱclaimȱforȱanȱ’interestȱanalysis’ȱorȱ’stakeholderȱ analysis’ȱinȱorderȱtoȱfulfillȱsocialȱexpectationsȱappropriately.ȱInstrumentsȱ

52

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

likeȱ theseȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ legitimationȱ forȱ theȱ decisionȱ byȱ creatingȱ socialȱ imȬ perativesȱ constructedȱ toȱ existȱ inȱ theȱ organization’sȱ environment.ȱ Theȱ factualȱ deparadoxificationȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ commonȱ typeȱ ofȱ theȱ three.ȱ Thisȱ strategyȱ involvesȱ toȱ renderȱ aȱ decisionȱ asȱ aȱ reactionȱ toȱ theȱ ’natureȱ ofȱ theȱ case’.ȱHere,ȱdecisionsȱareȱframedȱasȱaȱchoiceȱofȱcertainȱpreȬdefinedȱalterȬ natives.ȱ Typicallyȱ thisȱ isȱ realizedȱ byȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ ’environment’,ȱ forȱ exampleȱtheȱmarketȱsituationȱanȱorganizationȱisȱfacing,ȱasȱtheȱcompellingȱ imperative.ȱThisȱinsightȱcanȱbeȱsummarizedȱwithȱCzarniawska:ȱȱ ȱ Workȱorganizationsȱareȱfullȱofȱabsurdities,ȱmostȱofȱwhichȱareȱcausedȱbyȱtheȱ attemptsȱtoȱenforceȱformalȱlogicȱandȱrationalityȱonȱtheirȱoperations.ȱRevealȬ ingȱ thisȱ factȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ toȱ leadȱ usȱ toȱ blameȱ attributionȱ andȱ bettermentȱ programmesȱintroducingȱmoreȱrationality.ȱInstead,ȱitȱmayȱrevealȱtheȱeveryȬ dayȱheroismȱconcealedȱinȱmundaneȱactionsȱofȱdeȬparadoxifyingȱthatȱengageȱ mostȱofȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱorganizers.ȱ(Czarniawska,ȱ2001:ȱ15)ȱ ȱ

DeparadoxificationȱasȱtheȱDrivingȱForceȱofȱOrganizationsȱ Inȱ aȱ recentȱ accountȱ onȱ Luhmann’sȱ organizationȱ theory,ȱ Nassehiȱ (2005)ȱ describesȱorganizationsȱasȱdecisionȱmachinesȱor,ȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱprecise,ȱdecisionȱ deparadoxificationȱmachines.ȱFramedȱlikeȱthis,ȱtheȱorganizationȱisȱdrivenȱbyȱ theȱcontinuousȱnecessityȱtoȱinvisibilizeȱtheȱveryȱfactȱthatȱitsȱmainȱoperaȬ tionȱisȱbasedȱonȱaȱparadox,ȱtheȱundecidabilityȱofȱdecisions:ȱ ȱ Ifȱthereȱwereȱanyȱsecureȱknowledgeȱonȱhowȱtoȱdecide,ȱthereȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱaȱ choice.ȱ Toȱ haveȱ theȱ choiceȱ meansȱ notȱ toȱ knowȱ whatȱ toȱ do.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ mainȱ problemȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱsocialȱsystems,ȱconsistingȱofȱtheȱcommunicationȱ ofȱdecisionsȱtoȱperformȱstrategiesȱtoȱmakeȱthisȱproblemȱinvisible.ȱAsȱemphaȬ sizedȱ above,ȱ theȱ autopoiesisȱ ofȱ communicationȱ mustȱ makeȱ theȱ problemȱ inȬ visible:ȱtheȱonlyȱbasisȱofȱtheȱsystem’sȱoperationȱisȱtheȱsystemȱitself.ȱThisȱperȬ manentlyȱ menacingȱ problemȱ ofȱ selfȬdeconstructionȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ overcomeȱ byȱ constructingȱaccountableȱanchorsȱorȱbyȱstabilizingȱexpectableȱconnectivitiesȱ inȱtime.ȱ(Nassehi,ȱ2005:ȱ186;ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal)ȱ

ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

53ȱ

Nassehiȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ organizationȱ developsȱ variousȱ strateȬ giesȱhowȱtoȱcopeȱwithȱtheȱundecidabilityȱparadox,ȱforȱexampleȱbyȱ“conȬ structionȱofȱaȱdeciderȱasȱanȱaccountableȱaddress”ȱorȱbyȱmakingȱdecisionȱ processesȱ visible:ȱ “Thisȱ meansȱ toȱ stageȬmanageȱ themȱ [theȱ decisions]ȱ inȱ meetings,ȱ inȱ specialȱ rooms,ȱ atȱ specialȱ times,ȱ withȱ specialȱ rites,ȱ andȱ onȱ specialȱdocuments”ȱ(Nassehi,ȱ2005:ȱ186).ȱHowever,ȱ“thatȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱ thatȱdecisionsȱreallyȱareȱobservable,ȱbutȱitȱmeansȱthatȱorganizationsȱhaveȱ toȱsupplyȱthemselvesȱwithȱformsȱofȱvisibilityȱwhichȱcloakȱtheȱbasicȱprobȬ lemȱofȱselfȬreference“ȱ(Nassehi,ȱ2005:ȱ186).ȱȱ Withȱthis,ȱNassehiȱpointsȱtoȱaȱrelevantȱaspectȱforȱtheȱfurtherȱinvestiȬ gationȱ ofȱ DCVȱ processesȱ inȱ organizations.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ organizaȬ tionsȱareȱforcedȱtoȱfindȱsomeȱwayȱtoȱdeparadoxifyȱtheȱundecidabilityȱofȱ theirȱdecisions,ȱforȱexample,ȱbyȱmakingȱtheȱdecisionȱprocessȱvisibleȱandȱ byȱmakingȱdecisionsȱlookȱdecidableȱ(Andersen,ȱ2003).ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱ theȱ’stageȱmanaging’ȱofȱdecisionȱprocessesȱdoesȱnotȱallowȱforȱobservationȱ ofȱ factualȱ decisionsȱ processesȱ (cf.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 135),ȱ insteadȱ weȱ emȬ piricallyȱhaveȱtoȱdealȱwithȱtheȱwayȱorganizationsȱhandleȱtheȱundecidabilȬ ityȱ paradoxȱ asȱ ifȱ thereȱ wereȱ rationalȱ decisionsȱ (cf.ȱ Ortmann,ȱ 2004;ȱ ArmȬ brüster,ȱ2004).ȱInȱLuhmann’sȱwords,ȱ“theȱparadoxȱcharacterȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱ packagedȱandȱsealedȱinȱcommunication”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ142).ȱ Givenȱ thatȱ organizationsȱ sustainȱ theirȱ existenceȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ conȬ tinuousȱ productionȱ andȱ reproductionȱ ofȱ decisions,ȱ theyȱ areȱ forcedȱ toȱ decideȱ evenȱ ifȱ theyȱ cannotȱ decide.ȱ Organizationsȱ solveȱ thisȱ problemȱ byȱ meansȱofȱaȱ“gapȬfillingȱpresumptionȱofȱdecisions”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1981c:ȱ353;ȱ ownȱtranslation)ȱevenȱinȱcasesȱwhenȱbehaviorȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱmeantȱtoȱrepȬ resentȱ anȱ explicitȱ decisionȱ (Ortmann,ȱ 2004:ȱ 207).ȱ Inȱ lineȱ withȱ thisȱ view,ȱ organizationsȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ dependentȱ onȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ aȱ decisionalȱ lanȬ guageȱgameȱandȱhaveȱtoȱtreatȱtheȱcommunicativeȱeventsȱcausedȱbyȱtheseȱ effortsȱasȱifȱdecisionsȱwereȱdeveloped:ȱ“Let’sȱactȱasȱifȱweȱhadȱsomethingȱ weȱcouldȱsafelyȱrelyȱon”ȱ(Ortmann,ȱ2004:ȱ208;ȱownȱtranslation).ȱȱ Consequently,ȱitȱisȱinȱlineȱwithȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1988;ȱ 2000)ȱtoȱassumeȱthatȱdecisionȱmakingȱprocessesȱdoȱnotȱnecessarilyȱfollowȱ aȱrationalistȱandȱdeductiveȱway.ȱThisȱalsoȱcorrespondsȱwithȱtheȱ“garbageȱ canȱ model”ȱ byȱ Cohen,ȱ Marchȱ andȱ Olsenȱ (1972)ȱ whichȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ

54

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

decisionȱmakingȱinȱorganizationsȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱratherȱchaȬ oticȱandȱimprovizedȱprocessȱwhichȱisȱrationalizedȱinȱretrospect.ȱAccordȬ ingly,ȱ evenȱ projectȱ membersȱ directlyȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ decisionȱ makingȱ processȱwithinȱaȱprojectȱmayȱbeȱunawareȱofȱtheȱcontingenciesȱinherentȱtoȱ decisionsȱ made.ȱ Asȱ Nassehiȱ putsȱ it,ȱ “Luhmannȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ rationalityȱ isȱ aȱ retrospectiveȱ schemeȱ ofȱ observation,ȱ dealingȱ withȱ theȱ contingencyȱ andȱ theȱ paradoxȱ ofȱ decisionȱ makingȱ processes”ȱ (Nassehi,ȱ 2005:ȱ 186;ȱ ownȱ emphasisȱ added).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ againȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Weick,ȱasȱHeatonȱandȱTaylorȱremindȱus:ȱ“WhenȱKarlȱWeickȱ(1979)ȱasks,ȱ ‘HowȱcanȱIȱknowȱwhatȱIȱthinkȱuntilȱIȱseeȱwhatȱIȱsay?’ȱheȱisȱdealingȱwithȱaȱ generalȱ communicationalȱ principleȱ thatȱ appliesȱ toȱ allȱ organizations”ȱ (Heatonȱ&ȱTaylor,ȱ2002:ȱ223).ȱForȱtheȱempiricalȱaccessibilityȱofȱDCVȱthisȱ impliesȱthatȱtheȱscientificȱobserverȱcanȱonlyȱindirectlyȱapproachȱtoȱwhatȱ extentȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱhasȱbecomeȱvisibleȱtoȱtheȱorganization.ȱThisȱ investigationȱ requiresȱ toȱ lookȱ intoȱ tracesȱ ofȱ retrospectiveȱ rationalizationȱ andȱ deparadoxificationȱ asȱ manifested,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ inȱ aȱ posteriorȱ docuȬ mentationȱofȱdecisionȱprocesses.ȱȱ Inȱconclusion,ȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱgraspsȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱselfȬ reproducingȱ systemȱ whichȱ isȱ drivenȱ byȱ theȱ continuousȱ necessityȱ toȱ deȬ paradoxifyȱitsȱownȱoperations,ȱtheȱcommunicationȱofȱdecisions.ȱThisȱproȬ cessȱ isȱ selfȬreproducingȱ inȱ thatȱ decisionsȱ transformȱ openȱ contingenciesȱ andȱ uncertaintiesȱ intoȱ intermediateȱ statesȱ ofȱ fixedȱ contingencyȱ (AnderȬ sen,ȱ2003:ȱ244)ȱwhichȱagainȱcauseȱaȱdemandȱforȱfollowȬupȱdecisions.ȱPastȱ decisionsȱareȱpremisesȱforȱpresentȱdecisionsȱwhich,ȱinȱturn,ȱbecomeȱpreȬ misesȱ forȱ futureȱ decisions.ȱ Theȱ recursivityȱ ofȱ thisȱ processȱ tendsȱ toȱ theȱ creationȱofȱorganizationalȱstructuresȱbyȱmeansȱofȱredundancyȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 1988:ȱ 167).ȱ Wheneverȱ aȱ decisionȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ premiseȱ forȱ nextȱ decisions,ȱ structuresȱareȱlikelyȱtoȱemergeȱthatȱrestrictȱtheȱcontingencyȱofȱfutureȱdeȬ cisionsȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1988:ȱ172).ȱȱ Nevertheless,ȱtheȱquestionȱremainsȱhowȱorganizationsȱmaintainȱtheirȱ existenceȱinȱtheȱlongȱrun:ȱ“Theȱveryȱexistenceȱofȱorganizationsȱtestifiesȱtoȱ theȱfactȱthatȱtheyȱevidentlyȱfoundȱwaysȱofȱhandlingȱtheȱparadoxȱandȱconȬ tingencyȱ ofȱ theirȱ decisions.ȱ Studyingȱ howȱ anȱ organizationȱ comesȱ intoȱ being,ȱthen,ȱmeansȱconsideringȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱitȱhandlesȱ[this]ȱparaȬ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

55ȱ

doxȱ (...)”ȱ (Knudsen,ȱ 2006:ȱ110).ȱ AsȱAndersenȱ emphasizes,ȱ theȱ communiȬ cativeȱ actsȱ emergingȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ deparadoxificationȱ representȱ anȱ anchorȱ pointȱforȱ empiricalȱ analysesȱ whereȱ decisionsȱ areȱ madeȱ visibleȱ inȱ orderȱtoȱflagȱoutȱaȱdecisionȱasȱaȱdecisionȱ(Andersen,ȱ2003:ȱ249).ȱHence,ȱinȱ orderȱ toȱ identifyȱ whereȱ thisȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ maniȬ festsȱinȱtheȱcommunicativeȱpracticesȱofȱorganizations,ȱaȱfurtherȱspecificaȬ tionȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱmadeȱinȱwhatȱtypeȱofȱorganizationȱsuchȱdeparadoxificaȬ tionȱ strategiesȱ areȱ mostȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ found.ȱ Thisȱ specificationȱ isȱ introȬ ducedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱchapterȱbyȱrelatingȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱtoȱtheȱspecialȱ caseȱofȱprojectȱorganizations.ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.1.2 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱProjectȱOrganizationsȱ Theȱstartingȱpointȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱhasȱbeenȱaȱratherȱabstractȱandȱgeneralȱ notionȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ –ȱ withoutȱ takingȱ intoȱ accountȱ thatȱ thereȱ canȱ beȱ subȬformsȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ whereȱ specialȱ conditionsȱ toȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱcontingencyȱapply.ȱInȱthisȱchapter,ȱitȱisȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱvisibiliȬ zationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ especiallyȱ atȱ stakeȱ inȱ organizationsȱ whereȱ decisionsȱ occurȱ inȱ aȱ distributedȱ andȱ dislocatedȱ formȱ –ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ projectȬbasedȱorganizations.ȱȱ

TheȱIssueȱofȱCrossȬProjectȱLearningȱ Shenharȱ definesȱ theȱ projectȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ “temporaryȱ organizationȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ establishedȱ toȱ completeȱ aȱ specificȱ goal”ȱ (Shenhar,ȱ 2001:ȱ 394).ȱTheȱdefiningȱaspectȱofȱaȱprojectȱisȱitsȱlimitedȱtimeȱspan,ȱmostȱcomȬ monlyȱpredeterminedȱinȱadvanceȱ(cf.ȱLundinȱ&ȱSöderholm,ȱ1995).24ȱProȬ jectsȱusuallyȱbringȱtogetherȱorganizationalȱmembersȱfromȱdifferentȱfuncȬ tionsȱwhoȱeitherȱreturnȱtoȱtheirȱmainȱjobsȱafterȱretiringȱfromȱaȱprojectȱorȱ areȱ againȱ recombinedȱ inȱ newȱ projects.ȱ Overȱ theȱ pastȱ decades,ȱ projectȱ 24ȱȱ Thisȱ does,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ notȱ denyȱ thatȱ alsoȱ organizationsȱ themselvesȱ mostȱ commonlyȱ terminateȱtheirȱexistenceȱafterȱaȱcertainȱlifeȱspanȱ(cf.ȱHannanȱ&ȱFreeman,ȱ1977;ȱQuinnȱ&ȱ Cameron,ȱ1981).ȱ

56

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

organizationsȱhaveȱbecomeȱincreasinglyȱfrequentȱandȱimportantȱinȱbusiȬ nessȱpractice:ȱ“Today,ȱvirtuallyȱallȱconstruction,ȱproductȱdevelopment,ȱorȱ engineeringȱeffortsȱareȱusingȱsomeȱformalȱprojectȱmanagementȱstructure“ȱ (Shenhar,ȱ2001:ȱ394).ȱȱ Projectȱ organizationsȱ areȱ presumedȱ toȱ beȱ particularlyȱ successfulȱ inȱ adaptingȱ flexiblyȱ toȱ changesȱ inȱ theirȱ environmentȱ (cf.ȱ Hobday,ȱ 2000).ȱ However,ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ looseȱ andȱ ephemeralȱ characterȱ ofȱ theirȱ workȱhasȱcreatedȱtheȱproblemȱtoȱsustainȱanȱorganizationalȱawarenessȱofȱ whatȱdecisionsȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱandȱwhatȱknowledgeȱhasȱbeenȱgeneratedȱ withinȱprojectsȱ(Ayasȱ&ȱZeniuk,ȱ2001).ȱHence,ȱprojectȱorganizationsȱfaceȱ theȱchallengeȱthatȱ“knowledgeȱisȱgeneratedȱinȱoneȱprojectȱandȱthenȱlost”ȱ (Leseureȱ &ȱ Brooks,ȱ 2004:ȱ 103).ȱ Organizationsȱ withȱ onlyȱ looselyȱ interȬ linkedȱ projectsȱ areȱ endangeredȱ toȱ “reȬinventȱ theȱ wheel”ȱ repetitivelyȱ inȱ newȱprojectsȱ(Lesserȱ&ȱStorck,ȱ2001:ȱ836).ȱȱ TheȱproblemȱofȱestablishingȱaȱsustainableȱsharingȱofȱexperiencesȱacȬ rossȱprojectsȱhasȱbeenȱaȱrepetitiveȱissueȱinȱtheȱliteratureȱonȱknowledgeȱmaȬ nagementȱ sinceȱ theȱ midȱ 1990sȱ (Nonakaȱ &ȱ Takeuchi,ȱ 1995;ȱ Davenportȱ &ȱ Prusak,ȱ 1997;ȱ Davenport,ȱ DeLongȱ &ȱ Beers,ȱ 1998;ȱ Probst,ȱ Raubȱ &ȱ RomȬ hardt,ȱ1999;ȱArgote,ȱMcEvilyȱ&ȱReagans,ȱ2003).ȱHowever,ȱtheȱearlyȱoptiȬ mismȱofȱtheȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱmovementȱhasȱbeenȱchallengedȱinȱ recentȱ yearsȱ byȱ reportsȱ thatȱ theȱ first,ȱmainlyȱ ITȱ drivenȱ knowledgeȱ manȬ agementȱmodelsȱdidȱnotȱsucceedȱinȱpracticeȱbecauseȱtheyȱfailȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱ socialȱandȱcommunicativeȱcharacterȱofȱknowledgeȬbasedȱinteractionsȱintoȱ accountȱ(cf.ȱRuggles,ȱ1998;ȱMcDermott,ȱ1999;ȱMcDermottȱ&ȱO’Dell,ȱ2001;ȱ Huber,ȱ2001;ȱZornȱ&ȱTaylor,ȱ2003;ȱCurrieȱ&ȱKerrin,ȱ2004;ȱWyssusek,ȱ2004;ȱ Newell,ȱ Bresnen,ȱ Edelman,ȱ Scarbroughȱ &ȱ Swan,ȱ 2006).ȱ Therefore,ȱ inȱ aȱ secondȱphaseȱofȱtheȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱidea,ȱtheȱearlyȱoptimismȱisȱ putȱ intoȱ question.ȱ Theȱ literatureȱ ofȱ thisȱ phaseȱ transcendsȱ theȱ reifiedȱ noȬ tionȱofȱknowledgeȱasȱaȱcommodityȱ(cf.ȱCurrieȱ&ȱKerrin,ȱ2004)ȱbyȱfocusingȱ onȱ theȱ socialȱ processesȱ underlyingȱ knowledgeȬbasedȱ interactions,ȱ beȱ itȱ theȱcommunitiesȱofȱpracticeȱapproachȱ(Brownȱ&ȱDuguid,ȱ1991),ȱtheȱsituȬ atedȱviewȱofȱlearningȱ(Laveȱ&ȱWenger,ȱ1991),ȱorȱtheȱideaȱtoȱgraspȱknowlȬ edgeȱmanagementȱasȱaȱsubȬformȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱ(Zornȱ &ȱ Taylor,ȱ 2003).ȱ Borgattiȱ andȱ Fosterȱ summarize:ȱ “Theȱ currentȱ mantraȱ isȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

57ȱ

thatȱ knowledgeȱ creationȱ andȱ utilizationȱ areȱ fundamentallyȱ humanȱ andȱ aboveȱallȱsocialȱprocesses”ȱ(Borgattiȱ&ȱFoster,ȱ2003:ȱ997).ȱ Inȱ projectȱ organizations,ȱ theȱ sharingȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ acrossȱ projects,ȱ sometimesȱreferredȱtoȱasȱprojectȬbasedȱlearningȱ(Ayasȱ&ȱZeniuk,ȱ2001;ȱKeeȬ ganȱ&ȱTurner,ȱ2001;ȱGarrickȱ&ȱClegg,ȱ2001),ȱorȱcrossȬprojectȱlearningȱ(NeȬ well,ȱ 2004)ȱ hasȱ gainedȱ increasingȱ importance.ȱ Drivenȱ byȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱidea,ȱandȱsuccessfullyȱcatalyzedȱbyȱmanagementȱconsultingȱ firms,ȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ haveȱ embracedȱ theȱ challengeȱ toȱ enforceȱ anȱ exchangeȱofȱexperiencesȱamongȱtheirȱemployeesȱonȱaȱcrossȬprojectȱlevel.ȱ Theseȱchangesȱincludeȱanȱemphasisȱonȱdigitalȱformsȱofȱdocumentationȱasȱ aȱ mediumȱ forȱ theȱ sharingȱ ofȱ projectȱ experiences,ȱ e.g.,ȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ docuȬ mentsȱsubmittedȱtoȱanȱelectronicȱdatabaseȱwhichȱisȱaccessibleȱtoȱorganiȬ zationalȱmembersȱ(Newellȱetȱal.,ȱ2006).ȱLearningȱeffectsȱthenȱareȱaimedȱtoȱ beȱ accomplishedȱ horizontallyȱ acrossȱ projectsȱ insteadȱ ofȱ verticallyȱ alongȱ establishedȱlinesȱofȱtheȱhierarchy.ȱ ȱ ȱ TheȱLearningȱValueȱFromȱFailureȱ Inȱaȱcriticalȱperspective,ȱexistingȱmodelsȱofȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱandȱ CPLȱareȱaccusedȱforȱbeingȱtooȱmuchȱfocusedȱonȱ“bestȱpractices”ȱorȱ“sucȬ cessȱ stories”ȱ (Swan,ȱ Newellȱ &ȱ Robertson,ȱ 1999),ȱ andȱ forȱ neglectingȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ learningȱ fromȱ pastȱ mistakesȱ madeȱ (Sitkin,ȱ 1992;ȱ Fortuneȱ &ȱ PeȬ ters,ȱ1995;ȱ Edmondson,ȱ1996;ȱVicariȱ &ȱTroilo,ȱ 1998;ȱCannonȱ &ȱEdmondȬ son,ȱ2005;ȱZhaoȱ&ȱOlivera,ȱ2006).ȱTheȱadvocatesȱofȱthisȱperspectiveȱreasonȱ thatȱsuccessfulȱlearningȱfromȱprojectȱexperienceȱrequiresȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱ pastȱmistakes,ȱforȱexampleȱinȱestablishingȱanȱanonymousȱerrorȬreportingȱ systemȱ(Weickȱ&ȱSutcliffe,ȱ2001;ȱZhaoȱ&ȱOlivera,ȱ2006).ȱThisȱviewȱonȱtheȱ learningȱ valueȱ fromȱ failureȱ originatesȱ inȱ Argyris’sȱ earlierȱ definitionȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ learningȱ asȱ theȱ “detectionȱ andȱ correctionȱ ofȱ errors,ȱ andȱ errorȱasȱanyȱfeatureȱofȱknowledgeȱorȱofȱknowingȱthatȱmakesȱactionȱinefȬ fective”ȱ(Argyris,ȱ1976:ȱ365;ȱcf.ȱArgyrisȱ&ȱSchön,ȱ1978).ȱFramedȱlikeȱthis,ȱ theȱ learningȬfromȬfailureȱ ideaȱ comesȱ closeȱ toȱ theȱ epistemologicalȱ princiȬ pleȱofȱfalsificationȱ(Popper,ȱ1959).ȱ

58

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

Theȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ learningȱ valueȱ fromȱ failureȱ isȱ supportedȱ byȱ emȬ piricalȱfindingsȱ“thatȱlearningȱfromȱrepeatedȱsuccessȱmakesȱfutureȱfailureȱ veryȱlikely.ȱLongȱperiodsȱofȱcontinuedȱsuccessȱfosterȱstructuralȱandȱstraȬ tegicȱ inertia,ȱ extremeȱ processȱ orientations,ȱ inattentionsȱ andȱ insularities”ȱ (Baumardȱ&ȱStarbuck,ȱ2005:ȱ283).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱcontinuousȱsuccessȱcanȱ hinderȱorganizationsȱfromȱdrawingȱattentionȱtoȱerroneousȱdevelopmentsȱ (cf.ȱ Argyris,ȱ 1976;ȱ 1992)ȱ andȱ toȱ takeȱ measuresȱ toȱ goȱ againstȱ anȱ inertiaȱ causedȱ byȱ aȱ relianceȱ onȱ theȱ continuityȱ ofȱ pastȱ successȱ (cf.ȱ Hedberg,ȱ Nyströmȱ &ȱ Starbuck,ȱ 1976;ȱ Miller,ȱ 1994;ȱ Starbuck,ȱ Barnettȱ &ȱ Baumard,ȱ forthcoming).ȱ Seenȱ thisȱ way,ȱ establishedȱ practicesȱ toȱ lookȱ forȱ “bestȱ caȬ ses”,ȱe.g.,ȱbyȱmeansȱofȱbenchmarkingȱtechniques25ȱdoȱnotȱnecessaryȱleadȱtoȱ positiveȱlearningȱeffects,ȱkeepingȱinȱmindȱtheȱlimitationsȱtoȱtheȱtransferȬ abilityȱ ofȱ “successȱ factors”ȱ (cf.ȱ Nicolaiȱ &ȱ Kieser,ȱ 2002)ȱ fromȱ oneȱ caseȱ toȱ theȱotherȱdueȱtoȱvaryingȱsituationalȱcircumstances.ȱInstead,ȱaȱcomparablyȱ higherȱlearningȱpotentialȱforȱorganizationsȱisȱassumedȱtoȱlieȱinȱaȱlearningȱ fromȱ“worstȱcases”ȱ(cf.ȱClarke,ȱ2005)ȱbyȱexploringȱtheȱlimitationsȱofȱtheirȱ ownȱ operations.26ȱ Thisȱ resemblesȱ March’sȱ assertionȱ thatȱ organizationsȱ requireȱ toȱ takeȱ theȱ libertyȱ ofȱ “foolishness”ȱ toȱ assureȱ theirȱ flexibilityȱ andȱ adaptabilityȱtoȱdynamicȱenvironmentsȱ(March,ȱ1988).ȱ Althoughȱseeminglyȱaȱcommonplace,ȱtheȱlearningȬfromȬfailureȱprinȬ cipleȱ isȱ farȱ fromȱ effectivelyȱ realizedȱ inȱ currentȱ organizationalȱ contextsȱ (Edmondson,ȱ 1996).ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱ inȱ anȱ empiricalȱ studyȱ conductedȱ atȱ formerlyȱ stateȬownedȱ organizationsȱ inȱ Russia,ȱ Michailovaȱ andȱ Hustedȱ showȱtheȱdifficultiesȱthatȱariseȱtoȱtheȱsharingȱexperiencesȱfromȱmistakesȱ madeȱinȱanȱenvironmentȱwhichȱisȱhostileȱtoȱknowledgeȱsharingȱ(MichailȬ ovaȱ &ȱ Husted,ȱ 2004).ȱ Inȱ aȱ recentȱ article,ȱ Baumardȱ andȱ Starbuckȱ (2005)ȱ investigateȱ largeȬscaleȱ failuresȱ inȱ aȱ telecommunicationsȱ firmȱ andȱ whyȱ thereȱhasȱbeenȱnoȱlearningȱfromȱfailures.ȱTheȱauthorsȱreportȱthatȱ“inȱonlyȱ 8ȱofȱtheȱ14ȱventuresȱwereȱanyȱproblemsȱreportedȱatȱall”ȱ(Baumardȱ&ȱStarȬ buck,ȱ2005:ȱ294).ȱTheyȱarriveȱatȱtheȱconclusion:ȱ 25ȱȱ SeeȱWalgenbachȱandȱHegeleȱ(2001)ȱforȱaȱcriticalȱaccountȱonȱbenchmarkingȱtechniques.ȱ 26ȱȱ Thisȱ isȱ comparableȱ toȱ theȱ wayȱ theȱ neurosciencesȱ haveȱ realizedȱ majorȱ achievementsȱ inȱ understandingȱ theȱ humanȱ brainȱ byȱ studyingȱ itsȱ malfunctioningȱ causedȱ byȱ eitherȱ conȬ genitalȱabnormalities,ȱtumors,ȱorȱaccidentsȱ(cf.ȱSacks,ȱ1987).ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

59ȱ

Itȱseemsȱthatȱlearningȱfromȱfailureȱisȱunlikelyȱtoȱoccurȱatȱallȱinȱaȱlarge,ȱdiviȬ sionalizedȱfirm.ȱBecauseȱotherȱpeopleȱassociateȱmanagersȱwithȱtheȱventuresȱ underȱtheirȱsupervision,ȱsuchȱmanagersȱresistȱanalysesȱthatȱmightȱholdȱthemȱ responsibleȱforȱerrorsȱorȱoversightsȱorȱfailedȱpromisesȱandȱtheyȱconcealȱtheȱ causeȱofȱfailure.ȱ(Baumardȱ&ȱStarbuck,ȱ2005:ȱ295)ȱ ȱ

Theȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱlearningȱvalueȱfromȱfailureȱcanȱbeȱlinkedȱbackȱtoȱtheȱ assertionȱbyȱLuhmannȱ(2000:ȱ64)ȱthatȱtheȱorganizationȱreliesȱonȱtheȱvisibiȬ lizationȱ ofȱ contingencyȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ assureȱ itsȱ existenceȱ inȱ theȱ longȱ run.ȱ Framedȱlikeȱthis,ȱLuhmann’sȱnotionȱofȱcontingencyȱalsoȱbecomesȱaȱreleȬ vantȱmatterȱforȱCPL.ȱMistakesȱandȱfailureȱcanȱopenȱupȱpathsȱforȱaȱrevelaȬ tionȱ ofȱ contingencies.ȱ Consequently,ȱ aȱ contingencyȬcenteredȱ modeȱ ofȱ CPLȱ wouldȱ involveȱ toȱ explicitlyȱ entailȱ aȱ communicationȱ ofȱ “theȱ subjecȬ tiveȱ andȱinterȬsubjectiveȱ experienceȱ ofȱ ambiguity,ȱ doubt,ȱ confusion,ȱ andȱ conflict”ȱ(Garrickȱ&ȱClegg,ȱ2001:ȱ124).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱaȱcriticalȱreflectionȱ onȱtheȱprojectȱprocessȱwouldȱinvolveȱtoȱhighlightȱthatȱtheȱparticularȱpathȱȱ chosenȱdidȱnotȱrepresentȱtheȱonlyȱpossibleȱwayȱandȱthatȱthereȱmightȱhaveȱ beenȱbetterȱones.ȱItȱisȱassumedȱhereȱthatȱexactlyȱthisȱotherȱsideȱofȱtheȱdeciȬ sionȱprocess,ȱitsȱalternativity,ȱcanȱbeȱvaluableȱforȱsimilarȱfutureȱprojects.ȱȱ

TheȱProjectȱOrganization’sȱMemoryȱandȱCrossȬProjectȱForgetfulnessȱ Inȱ hisȱ monographȱ onȱ theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ organizations,ȱ Luhmannȱ pointsȱ toȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ asȱ aȱ criticalȱ typeȱ ofȱ organizationȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱbyȱwonderingȱhowȱ“theȱprojectȱ organizationȱsurvivesȱitsȱownȱprojects”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ273;ȱownȱtransȬ lation).ȱ Luhmannȱ linksȱ thisȱ issueȱ toȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ memȬ ory:ȱ “Howȱ canȱ projectȱ experiencesȱ beȱ rememberedȱ andȱ madeȱ usefulȱ forȱ subsequentȱprojects?ȱProjectȬbasedȱorganizationsȱpayȱforȱtheirȱhighȱvariȬ etyȱofȱtasksȱwithȱhighȱratesȱofȱforgetting.ȱCompletedȱprojectȱareȱforgotten,ȱ althoughȱtheyȱfurthermoreȱcouldȱprovideȱusefulȱexperiences”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ273;ȱownȱtranslation).ȱTheseȱquestionsȱareȱgroundedȱonȱhisȱunderȬ standingȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ asȱ processorsȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ andȱ theirȱ continȬ gency:ȱIfȱorganizationsȱrelyȱonȱtheȱselfȬreproductionȱofȱtheirȱexperiencesȱ

60

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

andȱtheȱdecisionsȱinherentȱtoȱthem,ȱhowȱisȱthisȱproblemȱsolvedȱinȱprojectȱ organizations?ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱquestionȱarisesȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱprojectȱorgaȬ nizationsȱ canȱ developȱ anȱ organizationalȱ memoryȱ (Walshȱ &ȱ Ungson,ȱ 1991;ȱ Olivera,ȱ 2000)ȱ whichȱ goesȱ beyondȱ theȱ individualȱ memoriesȱ ofȱ theȱ proȬ ject’sȱparticipants.ȱȱ Theȱ specialȱ conditionsȱ ofȱorganizationalȱ autopoiesisȱandȱ theȱ visibilȬ ityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ canȱ beȱ understoodȱ moreȱthoroughlyȱifȱweȱintroduceȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱdecisionȱcommuȬ nicationȱandȱorganizationalȱinteractionsȱasȱoutlinedȱbyȱSeidlȱ(2006b).ȱInȱtheȱ TSSȱframework,ȱinteractionsȱareȱephemeralȱepisodesȱofȱcommunication27ȱ whichȱ requireȱ theȱ synchronousȱ andȱ physicalȱ coȬpresenceȱ ofȱ individualsȱ involvedȱ(Kieserling,ȱ1999).ȱOrganizationalȱinteractionsȱdifferȱfromȱdeciȬ sionȱ communicationȱ inȱ thatȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ directlyȱ proceedȱ decisionsȱ butȱ canȱbecomeȱsubjectȱtoȱdecisionsȱlaterȱonȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ148).ȱTheȱtermȱthenȱ encompassesȱallȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱoccurringȱinȱtheȱorganizationalȱ settingsȱwhich,ȱhowever,ȱonlyȱindirectlyȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱsystem’sȱautoȬ poiesisȱconsistingȱofȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱasȱtheȱbasicȱoperation.ȱSeidlȱ goesȱbeyondȱLuhmannȱwhenȱheȱassertsȱthatȱ“mostȱcommunicationsȱ[ocȬ curringȱ inȱ organizations]ȱ –ȱ evenȱ inȱ formalȱ meetingsȱ –ȱ areȱ nonȬdecisionȱ communications”ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ149).ȱ Seidlȱarguesȱthatȱdecisionsȱareȱusedȱinȱbothȱsystemȱtypes,ȱorganizaȬ tionsȱandȱinteractions,ȱbutȱtheyȱhaveȱdifferentȱmeaningsȱinȱbothȱofȱthese:ȱȱ ȱ Inȱtheȱinteractionȱ[theȱdecision]ȱhasȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱotherȱ interactionalȱcommunicationsȱ–ȱinȱreactionȱtoȱwhatȱotherȱinteractionalȱcomȬ municationsȱ canȱ follow.ȱ Inȱ theȱ interactionȱ oneȱ isȱ interestedȱ inȱ whoȱ saidȱ what,ȱ inȱ responseȱ toȱ whom,ȱ withȱ whatȱ reactionsȱ toȱ others.ȱ (...).ȱ Forȱ theȱ orȬ ganizationȱtheȱcommunicationȱhasȱaȱveryȱdifferentȱmeaning.ȱItȱhasȱtoȱbeȱunȬ derstoodȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ otherȱ decisionsȱ whichȱ mightȱ evenȱ lieȱ outsideȱ theȱ interaction:ȱearlierȱdecisionsȱthatȱservedȱasȱdecisionȱpremisesȱandȱlaterȱdeciȬ sionsȱ forȱ whichȱ thisȱ decisionȱ servesȱ asȱ decisionȱ premise.ȱ (Seidl,ȱ 2006b:ȱ 157;ȱ emphasisȱinȱoriginal)ȱ

ȱ 27ȱȱ CompareȱtoȱHendryȱandȱSeidl’sȱworkȱonȱstrategicȱepisodesȱinȱorganizationsȱ(Hendryȱ&ȱ Seidl,ȱ2003).ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

61ȱ

ThisȱalsoȱhasȱimplicationsȱforȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCV:ȱȱ ȱ Whatȱ countsȱ forȱ theȱ furtherȱ decisionȱ processȱ isȱ theȱ decidedȱ alternative,ȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ theȱ decisionȱ andȱ theȱ uncertaintyȱ involvedȱ inȱ itȱ areȱ irrelevantȱ orȱ absorbedȱ (cf.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 193).ȱ Forȱ theȱ interaction,ȱ inȱ contrast,ȱ itȱ isȱ exȬ actlyȱtheseȱpersonalȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱcommunicationȱthatȱareȱimportantȱandȱinȱ theȱcontinuationȱofȱtheȱinteractionalȱcommunicationȱthisȱpersonalȱaspectȱwillȱ beȱreferredȱtoȱ(...).ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ158;ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal)ȱ

Inȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ interconnectionȱ betweenȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ andȱ organizationalȱinteractions,ȱSeidlȱderivesȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱinteractionsȱ canȱ regulateȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ extentȱ whatȱ kindȱ ofȱ communicationȱ becomesȱ observableȱ forȱ theȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ decisionȱ processingȱ systemȱ (Seidl,ȱ 2006b:ȱ160).ȱHowever,ȱheȱalsoȱemphasizesȱthatȱtheȱ“interactionȱcanȱonlyȱ makeȱ ‘suggestions’ȱ toȱ theȱ organizationȱ butȱ itȱ cannotȱ determineȱ whatȱ communicationsȱareȱobservedȱandȱhowȱtheyȱareȱobserved”ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ 160).ȱ Suggestionsȱ likeȱ thisȱ areȱ realizedȱ inȱ organizationalȱ interactionsȱ byȱ ‘marking’ȱ orȱ ‘flaggingȱ out’ȱ sharedȱ elementsȱ betweenȱ organizationsȱ andȱ theirȱ interactions:ȱ “Theȱ interactionȱ canȱ highlightȱ certainȱ ‘culminationȱ points’ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1993:ȱ339)ȱinȱtheȱflowȱofȱinteractionalȱcommunicationsȱ inȱorderȱtoȱsignalȱtoȱtheȱorganizationȱpossibleȱpointsȱofȱconnection.ȱSuchȱ markersȱcouldȱbeȱanȱexplicitȱdeclarationȱofȱaȱcommunicationȱasȱdecisionȱ–ȱ ‘Iȱthusȱconclude:ȱweȱhaveȱreachedȱtheȱdecisionȱto…’“ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ161).ȱ TheȱstructuresȱestablishedȱforȱthisȱpurposeȱcanȱbeȱtheorizedȱasȱrepreȬ sentingȱtheȱorganization’sȱmemory.ȱInȱaȱclassicalȱunderstanding,ȱWalshȱandȱ Ungsonȱ defineȱ organizationalȱ memoryȱ asȱ aȱ constructȱ “composedȱ ofȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ itsȱ retentionȱ facilities,ȱ theȱ informationȱ containedȱ inȱ it,ȱ theȱ processesȱ ofȱ informationȱ acquisitionȱ andȱ retrieval,ȱ andȱ itsȱ consequentialȱ effects”ȱ (Walshȱ &ȱ Ungson,ȱ 1991:ȱ 61).ȱ Luhmannȱ differsȱ fromȱ thisȱ underȬ standingȱinȱ statingȱ thatȱ memoryȱ muchȱmoreȱ equalsȱaȱ controlȱ procedureȱ whichȱ enablesȱ organizationsȱ toȱ distinguishȱ betweenȱ whatȱ isȱ worthȱ reȬ memberingȱandȱwhatȱisȱworthȱforgettingȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ158).ȱAccordȬ ingȱtoȱLuhmannȱ(1996;ȱ2000),ȱtheȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱfunctionȱofȱmemoryȱ

62

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

isȱforgetting;28ȱotherwiseȱtheȱorganizationȱwouldȱbeȱparalyzedȱbyȱitsȱownȱ historicalȱredundancies:29ȱȱ ȱ (...)ȱ organizationsȱ tendȱ toȱ rememberȱ onlyȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱtoȱforgetȱtheȱconcreteȱdevelopments.ȱThisȱradicalȱforgettingȱ–ȱalthoughȱaȱ lotȱ ofȱ potentiallyȱ ‘useful’ȱ referencesȱ toȱ earlierȱ situationsȱ getȱ lostȱ –ȱ isȱ necesȬ saryȱforȱtheȱorganizationȱsoȱthatȱitsȱcapacityȱforȱinformationȱprocessingȱdoesȱ notȱgetȱcloggedȱupȱ(...).ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ166)ȱȱ ȱ

Consequently,ȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ presumedȱ thatȱ theȱ organizationȱ doesȱ notȱ necesȬ sarilyȱneedȱaȱfullȱorȱ’real’ȱvisibilityȱ(inȱtheȱsenseȱofȱcorrespondence)ȱofȱitsȱ decisionsȱ andȱ contingenciesȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ proceedȱ itsȱ autopoiesisȱ (Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ156).ȱInȱorderȱtoȱinterconnectȱoneȱdecisionȱtoȱtheȱnext,ȱitȱ isȱsufficientȱforȱtheȱorganizationȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱreferȱatȱleastȱtoȱsomeȱcomȬ municativeȱ episodes,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ retrospectivelyȱ definedȱ asȱ havingȱ beenȱ deciȬ sions.ȱ Thisȱ againȱ pointsȱ toȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ andȱ organizationalȱ interactions:ȱ “Theȱ memoryȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȱremembersȱonlyȱdecisionsȱandȱforgetsȱeverythingȱelse.ȱTheȱ memoryȱofȱtheȱinteractionȱandȱitsȱparticipants,ȱinȱcontrast,ȱisȱconditionedȱ inȱ aȱ totallyȱ differentȱ way.ȱ Theyȱ mightȱ rememberȱ theȱ processȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ resultȱ andȱ theȱ defeatedȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ finallyȱ victoriousȱ candidates”ȱ (Kieserling,ȱ1999:ȱ385;ȱtranslatedȱbyȱSeidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ167).30ȱ

28ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Luhmann,ȱ thisȱ understandingȱ doesȱ notȱ onlyȱ applyȱ toȱ theȱ organizationalȱ memoryȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱmind’sȱmemoryȱ(cf.ȱLuhmann,ȱ1996).ȱ 29ȱȱ Onȱ anȱ economicȱ level,ȱ thisȱ canȱ beȱ comparedȱ toȱ Schumpeter’sȱ notionȱ ofȱ “creativeȱ deȬ struction”ȱnecessaryȱforȱinnovationȱ(Schumpeter,ȱ1943:ȱ83ff.).ȱ 30ȱȱ Seidlȱ concludesȱ thatȱ organizationalȱ interactionsȱ canȱ serveȱ anȱ externalizedȱ memoryȱ functionȱforȱtheȱorganization:ȱ“IfȱaȱdecisionȱisȱdiscussedȱwithinȱorganizationalȱinteracȬ tions,ȱtheȱparticipantsȱareȱlikelyȱtoȱdrawȱonȱpastȱexperiencesȱinȱconnectionȱwithȱsimilarȱ decisionȱ situations,ȱ argumentsȱ theyȱ mightȱ haveȱ hadȱ previouslyȱ aboutȱ similarȱ things.ȱ AlthoughȱtheseȱcommunicationsȱareȱinconceivableȱforȱtheȱorganizationȱtheyȱhaveȱanȱefȬ fectȱonȱtheȱcommunicationȱthatȱultimatelyȱwillȱbeȱinterpretedȱbyȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱitsȱ ownȱdecisionȱandȱwillȱthusȱhaveȱanȱeffectȱonȱtheȱorganizationalȱautopoiesis.ȱOrganizaȬ tionsȱ might,ȱ inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱ instrumentaliseȱ interactionsȱ forȱ rememberingȱ whatȱ theyȱ themselvesȱhaveȱforgotten”ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ167).ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

63ȱ

Theseȱconsiderationsȱhighlightȱthatȱorganizations,ȱandȱwithȱthis,ȱalsoȱ projectȱ organizations,ȱ seemȱ toȱ requireȱ aȱ certainȱ forgetfulnessȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ remainȱ functional.ȱ Whileȱ individualsȱ orȱ interactionsȱ tendȱ toȱ rememberȱ theȱprocessȱofȱdecisionȱmaking,ȱorganizationsȱinsteadȱseemȱtoȱrememberȱ onlyȱtheȱresultsȱofȱthisȱprocess.ȱOrganizationalȱmemoryȱusuallyȱdoesȱnotȱ keepȱ trackȱ ofȱ whyȱ decisionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ madeȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 154).ȱ Theȱ systemȱ doesȱ notȱ coordinateȱ whichȱ alternativesȱ wereȱ consideredȱ andȱ whichȱnotȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ156).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱȱ ȱ [organizationalȱ memory]ȱ forgetsȱ theȱ generallyȱ underlyingȱ uncertainty,ȱ unlessȱ itȱ hasȱ becomeȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ decisionȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ doubtsȱ orȱ reservaȬ tions.ȱButȱitȱforgetsȱalsoȱtheȱnumerousȱcontributingȱdecisionsȱ(theȱinvitationȱ toȱaȱmeeting,ȱtheȱunsuccessfulȱattemptsȱatȱpushingȱthroughȱaȱrequest);ȱitȱreȬ pressesȱ alsoȱ mostȱ ofȱ whatȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ autopoiesisȱ ofȱ theȱ system.ȱ Byȱ andȱ largeȱ (...)ȱ itȱ onlyȱ retainsȱ whatȱ laterȱ decisionsȱ drawȱ uponȱ asȱ decisionȱ premises.ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 193;ȱ translatedȱ byȱ Seidl,ȱ 2006b:ȱ 166;ȱ footnoteȱȱ omitted)ȱ ȱ

Withȱ this,ȱ Luhmannȱ (2000)ȱ pointsȱ toȱ aȱ centralȱ tensionȱ inȱ organizations:ȱ Theȱorganization’sȱautopoiesis,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱneedsȱtoȱassureȱaȱvisibiȬ lizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱorderȱtoȱconnectȱepisodesȱofȱdecisionȱ communicationȱ toȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Theȱ organization’sȱ memory,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ tendsȱ toȱ forgetȱ theȱ contingencyȱ inherentȱ toȱ decisionsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ avoidȱtoȱbecomeȱblockedȱbyȱfacingȱcontradictingȱandȱparadoxȱcontingenȬ cies.ȱ Ifȱ appliedȱ toȱ projectȱ organizations,ȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ andȱ organizationalȱ interactionsȱ (Seidl,ȱ 2006b)ȱ allowsȱ forȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ thatȱ projectsȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ establishȱ aȱ (temporary)ȱ systemicȱ borderȱ whichȱ distinguishesȱ theȱ projectȱ team’sȱ communicationȱ fromȱ theȱ restȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱwhichȱinsteadȱbecomesȱitsȱenvironment.ȱTheȱdisȬ tinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱprojectȱandȱtheȱoverarchingȱorganization,ȱhowever,ȱ complicatesȱtheȱsharingȱofȱexperiencesȱinȱprojectsȱacrossȱtheȱorganization.ȱ Similarlyȱ toȱ theȱ humanȱ mind’sȱ closureȱ toȱ itsȱ environmentȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2002),ȱtheȱprojectȱsystem’sȱexperienceȱbecomesȱaȱsystemȬinherentȱfeatureȱ whichȱcondensesȱinȱitsȱcoreȱoperations,ȱtheȱcommunicationȱofȱdecisions.ȱ

64

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

Knowledgeȱinherentȱ toȱ theȱ project,ȱ generatedȱ inȱ theȱprojectȱ processȱ andȱ manifestedȱonȱaȱsocialȱlevel,ȱcanȱhardlyȱ’leave’ȱtheȱprojectȱasȱaȱsocialȱsysȬ tem,ȱitȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱsubjectȱtoȱoutsideȱobservationȱbyȱmeansȱofȱcommuniȬ cativeȱvisibilization.ȱȱ Takenȱ together,ȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ DCVȱ canȱ beȱ translatedȱ intoȱ aȱ concreteȱ andȱpracticalȱproblem:ȱHowȱcanȱtheȱprojectȱorganizationȱestablishȱaȱsusȬ tainableȱsharingȱofȱexperiencesȱacrossȱprojectsȱwhichȱtakesȱtheȱcontingenȬ ciesȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ facedȱ inȱ projectsȱ intoȱ account?ȱ Howȱ toȱ leverageȱ CPLȱ processesȱ basedȱ onȱ thisȱ contingency,ȱ e.g.,ȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ alternativesȱ considered,ȱ sideȬpathsȱ openedȱ up,ȱ orȱ mistakesȱ made?ȱ Asȱ arguedȱabove,ȱ theȱissueȱofȱDCVȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱespeciallyȱsalientȱinȱprojectȬbasedȱorganiȬ zations.ȱTheȱnextȱsectionȱaimsȱtoȱshowȱthatȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱisȱevenȱmoreȱ soȱ atȱ stakeȱ inȱ consultingȱ firms,ȱ aȱ specificȱ subȬtypeȱ ofȱ projectȱ organizaȬ tions.ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.1.3 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱConsultingȱFirmsȱ TheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱisȱassumedȱtoȱgainȱadditionalȱrelevanceȱifȱsetȱinȱrelationȱ toȱaȱmoreȱspecificȱformȱofȱprojectȱorganizations:ȱtheȱconsultingȱfirm.ȱConȬ sultingȱfirmsȱgenerateȱtheirȱrevenuesȱfromȱprovidingȱprofessionalȱadviceȱ toȱtheȱmanagementȱofȱotherȱfirmsȱorȱnonȬcommercialȱorganizations.ȱMostȱ typically,ȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ organizeȱ theirȱ workȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ projectsȱ (cf.ȱ Kochȱ &ȱ Bendixen,ȱ 2005),ȱ i.e.,ȱ byȱ aȱ continuousȱ recombinationȱ ofȱ consultȬ antsȱtoȱfulfillȱcertainȱtasksȱforȱaȱlimitedȱtimeȱframe.ȱInȱpastȱyears,ȱtheȱconȬ sultingȱbusinessȱhasȱachievedȱaȱsteepȱrateȱofȱgrowthȱwhichȱisȱpresumedȱ toȱ continueȱ inȱ futureȱ yearsȱ (Kipping,ȱ 2002;ȱ Lünendonk,ȱ 2006).ȱ Inȱ conseȬ quence,ȱLundinȱandȱSöderholmȱhypothesizeȱthatȱtheȱWesternȱeconomiesȱ headȱ towardsȱ becomingȱ “projectifiedȱ societies”ȱ (Lundinȱ &ȱ Söderholm,ȱ 1998).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ aȱ particularȱ tradeȬoffȱ betweenȱ knowledgeȱ manȬ agementȱ andȱ impressionȱ managementȱ inȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ isȱ hypotheȬ sizedȱandȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCV.31ȱ 31ȱȱ ThisȱspecificȱtradeȬoffȱisȱinvestigatedȱinȱmoreȱdetailȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱisȱreȬvisitedȱfromȱ theȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoinȱ(cf.ȱ3.2.3).ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

65ȱ

ConsultingȱFirmsȱandȱKnowledgeȱManagementȱ Projectȱ work,ȱ asȱ shownȱ inȱ theȱ precedentȱ chapter,ȱ createsȱ specialȱ condiȬ tionsȱforȱtheȱproblemȱofȱDCVȱifȱseenȱfromȱtheȱorganizationsȱasȱcommuniȬ cationsȱ perspective.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱ unclearȱ howȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ manageȱ toȱ establishȱ aȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ continȬ gencyȱ acrossȱ projectsȱ andȱ withȱ this,ȱ acrossȱ theȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ (Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ273).ȱBecauseȱofȱtheȱdistributedȱnatureȱofȱdecisionȱproȬ cessesȱandȱknowledgeȱcreationȱinȱprojectȱorganizations,ȱconsultingȱfirmsȱ haveȱalsoȱbeenȱatȱtheȱforefrontȱtoȱdevelopȱprocessesȱofȱknowledgeȱmanageȬ mentȱ whichȱ aimȱ toȱ promoteȱ anȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ acrossȱ projectsȱ (Werrȱ&ȱStjernberg,ȱ2003;ȱBogenriederȱ&ȱNooteboom,ȱ2004).ȱȱ Inȱ theȱ sameȱ context,ȱ Werrȱ andȱ Stjernbergȱ pointȱ outȱ thatȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ differȱ inȱ theirȱ assumptionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ transferabilityȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ haveȱ establishedȱ fundamentallyȱ varyingȱ typesȱ ofȱ knowlȬ edgeȱ managementȱ systemsȱ (Werrȱ &ȱ Stjernberg,ȱ 2003:ȱ 883).ȱ ITȱ focusedȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ suchȱ asȱ Accentureȱ orȱ Capgeminiȱ followȱ aȱ knowledgeȱ asȱ theoryȱapproachȱwhichȱassumesȱaȱgeneralȱtransferabilityȱofȱknowledgeȱinȱ codifiedȱformȱ(Prencipeȱ&ȱTell,ȱ2001;ȱZolloȱ&ȱWinter,ȱ2002):ȱHence,ȱtheseȱ firmsȱconcentrateȱonȱelectronicȱdatabasesȱwhichȱcollectȱdigitalȱdocumentsȱ aimingȱtoȱpreserveȱtheȱknowledgeȱgeneratedȱinȱprojectsȱandȱshareȱthemȱ acrossȱ projects.ȱ Thisȱ approachȱ favorsȱ aȱ commodificationȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ intoȱ“packages”ȱ(Heusinkveldȱ&ȱBenders,ȱ2005:ȱ285).ȱȱ Inȱcontrast,ȱstrategyȱconsultingȱfirmsȱsuchȱasȱMcKinseyȱ&ȱCompanyȱ orȱ Theȱ Bostonȱ Consultingȱ Groupȱ tendȱ toȱ followȱ aȱ knowledgeȱ asȱ practiceȱ approachȱ whichȱ ratherȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ tacitȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ (Nonakaȱ&ȱTakeuchi,ȱ1995).ȱTheȱtacitȱcharacterȱascribedȱtoȱknowledgeȱisȱ theȱreasonȱwhyȱknowledgeȱcannotȱbeȱeasilyȱsharedȱbecauseȱknowledgeȱisȱ assumedȱtoȱbeȱinherentȱtoȱworkȱprocessesȱandȱpractices.ȱInȱconsequence,ȱ theseȱ companiesȱ concentrateȱ onȱ processesȱ whichȱ allowȱ forȱ aȱ directȱ andȱ personalȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ insteadȱ ofȱ aȱ rigidȱ projectȱ documentaȬ tion,ȱ asȱ mostȱ prominentlyȱ suggestedȱ inȱ theȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ practiceȱ apȬ proachȱ(Laveȱ&ȱWenger,ȱ1991;ȱBrownȱ&ȱDuguid,ȱ1991).ȱThisȱconceptȱsugȬ gestsȱtoȱpromoteȱthatȱorganizationalȱmembersȱgetȱdirectlyȱinȱtouchȱwithȱ

66

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

eachȱ other,ȱ independentȱ fromȱ divisionalȱ affiliationȱ orȱ existingȱ personalȱ networks,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱexchangeȱtheirȱexpertiseȱconcerningȱspecificȱtopicsȱ theyȱareȱinterestedȱin.ȱHowever,ȱtheseȱstrategyȱconsultingȱfirmsȱalsoȱrelyȱ onȱ documentedȱ formsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ toȱ complementȱ theȱ sharingȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱacrossȱtheirȱemployeesȱ(cf.ȱHansen,ȱNohriaȱ&ȱTierney,ȱ1999).ȱ ȱ ȱ ConsultingȱFirmsȱandȱImpressionȱManagementȱ Asȱ Werrȱ andȱ Stjernbergȱ (2003)ȱ highlight,ȱ theȱ specialȱ focusȱ ofȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ onȱ practicesȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ isȱ presumedȱ toȱ goȱ alongȱ withȱ aȱ specialȱ affinityȱ toȱ techniquesȱ ofȱ impressionȱ management,ȱ asȱ well:ȱ “Allȱ knowledgeȱ workersȱ areȱ concernedȱ thatȱ potentialȱ clientsȱ orȱ stakeȬ holdersȱ willȱ ‘buy’ȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ (orȱ itsȱ applications)ȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ toȱ offer”ȱ (Legge,ȱ 2002:ȱ 76).ȱ Theȱ valueȱ creationȱ fromȱ aȱ purelyȱ serviceȬbasedȱ workȱ canȱ presumedȱ toȱ haveȱ enforcedȱ theȱ tendencyȱ toȱ establishȱ sellingȱ strategiesȱwhichȱallowȱforȱaȱmanagementȱofȱimpressionsȱratherȱthanȱtheȱ managementȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ expertise.ȱ Thisȱ estimationȱ linksȱ backȱ toȱ researchȱwhichȱdrawsȱonȱaȱcriticalȱperspectiveȱonȱtheȱconsultingȱbusinessȱ (e.g.,ȱ Clark,ȱ 1995;ȱ Clarkȱ &ȱ Salaman,ȱ 1996;ȱ Kieser,ȱ 1997;ȱ Sturdy,ȱ 1997;ȱ Wrightȱ&ȱKitay,ȱ2002;ȱClarkȱ&ȱFincham,ȱ2002;ȱSalaman,ȱ2002;ȱHabscheidȱ &ȱWeik,ȱ2003;ȱArmbrüster,ȱ2004;ȱCollins,ȱ2004).ȱ TheȱconceptȱofȱimpressionȱmanagementȱoriginatesȱinȱsocialȱpsycholȬ ogyȱ(Goffman,ȱ1959;ȱJonesȱ&ȱWortman,ȱ1973;ȱTedeschiȱ&ȱMelburg,ȱ1984)ȱ andȱhasȱbeenȱappliedȱtoȱorganizationalȱcontexts,ȱasȱwellȱ(e.g.,ȱGardnerȱ&ȱ Martinko,ȱ1996;ȱElsbachȱ&ȱSutton,ȱ1992;ȱSosikȱ&ȱJung,ȱ2003).ȱAccordingȱtoȱ Goffman,ȱ allȱ humanȱ interactionȱ involvesȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ “selfȬpresentation”,ȱ “secrecy”,ȱ andȱ “politicalȱ gamesmanship”ȱ (Forster,ȱ 1994:ȱ 150).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱtheȱimpressionȱmanagementȱconceptȱrelatesȱtoȱstrategiesȱinȱuseȱbyȱ individualsȱtoȱcontrolȱtheȱimpressionsȱtheyȱgiveȱoffȱinȱorderȱtoȱfavorablyȱ influenceȱ attributionsȱ madeȱ byȱ targetȱ personsȱ (cf.ȱ Jonesȱ &ȱ Wortman,ȱ 1973).ȱMcCloskeyȱandȱKlamerȱevenȱaffirmȱthatȱpersuasiveȱformsȱofȱcomȬ municationȱ accountȱ forȱ oneȱ quarterȱ ofȱ theȱ USȱ grossȱ domesticȱ productȱ (McCloskeyȱ&ȱKlamer,ȱ1995).ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱ

67ȱ

Inȱ itsȱ originalȱ framingȱ byȱ Goffmanȱ (1959),ȱ theȱ impressionȱ manageȬ mentȱ conceptȱ isȱ closelyȱ connectedȱ toȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ frontstageȱ andȱ backstageȱ modesȱ ofȱ communicationȱ whatȱ heȱ assumesȱ toȱ beȱ permaȬ nentlyȱpresentȱinȱeverydayȱcommunication.ȱDerivedȱfromȱanȱanalogyȱtoȱ theȱ theaterȱ stage,ȱ Goffmanȱ distinguishesȱ twoȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ socialȱ lifeȱ –ȱ oneȱ ofȱ whichȱ takesȱ placeȱ “onȱ theȱ scene”ȱ (frontstage)ȱ andȱ oneȱ ofȱ whichȱ takesȱ placeȱ “behindȱ theȱ scene”ȱ (backstage).ȱ Inȱ backstageȱ settings,ȱ theȱ subjectȱ isȱ saferȱ and,ȱ hence,ȱ canȱ riskȱ aȱ moreȱ vulnerableȱ communication.ȱ Theȱ frontstageȱ insteadȱ hasȱ aȱ moreȱ publicȱ orientationȱ andȱ fostersȱ riskȬ avoidingȱbehavior.ȱBeingȱonȱfrontstage,ȱhumanȱactorsȱaimȱtoȱcontrolȱtheȱ impressionsȱtheyȱgiveȱoffȱandȱtoȱcontrolȱhowȱothersȱwillȱrelateȱtoȱthem.ȱȱ Impressionȱ managementȱ inȱ organizationsȱ (cf.ȱ Gardnerȱ &ȱ Martinko,ȱ 1988;ȱElsbachȱ&ȱSutton,ȱ1992;ȱSosikȱ&ȱJung,ȱ2003)ȱthenȱrefersȱtoȱstrategiesȱ byȱmeansȱofȱwhichȱindividualsȱaimȱtoȱcontrolȱtheirȱfrontstageȱimageȱandȱ perceptionsȱ inȱ organizationalȱ settings.ȱ Sturdyȱ (1997)ȱ highlightsȱ thatȱ theȱ consultingȱ business’sȱ affinityȱ toȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ impressionȱ managementȱ correspondsȱwithȱanȱinsecurityȱandȱambiguityȱinherentȱtoȱtheȱcontingentȱ formȱofȱserviceȱwork.ȱAlvessonȱ(1993)ȱasȱwellȱasȱGlücklerȱandȱArmbüsterȱ (2003)ȱpointȱoutȱthatȱbusinessesȱlikeȱconsultingȱfaceȱtheȱconstantȱnecessityȱ ofȱ legitimization.ȱ Therefore,ȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ tendȱ toȱ investȱ effortsȱ inȱ creatingȱ credibilityȱ byȱ avoidingȱ ambiguitiesȱ andȱ creatingȱ anȱ impressionȱ ofȱconsistency,ȱespeciallyȱinȱcommunicationȱaboutȱtheirȱactions.ȱȱ Inȱthisȱcontext,ȱitȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱemphasizedȱthatȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱstudiesȱ inȱtheȱfieldȱdoesȱnotȱdemonizeȱstrategiesȱofȱimpressionȱmanagementȱbutȱ treatsȱthemȱasȱsocialȱfactsȱnecessaryȱforȱtheȱstabilizationȱofȱorganizationsȱ asȱcommunicativeȱsystemsȱ(cf.ȱSosikȱ&ȱJung,ȱ2003).ȱMoreover,ȱitȱisȱimporȬ tantȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱfrontstageȬbackstageȱdistinctionȱisȱinherentlyȱrelativȬ istic:ȱ Theȱ sameȱ situationȱ canȱ beȱ interpretedȱ asȱ backstageȱ orȱ frontstageȱ settingȱ dependingȱ onȱ theȱ perspective.ȱ Whileȱ anȱ internalȱ meetingȱ whereȱ onlyȱ companyȱ membersȱ areȱ allowedȱ toȱ takeȱ partȱ isȱ clearlyȱ aȱ backstageȱ settingȱ ifȱ seenȱ fromȱ outsideȱ theȱ organization.ȱ Seenȱ fromȱ insideȱ theȱ orȬ ganization,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ insteadȱ representȱ aȱ frontstageȱ andȱ becomesȱ subjectȱ toȱapplyingȱtechniquesȱofȱimpressionȱmanagement.ȱȱ ȱ

68

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

TheȱTradeȬOffȱBetweenȱKnowledgeȱManagementȱandȱImpressionȱ Managementȱ Asȱarguedȱinȱthisȱchapter,ȱconsultingȱfirmsȱnotȱonlyȱseemȱtoȱheavilyȱrelyȱ onȱ projectȱ work,ȱ theyȱ alsoȱ faceȱ specialȱ demandsȱ inȱ controllingȱ theȱ imȬ pressionsȱ theyȱ giveȱ offȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ closeȱ environmentalȱ couplingȱ withȱtheirȱclientsȱ(cf.ȱCzarniawskaȱ&ȱMazza,ȱ2003).ȱThisȱcanȱbeȱpresumedȱ toȱ createȱ aȱ tradeȬoffȱ situationȱ betweenȱ impressionȱ managementȱ andȱ knowledgeȬorientedȱ modesȱ ofȱ communicationȱ whichȱ willȱ guideȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ communicationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ DCV.ȱ Theȱ dominanceȱ ofȱ frontȬ stageȱ situationsȱ inȱ consultingȱ work,ȱ forȱ exampleȱ projectȱ presentationsȱ heldȱinȱmeetingsȱwithȱclients,ȱcanȱbeȱassumedȱtoȱfosterȱmodesȱofȱimpresȬ sionȱmanagementȱwhich,ȱinȱturn,ȱcanȱalsoȱmediateȱtheȱwayȱcommunicaȬ tionȱ isȱ heldȱ inȱ backstageȱ settingsȱ ofȱ theȱ organization,ȱ e.g.,ȱ inȱ organizaȬ tionalȱinteractionsȱbetweenȱcolleagues.ȱInȱaȱtermȱborrowedȱbyȱHabermasȱ (1987:ȱ332),ȱthisȱprocessȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱaȱanȱinternalȱcolonizationȱ ofȱbackstageȱsettingsȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱbyȱfrontstageȱmodesȱofȱcommuȬ nication.ȱ However,ȱ strategiesȱ ofȱimpressionȱ managementȱ mayȱ undermineȱefȬ fortsȱ ofȱ DCVȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time.ȱ Inȱ theȱ aimȱ toȱ controlȱ someone’sȱ impresȬ sionȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱaȱgoodȱreputationȱinȱinteractionsȱwithȱtheȱclient,ȱindiȬ vidualsȱmayȱtendȱtoȱmaskȱalternativesȱconsideredȱandȱmistakesȱmadeȱinȱ theȱprojectȱprocess.ȱAȱconsistentȱstorylineȱmayȱprevailȱoverȱaȱcontingentȱ presentationȱ inȱ projectȱ documents.ȱ Forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ ourȱ study,ȱ thisȱ impliesȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ communicativeȱ conditionsȱ inȱ projectȱ organizaȬ tionsȱwithȱaȱspecialȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱinterrelationsȱbetweenȱcommunicaȬ tiveȱ settingsȱ (frontstageȱ vs.ȱ backstage)ȱ andȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingency.ȱ Theȱ tradeȬoffȱ betweenȱ impressionȱ andȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ representsȱanȱadditionalȱdistinctionȱwhichȱwillȱguideȱtheȱfurtherȱanalysisȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ communicationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 3.2)ȱandȱwillȱbeȱresumedȱinȱaȱsynthesisȱofȱtheȱtwoȱsidesȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱ(cf.ȱ chapterȱ3.3).ȱTheȱnextȱpartȱofȱtheȱtheoreticalȱanalysisȱparticularlyȱconcenȬ tratesȱonȱtheȱquestionȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱwillȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

69ȱ

makeȱaȱdistinctionȱinȱitsȱcommunicativeȱpracticesȱbetweenȱanȱorientationȱ towardsȱ impressionȱ managementȱ inȱ interactionȱ withȱ itsȱ environmentȱ (e.g.,ȱ clients)ȱ andȱ anȱ orientationȱ towardsȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ inȱ inȬ ternalȱcommunicationȱprocessesȱ(e.g.,ȱamongȱorganizationalȱmembers).ȱ ȱ ȱ 3.2 AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDualityȱ ȱ 3.2.1 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱCommunicationȱ ȱ Inȱaȱsecondȱpartȱofȱtheȱtheoreticalȱanalysis,ȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ visibilityȱ isȱ highlighted.ȱ Thisȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ analysisȱ asksȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱcanȱbecomeȱvisibleȱinȱorganizaȬ tionalȱcommunicationȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.2.1)ȱandȱwhatȱroleȱisȱplayedȱparticuȬ larlyȱbyȱtextualȱmediaȱofȱcommunicationȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.2.2)ȱsuchȱasȱMicroȬ softȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.2.3).ȱȱ

TheȱConceptȱofȱCommunicationȱ Theȱ questionȱ howȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ canȱ becomeȱ visibleȱ inȱ organizaȬ tionalȱcommunicationȱrequiresȱtoȱfirstȱinvestigateȱtheȱconceptȱofȱcommuȬ nicationȱinȱmoreȱdetail.ȱLuhmannȱ(1984;ȱ1992)ȱtheorizesȱcommunicationȱasȱ aȱ synthesisȱ ofȱ threeȱ selections:ȱ information,ȱ utterance,ȱ andȱ understanding.ȱ Informationȱ representsȱ aȱ selectionȱ fromȱ aȱ potentiallyȱ infiniteȱ rangeȱ ofȱ meaningfulȱ combinations,ȱ utteranceȱ representsȱ aȱ selectionȱ fromȱ aȱ potenȬ tiallyȱinfiniteȱrangeȱofȱwaysȱtoȱexpressȱanȱinformation,ȱandȱunderstanding,ȱ finally,ȱrepresentsȱaȱselectionȱfromȱaȱpotentiallyȱinfiniteȱrangeȱofȱwaysȱtoȱ contextuallyȱreconstructȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱanȱutteredȱinformation.ȱAccordȬ ingȱtoȱthisȱdefinition,ȱcommunicativeȱeventsȱonlyȱoccurȱwhenȱallȱofȱtheseȱ selectionsȱ areȱ synthesized:ȱ “Aȱ centralȱ pointȱ inȱ Luhmann’sȱ conceptȱ ofȱ communicationȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ threeȱ selectionsȱ formȱ anȱ ‘insolubleȱ unit’;ȱ unȬ doubtedly,ȱthisȱunitȱcanȱbeȱdividedȱanalyticallyȱintoȱitsȱthreeȱcomponentsȱ (forȱexampleȱbyȱotherȱcommunications),ȱbutȱonlyȱasȱaȱunitȱdoesȱitȱconstiȬ tuteȱaȱcommunication“ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006a:ȱ29;ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal).ȱȱ

70

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

Anotherȱ importantȱ assumptionȱ underlyingȱ thisȱ definitionȱ ofȱ comȬ municationȱ isȱ thatȱ humanȱ beingsȱ asȱ psychicȱ systemsȱ themselvesȱ cannotȱ communicateȱbutȱonlyȱparticipateȱinȱcommunication,ȱeitherȱinȱtheȱroleȱofȱ Alterȱ(byȱprocessingȱtheȱinformationȱandȱutteranceȱselections)ȱorȱEgoȱ(byȱ processingȱ theȱ understandingȱ selection).ȱ Alterȱ andȱ Egoȱ areȱ theorizedȱ asȱ symmetricalȱroles.ȱ Aȱ dialogue,ȱ forȱ example,ȱinvolvesȱaȱ continuousȱswitȬ chingȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ rolesȱ ofȱ communication.ȱ Withȱ thisȱ conception,ȱ Luhmannȱ (1992)ȱ transcendsȱ communicationȱ modelsȱ whichȱ assumeȱ aȱȱ packageȬlikeȱ transferabilityȱ ofȱ informationȱ fromȱ aȱ senderȱ toȱ aȱ receiverȱ (e.g.,ȱShannonȱ&ȱWeaver,ȱ1949).ȱFarȱfromȱit,ȱandȱdueȱtoȱtheȱselectivityȱofȱ understanding,ȱmisunderstandingȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱseenȱasȱtheȱnormalȱcaseȱofȱ communicationȱ(cf.ȱLuhmann,ȱ1981a).ȱ Forȱaȱsuccessfulȱautopoiesisȱofȱcommunicationȱtheȱmainȱrequirementȱ isȱ theȱ connectivityȱ ofȱ communicativeȱ events.ȱ Thisȱ meansȱ thatȱ utteredȱ inȬ formationȱonlyȱrequiresȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱsomehowȱandȱnotȱtoȱ beȱ underȬ stoodȱ properlyȱ (inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ correspondence;ȱ cf.ȱ Popper,ȱ 1972).ȱ ComȬ municationȱthenȱcanȱbeȱseenȱasȱsuccessfulȱasȱlongȱasȱitȱmaintainsȱitsȱconȬ tinuousȱ reproduction:ȱ “Onlyȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ connectingȱ oneȱ canȱ tellȱ whetherȱoneȱhasȱbeenȱunderstood”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1995:ȱ143).ȱConsequently,ȱ understanding,ȱ justȱ likeȱ theȱ selectionȱ ofȱ informationȱ andȱ utterance,ȱ isȱ seenȱhereȱasȱaȱfeatureȱofȱcommunicationȱitselfȱandȱnotȱofȱtheȱpsychicȱsysȬ temsȱinvolvedȱinȱorganizations.ȱ ȱ (...)ȱ understandingȱ forȱ Luhmannȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ psychicȱ realityȱ butȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȬselectionȬprocessȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ inȱ whichȱ communicationȱ itselfȱ hasȱunderstoodȱifȱandȱhowȱtheȱnextȱcommunicationȱconnects.ȱThisȱdoesȱnotȱ forecloseȱ psychicȱ understanding,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ communicationȱ canȱ understandȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱ communicated.ȱ Socialȱ systemsȱ areȱ operationallyȱ differentȱ fromȱ psychicȱ systems,ȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ communicationȱ couldȱ ocȬ curȱwithoutȱpsychicȱcomplexity.ȱ(Nassehi,ȱ2005:ȱ182)ȱ ȱ ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

71ȱ

DecisionsȱasȱCommunicationȱ Luhmann’sȱconceptȱofȱcommunicationȱoriginatesȱinȱspeechȱactȱtheoryȱ(AusȬ tin,ȱ1962;ȱSearle,ȱ1969)ȱwhichȱdistinguishesȱbetweenȱconstativeȱandȱperforȬ mativeȱspeechȱacts.ȱPerformativeȱspeechȱactsȱdifferȱfromȱconstativeȱspeechȱ actsȱinȱthatȱtheȱactionȱaȱsentenceȱdescribesȱisȱperformedȱbyȱtheȱsentenceȱ itself.ȱ Consider,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ sentence,ȱ “Iȱ promiseȱ toȱ beȱ backȱ homeȱ earlyȱ tonight”.ȱ Withoutȱ theȱ assertion,ȱ thereȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ aȱ promise.ȱ Asȱ Coorenȱputsȱit,ȱ“(...)ȱlanguageȱdoesȱnotȱonlyȱdescribeȱaȱ(realȱorȱimaginary)ȱ world,ȱ itȱ alsoȱ createsȱ newȱ situationsȱ thatȱ structureȱ ourȱ socialȱ universe”ȱ (Cooren,ȱ2000:ȱ2).ȱ Framedȱlikeȱthis,ȱtheȱconceptȱofȱperformativeȱspeechȱactsȱalsoȱappliesȱ toȱ organizationalȱ communication.ȱ Asȱ Ortmannȱ (2004:ȱ 62)ȱ shows,ȱ organizaȬ tionsȱ areȱ fullȱ ofȱ performativeȱ speechȱ actsȱ ofȱ allȱ kindsȱ (“toȱ giveȱ orders”,ȱ “toȱpersuade”,ȱ“toȱpresent”,ȱetc.)ȱwhichȱinȱsomeȱcasesȱcanȱtakeȱtheȱformȱ ofȱdecisions:ȱ“Accounting,ȱreporting,ȱallȱkindsȱofȱorganizationalȱinformaȬ tionȱ systemsȱoperateȱ byȱmeansȱofȱperformativeȱeffects”ȱ(Ortmann,ȱ2004:ȱ 124;ȱ ownȱ translation).ȱ Accordingly,ȱ decisionsȱ areȱ performativeȱ speechȱ actsȱinȱthatȱtheȱdecisionȱasȱaȱdecisionȱexactlyȱcomesȱintoȱexistenceȱbyȱbeȬ ingȱ communicated.ȱ Decisionsȱ doȱ notȱ describeȱ anȱ existingȱ stateȱ ofȱ theȱ world,ȱtheyȱcreateȱaȱnewȱstateȱofȱtheȱworldȱbyȱtheȱveryȱfactȱthatȱtheyȱhaveȱ beenȱcommunicated.ȱȱ WhatȱdoesȱthisȱnotionȱofȱperformativeȱspeechȱactsȱimplyȱforȱtheȱvisiȬ bilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communication?ȱ Asȱ definedȱhere,ȱdecisionsȱrepresentȱaȱspecialȱformȱofȱcommunicationȱwhichȱ ratherȱ equalsȱ anȱ actionȱ thanȱ mereȱ description.ȱ Thisȱ framingȱ allowsȱ toȱ deriveȱ twoȱ basicȱ communicativeȱ requirementsȱ forȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingency:ȱ First,ȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ necessitatesȱ theȱ exȬ plicationȱofȱaȱrangeȱofȱalternativesȱoutȱofȱwhichȱaȱselectionȱhasȱbeenȱmadeȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 64)ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ achieveȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ aȱ performativeȱ speechȱ act.ȱ Thisȱ requirementȱ particularlyȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ twoȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ selectionsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1992):ȱ theȱ selectionȱ ofȱ anȱ informationȱ andȱ anȱ utterance.ȱ Theȱ informationȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ utteredȱ thatȱ thereȱhaveȱbeenȱalternativesȱandȱthatȱaȱdecisionȱhasȱbeenȱmadeȱbasedȱonȱ

72

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

theseȱoptions.ȱSecond,ȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱinformationȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱutteredȱthatȱaȱ selectionȱhasȱbeenȱmadeȱonȱaȱselfȬdefinedȱrangeȱofȱpossibilities,ȱaȱdecisionȱ alsoȱ needsȱ toȱ becomeȱ perceivableȱ andȱ interpretableȱ inȱ communication.ȱ This,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ leadsȱ overȱ toȱ theȱ thirdȱ selectionȱ necessaryȱ forȱ theȱ connecȬ tivityȱofȱcommunicativeȱevents:ȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱaȱdecisionȱasȱaȱdecision.ȱȱ Howȱ doesȱ theȱ decisionȱ differȱ fromȱ otherȱ formsȱ ofȱ communication?ȱ AccordingȱtoȱLuhmannȱ(2000:ȱ67)ȱdecisionsȱareȱspecialȱinȱthatȱtheyȱcreateȱ theȱimpressionȱofȱanȱinvariableȱpastȱ(i.e.,ȱtheyȱrepresentȱtheȱpastȱasȱbeingȱ nonȬcontingent)ȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ provokeȱ toȱ dissentȱ –ȱ moreȱ thanȱ otherȱ formsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ do.ȱ Asȱ Molȱ phrasesȱ it,ȱ decisionsȱ “(...)ȱ displaceȱ theȱ decisiveȱ momentȱ toȱ placesȱ where,ȱ seenȱ fromȱ here,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ noȱ deciȬ sion,ȱbutȱaȱfact”ȱ(Mol,ȱ1999:ȱ80).ȱSeidlȱarguesȱthatȱthisȱleadsȱtoȱanȱinevitaȬ bleȱtensionȱinherentȱtoȱdecisions:ȱȱ ȱ (...)ȱ everyȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ containsȱ aȱ performativeȱ selfȬ contradiction:ȱtheȱ‘report’ȱaspectȱandȱtheȱ‘command’ȱaspectȱ(Rueschȱ&ȱBateȬ son,ȱ 1951)ȱ ofȱ theȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ contradictȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Theȱ moreȱ clearlyȱtheȱdecisionȱisȱcommunicatedȱasȱaȱselectionȱamongȱpossibleȱalternaȬ tivesȱ(reportȱaspect),ȱtheȱlessȱtheȱdecisionȱwillȱbeȱacceptedȱbyȱlaterȱcommuniȬ cationsȱasȱaȱdecisionȱ(commandȱaspect).ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006a:ȱ40)ȱ

ȱ Forȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ thisȱ assertionȱ impliesȱ thatȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ inȱ organizationsȱ canȱ beȱ expectedȱ toȱ occurȱ inȱ aȱ tradeȬoffȱbetweenȱtheȱreportȱandȱtheȱcommandȱaspectȱwhichȱareȱinseparableȱ fromȱ eachȱ otherȱ (cf.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 143).ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱ anȱ extensiveȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ andȱ ambiguityȱ diminishesȱ theirȱ likelihoodȱ toȱ becomeȱ identifiableȱ asȱ aȱ clearȬcutȱ decision.ȱ Therefore,ȱ itȱ isȱ expectableȱthatȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱinȱorganizationsȱwillȱtendȱtoȱflagȱ outȱonlyȱaȱlimitedȱrangeȱofȱalternativesȱfromȱwhichȱaȱselectionȱisȱmade.ȱȱ

TheȱVisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱAchievedȱinȱCommunicationȱ TheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱisȱnewlyȱraisedȱandȱelaboratedȱinȱthisȱstudyȱand,ȱthereȬ fore,ȱlacksȱaȱsystematicȱinvestigationȱinȱpreviousȱliterature.ȱNevertheless,ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

73ȱ

theȱtermȱvisibilityȱallowsȱforȱlinkagesȱtoȱliteratureȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱorganizaȬ tionalȱ communicationȱ asȱ wellȱasȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ andȱCPL.ȱInȱtheȱfollowing,ȱtheseȱcrossȬlinksȱareȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱobjectiveȱ toȱ shedȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ questionȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ decisionsȱ andȱ theirȱ continȬ gencyȱcanȱbecomeȱvisibleȱinȱcommunication.ȱ Inȱtheȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱliterature,ȱsomeȱauthorsȱadvocateȱ anȱ increasedȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ workȱ processesȱ inȱ organizationsȱ byȱ criticizingȱ theȱ invisibilityȱ ofȱ “backgroundȱ work”ȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ (Strauss,ȱ 1988;ȱ Suchman,ȱ 1995;ȱ Starȱ &ȱ Strauss,ȱ 1999).ȱ Itȱ isȱ assumedȱ hereȱ thatȱanȱenhancedȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱandȱworkȱprocessesȱcanȱpreventȱaȱ devaluationȱ ofȱ simplerȱ orȱ minorȱ jobsȱ inȱ organizations,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ superiorsȱ andȱ subordinates.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Straussȱ (1988),ȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱworkȱprocessesȱcanȱbeȱachievedȱbyȱmeansȱofȱ articulation.ȱTheȱproblemȱofȱvisibilityȱisȱassumedȱtoȱhaveȱbecomeȱcompliȬ catedȱ inȱ timeȱ ofȱ projectȱ workȱ andȱ increasedȱ specializationȱ ofȱ workȱ proȬ cesses:ȱȱ ȱ (...)ȱweȱcanȱaskȱunderȱwhatȱcircumstancesȱitȱmightȱbeȱinȱtheȱinterestȱofȱsomeȱ organizationȱ membersȱ notȱ toȱ knowȱ inȱ detailȱ theȱ activitiesȱ ofȱ othersȱ differȬ entlyȱ placed.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ recognizedȱ benefitsȱ ofȱ jobȱ specializationȱ areȱ theȱ waysȱinȱwhichȱweȱareȱableȱeffectivelyȱtoȱ‘blackȱbox’ȱtheȱworkȱofȱothers.ȱ(...)ȱ Inȱtheȱcaseȱofȱmanyȱformsȱofȱserviceȱwork,ȱweȱrecognizeȱthatȱtheȱbetterȱtheȱ workȱ isȱ done,ȱ theȱ lessȱ visibleȱ itȱ isȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ benefitȱ fromȱ it.ȱ (Suchman,ȱ 1995:ȱ9)ȱ ȱ

Theȱ claimȱ forȱ anȱ enhancedȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ (background)ȱ workȱ processesȱ appearsȱtoȱfollowȱaȱprescriptiveȱunderstanding.ȱHowever,ȱitȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱ emphasizedȱthat,ȱsimilarlyȱtoȱrelatedȱworkȱinȱtheȱhumanȱrelationsȱtradiȬ tionȱ(cf.ȱKieser,ȱ1999),ȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱthisȱperspectiveȱargueȱthatȱaȱstrongerȱ participationȱofȱemployeesȱdoesȱnotȱatȱallȱcontradictȱanȱimprovementȱofȱ organizationalȱ efficiency.ȱ Moreover,ȱ itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ theseȱ authorsȱ alsoȱ acknowledgeȱ theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ workȱ visibilityȱ andȱ itsȱ appreciation:ȱ “(...)ȱ weȱ areȱ notȱ recommendingȱ ‘moreȱ visibility’ȱ inȱ anyȱ simpleȱ sense.ȱ (...)ȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ invisibleȱ andȱ visibleȱ workȱ isȱ aȱ complexȱ matrix,ȱ withȱ anȱ ecologyȱ ofȱ itsȱ own.ȱ Itȱ isȱ

74

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

relational,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ absoluteȱ visibility,ȱ andȱ illuminatingȱ oneȱ cornerȱmayȱthrowȱanotherȱintoȱdarkness”ȱ(Starȱ&ȱStrauss,ȱ1999:ȱ24).ȱȱ Inȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ andȱ CPL,ȱ theȱ claimȱ forȱ aȱ strongerȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ matchedȱ byȱ theoryȱ deȬ velopmentsȱwhichȱadvocateȱanȱenhancedȱvisibilityȱofȱlearningȱfromȱproȬ jectsȱacrossȱtheȱorganizationȱ(cf.ȱDonaldson,ȱLankȱ&ȱMaher,ȱ2005).ȱAȱspeȬ cialȱ learningȱ valueȱ isȱ assumedȱ toȱ lieȱ inȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ boundȱtoȱworkȱprocessesȱ(“proceduralȱknowledge”;ȱNewell,ȱ2004),ȱandȱinȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ gainedȱ fromȱ aȱ criticalȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ effectivenessȱ ofȱ workȱ andȱ decisionȱ processesȱ (“learningȱ fromȱ mistakes”;ȱ Edmondson,ȱ1996).ȱInȱanalogyȱtoȱStraussȱ(1988),ȱvisibilizationȱisȱassumedȱ hereȱ toȱ beȱ achievableȱ byȱ articulationȱ (Zolloȱ &ȱ Winter,ȱ 2002).ȱ Inȱ conseȬ quence,ȱ theȱ implementationȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ processesȱ inȱ organizationsȱ canȱ beȱ presumedȱ toȱ haveȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ workȱprocessesȱandȱtheȱknowledgeȱdevelopedȱbyȱmeansȱofȱthem.ȱ TheȱclaimsȱforȱanȱenhancedȱvisibilizationȱofȱworkȱandȱdecisionȱproȬ cessesȱinȱorganizationalȱcommunication,ȱhowever,ȱareȱopposedȱbyȱcriticalȱ accountsȱ onȱ theȱ visibility’sȱ usefulness.ȱ Eisenbergȱ andȱ Wittenȱ argueȱ thatȱ “aȱfreeȱflowȱofȱtaskȬrelated,ȱnonȬpersonalȱinformationȱincreasesȱorganizaȬ tionalȱ effectivenessȱ isȱ trueȱ onlyȱ underȱ certainȱ conditions”ȱ (Eisenbergȱ &ȱ Witten,ȱ1987:ȱ420).ȱInstead,ȱtheyȱidentifyȱaȱ“needȱforȱambiguityȱinȱorganiȬ zations”ȱ(Eisenbergȱ&ȱWitten,ȱ1987:ȱ423;ȱcf.ȱMarchȱ&ȱOlsen,ȱ1976)ȱwhichȱ isȱalsoȱmanifestedȱempiricallyȱinȱorganizationalȱpractice:ȱ“(...)ȱtheȱnormsȱ andȱ politicalȱrealitiesȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ(...)ȱ rewardȱ peopleȱ forȱ closed,ȱ notȱ openȱcommunication”ȱ(Conrad,ȱ1985:ȱ104).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheseȱauthorsȱ argueȱthatȱtheȱclaimȱforȱaȱfarȬreachingȱtransparencyȱofȱworkȱprocessesȱinȱ organizationalȱcommunicationȱisȱdoomedȱtoȱfailȱinȱpractice.ȱȱ Theȱ mainȱ argumentȱ refersȱ toȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ differenceȱ inȱ organizaȬ tionalȱ communicationȱ betweenȱ institutionalizedȱ convictionsȱ andȱ comȬ municativeȱ practicesȱ (Ortmann,ȱ 2004:ȱ 116).ȱ Newȱ institutionalȱ demands,ȱ e.g.,ȱattemptsȱtoȱenhanceȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱworkȱprocesses,ȱareȱendanȬ geredȱ toȱ becomeȱ incorporatedȱ intoȱ organizationalȱ members’ȱ establishedȱ communicativeȱpracticesȱonȱaȱsurfaceȱlevelȱonly.ȱAsȱOrtmannȱpointsȱout,ȱ thisȱ equalsȱ aȱ balancingȱ act:ȱ Formalȱ demandsȱ whichȱ areȱ perceivedȱ asȱȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

75ȱ

beingȱ inefficientȱ areȱ followedȱ toȱ aȱ minimalȱ extentȱ “toȱ saveȱ face”ȱ (OrtȬ mann,ȱ 2004:ȱ 102).ȱ Efficiency,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ isȱ preservedȱ byȱ stickingȱ toȱ estabȬ lishedȱ informalȱ communicativeȱ practices.ȱ Asȱ Coorenȱ putsȱ it:ȱ “(...)ȱ resisȬ tance,ȱsabotageȱorȱevenȱmisappropriationȱare,ȱasȱwellȱknown,ȱveryȱcomȬ monȱinȱtheȱworkplace.ȱTheȱsubmissionȱprocessȱthatȱisȱimpliedȱinherentlyȱ inȱanyȱorganizationȱcanȱalwaysȱbeȱsubverted”ȱ(Cooren,ȱ2000:ȱ215;ȱemphaȬ sisȱinȱoriginal).ȱThisȱassertionȱrecallsȱMeyerȱandȱRowan’sȱnotionȱofȱinstiȬ tutionalizedȱpracticesȱinȱ organizations:ȱ “(...)ȱ individualsȱ areȱ leftȱ toȱ workȱ outȱ technicalȱ interdependenciesȱ informallyȱ (...)ȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ avoidance,ȱ discretion,ȱandȱoverlooking”ȱ(Meyerȱ&ȱRowan,ȱ1977:ȱ358).ȱ TheȱconsiderationsȱonȱtheȱorganizationalȱrequirementȱforȱanȱinvisibiȬ lizationȱofȱdecisionȱandȱworkȱprocessesȱleadȱtoȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱorgaȬ nizationsȱ mayȱ reactȱ toȱ paradoxical,ȱ opposingȱ demandsȱ byȱ aȱ decouplingȱ ofȱtalkȱandȱaction,ȱorȱtoȱputȱitȱmoreȱprovocatively,ȱbyȱhypocrisyȱ(Brunsson,ȱ 1989).ȱ Theȱ organization’sȱ indispositionȱ causedȱ byȱ aȱ decouplingȱ ofȱ talkȱ andȱ actionȱ isȱ typicallyȱ bridgedȱ byȱ establishingȱ fictionalȱ accounts:ȱ “Theȱ demandȱ forȱ fictionsȱ typicallyȱ arisesȱ ifȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ fullȱ correspondenceȱ betweenȱtheȱlegitimateȱorderȱofȱexpectationsȱandȱfactualȱcommunicativeȱ structures”ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1964:ȱ 278).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Ortmann,ȱ theȱ organizaȬ tionalȱneedȱforȱfictionsȱrootsȱinȱaȱstriveȱforȱinternalȱconsistencyȱ(Ortmann,ȱ 2004:ȱ 106).ȱ Consequently,ȱ organizationalȱ membersȱ ratherȱ tendȱ toȱ applyȱ “façadeȬcreationȱstrategies”ȱ(Starbuck,ȱ1982:ȱ9f.;ȱCunha,ȱ2006:ȱ213ff.)ȱthanȱ toȱmakeȱthemselvesȱvulnerableȱtoȱbecomeȱaccusedȱforȱfailureȱattributableȱ toȱthem.ȱThisȱalsoȱinvolvesȱtheȱanticipativeȱdisposalȱofȱargumentsȱforȱtheȱ fallbackȱcaseȱthatȱaȱdecisionȱturnsȱoutȱtoȱbeȱtheȱwrongȱone,ȱifȱseenȱfromȱ retrospectȱ(cf.ȱHarrisonȱ&ȱMarch,ȱ1984).ȱAccordingly,ȱitȱisȱinȱeveryȱorganȬ izationalȱ member’sȱ interestȱ toȱ appearȱ laterȱ onȱ asȱ theȱ oneȱ “whoȱ hadȱ knownȱitȱbeforehand”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1988:ȱ167;ȱownȱtranslation).32ȱȱ

32ȱȱ Baumardȱ andȱ Starbuckȱ shareȱ thisȱ estimation:ȱ “Managersȱ findȱ itȱ easyȱ toȱ explainȱ bothȱ largeȱandȱsmallȱfailuresȱasȱhavingȱidiosyncraticȱorȱexogenousȱcausesȱthatȱnoȱoneȱcouldȱ haveȱ foreseen,ȱ andȱ toȱ rationalizeȱ theirȱ personalȱ actionsȱ inȱ termsȱ withȱ theirȱ firm’sȱ coreȱ beliefs”ȱ(Baumardȱ&ȱStarbuck,ȱ2005:ȱ295).ȱ

76

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

Theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ aȱ partialȱ invisibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ hasȱ severeȱ implicationsȱ forȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ organizationsȱasȱautopoieticȱcommunicativeȱsystems.ȱInȱaȱcomparisonȱofȱ theȱTSSȱperspectiveȱtoȱactorȬnetworkȱtheoryȱ(Latour,ȱ1996;ȱLawȱ&ȱHassard,ȱ 1999),ȱ Noeȱ andȱ Alroeȱ pointȱ outȱ thatȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ invisibleȱ inȱ theȱ veryȱ momentȱ ofȱ beingȱ madeȱ butȱ becomesȱ observableȱ inȱ retrospect:ȱ “Fromȱanȱautopoieticȱunderstanding,ȱtheȱselfȬreferentialȱprocessȱofȱselecȬ tionȱofȱmeaningȱwill,ȱasȱaȱfirstȱstep,ȱbeȱhiddenȱtoȱtheȱsystem,ȱbecauseȱitȱisȱ notȱ aȱ socialȱ systemȱ untilȱ aȱ selectionȱ hasȱ beenȱ made.ȱ (...)ȱ Onlyȱ throughȱ reflexiveȱ(reȬentry)ȱprocessesȱcanȱtheseȱchoicesȱbeȱmadeȱopenȱforȱobservaȬ tionȱtoȱtheȱsystem”ȱ(Noeȱ&ȱAlroe,ȱ2006:ȱ42).ȱ NoeȱandȱAlroeȱgoȱonȱtoȱargueȱthatȱtheȱsystem’sȱinternalȱcomplexityȱ limitsȱitsȱcapabilityȱtoȱobserveȱitselfȱandȱtheȱencompassingȱworldȱ(Noeȱ&ȱ Alroe,ȱ2006:ȱ43).ȱThus,ȱtheȱachievementȱofȱaȱfullȬfledgedȱvisibilizationȱofȱ decisionȱcontingencyȱinȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱisȱnotȱonlyȱlimitedȱ byȱorganizationalȱattemptsȱtoȱcloakȱtheȱparadoxicalȱnatureȱofȱitsȱexistenceȱ butȱ alsoȱ byȱ aȱ limitedȱ systemȱ complexity:ȱ „Theȱ empiricalȱ challengeȱ andȱ provocationȱforȱtheȱsociologyȱofȱorganizationsȱthen,ȱisȱtoȱgiveȱanȱanswerȱ toȱtheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱorganizationsȱareȱableȱtoȱhideȱtheirȱselfȬreferentialȱ conditionalityȱandȱtoȱsimulateȱtheirȱownȱconstructionsȱofȱtheȱ‘realȱworld’ȱ theyȱfindȱthemselvesȱin“ȱ(Nassehi,ȱ2005:ȱ187).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ DCVȱ hasȱ beenȱ groundedȱ inȱ consideraȬ tionsȱ onȱ communicationȱ andȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ performativeȱ speechȱ actsȱ inȱ orȬ ganizations.ȱBasedȱonȱtheȱcentralityȱofȱdecisionsȱinȱtheȱ“gradualȱfabricaȬ tionȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ communication”ȱ (Kieser,ȱ 1998:ȱ 45;ȱ ownȱtranslation),ȱtheȱanalysisȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱclaimȱforȱaȱvisibilizationȱofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ canȱ beȱ underȬ minedȱ byȱ existingȱ communicativeȱ practicesȱ whichȱ fosterȱ anȱ invisibilizaȬ tionȱofȱworkȱandȱdecisionȱprocessesȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱconsistency.ȱTheȱnextȱ subȬchaptersȱbreakȱ downȱDCVȱ inȱ communicationȱ byȱ analyzingȱ theȱ speȬ cialȱ casesȱ ofȱ textuallyȱ mediatedȱ communication,ȱ andȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱpresentationsȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱprojectȱdocumentation.ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

77ȱ

3.2.2 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱProjectȱDocumentationȱ ȱ Inȱanalogyȱtoȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱorganizationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoinȱ(cf.ȱchapȬ terȱ 3.1),ȱ theȱ communicationalȱ analysisȱ isȱ conductedȱ inȱ anȱ iterativeȱ proȬ cess.ȱTheȱobjectiveȱisȱtoȱnarrowȱdownȱtheȱabstractȱnotionȱofȱcommunicaȬ tionȱ byȱ successiveȱ stepsȱ ofȱ substantiation.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱ anȱ additionalȱ distinctionȱisȱintroduced:ȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱverbalȱandȱtextualȱmodesȱ ofȱcommunication.ȱInȱthisȱsection,ȱitȱisȱarguedȱthatȱitȱmakesȱaȱdifferenceȱ forȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱorganizationsȱifȱdecisionsȱareȱ communicatedȱ verbally,ȱ forȱ exampleȱ inȱ aȱ chatȱ amongȱ colleaguesȱ onȱ theȱ officeȱ corridor,ȱ orȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ writtenȱ downȱ andȱ becomeȱ manifestedȱ inȱ textualȱform,ȱforȱexampleȱinȱanȱemailȬbasedȱconversationȱorȱinȱhandwritȬ tenȱnotes.ȱȱ

Textualȱvs.ȱVerbalȱModesȱofȱCommunicationȱinȱOrganizationsȱ Whatȱ isȱ itȱ thatȱ makesȱ textuallyȱ manifestedȱ communicationȱ differȱ fromȱ verballyȱ spokenȱ communication?ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ representsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ classicalȱ problemsȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ studiesȱ (cf.ȱ Smith,ȱ 1984).ȱInȱthisȱcontext,ȱMcPheeȱ(2004:ȱ356ff.)ȱproposesȱthreeȱdefiningȱpropȬ ertiesȱ ofȱ manifestedȱ texts:ȱ (1)ȱ theȱ compositionȱ ofȱ signsȱ andȱ symbols,ȱ (2)ȱ theirȱpermanence,ȱandȱ(3)ȱaȱcoherentȱstructure:ȱ ȱ Itȱisȱimportantȱtoȱrecognizeȱthatȱtextsȱareȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱpermanentȱelementsȱinȱ societies,ȱnotȱevenȱtheȱonlyȱenduringȱsymbolicȱrealities.ȱTheȱmemoriesȱofȱorȬ ganizationalȱ membersȱ canȱ includeȱ wordsȱ andȱ performedȱ discourse.ȱ MoreȬ over,ȱ allȱ sortsȱ ofȱ materialȱ contextualȱ featuresȱ areȱ permanentȱ andȱ thusȱ canȱ constrainȱus,ȱremindȱusȱofȱorganizationalȱmattersȱthatȱaȱtextȱmightȱalsoȱcapȬ ture,ȱetc.ȱButȱtextsȱareȱdistinctivelyȱfunctionalȱinȱtheirȱaccessibilityȱtoȱmultiȬ pleȱpeople,ȱtheirȱabilityȱtoȱbeȱpreservedȱinȱaȱlegitimateȱform,ȱandȱtheirȱflexiȬ bleȱ utility.ȱ Minutesȱ areȱ keptȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ meetingsȱ simplyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theseȱadvantagesȱofȱtextȱoverȱtheȱmemoriesȱofȱmembersȱpresentȱatȱtheȱmeetȬ ing.ȱ(McPhee,ȱ2004:ȱ359)ȱȱ ȱ

78

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

Amongȱ theȱ threeȱ criteriaȱintroducedȱ byȱ McPheeȱ (2004),ȱ itȱ isȱ particularlyȱ theȱsecondȱone,ȱtheȱ“extraȬtemporality”ȱ(Smith,ȱ1984:ȱ60)ȱofȱtexts,ȱwhichȱ distinguishesȱ themȱ fromȱ verballyȱ spokenȱ communication.ȱ Thisȱisȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱauthorsȱfromȱbothȱtheȱCCOȱandȱtheȱTSSȱperspective:ȱGoingȱbackȱtoȱ Derridaȱ(1988),ȱCoorenȱandȱFairhurstȱemphasizeȱthatȱtextsȱareȱspecialȱinȱ theirȱréstance,ȱtheirȱ“stayingȱcapacity”ȱ(Coorenȱ&ȱFairhurst,ȱforthcoming:ȱ noȱ page).ȱ Analogously,ȱ MenneȬHaritzȱ ascribesȱ aȱ “durableȱ character”ȱ toȱ textsȱwhichȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheirȱmaterialityȱ(MenneȬHaritz,ȱ1999:ȱ141).ȱȱ Thus,ȱitȱisȱtheȱspecialȱfeatureȱofȱtextsȱthatȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱneedȱtoȱrelyȱenȬ tirelyȱ onȱ theȱmemoriesȱ ofȱindividualsȱ butȱ toȱ sustainȱaȱ lifeȱ onȱ theirȱ own.ȱ Textsȱ allowȱ forȱ transcendingȱ spaceȱ andȱ timeȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ canȱ goȱ beȬ yondȱ theȱ physicalȱ coȬpresenceȱ ofȱ interactionalȱ episodesȱ (cf.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ159).ȱThisȱleadsȱusȱtoȱanotherȱdistinctiveȱfeature:ȱInȱorderȱtoȱachieveȱ theirȱ“stayingȱcapacity”,ȱtextsȱalwaysȱneedsȱsomeȱformȱofȱmediumȱtoȱbeȬ comeȱcondensedȱinȱartifactualȱform.ȱDerridaȱlinksȱtheȱstayingȱcapacityȱofȱ textsȱtoȱtheȱnotionȱofȱspeechȱacts:ȱ“Derridaȱ(...)ȱquestionsȱspeechȱactsȱfromȱ whatȱ constitutes,ȱ forȱ him,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theirȱ essentialȱ characteristics,ȱ i.e.,ȱ theirȱ materiality.ȱEveryȱspeechȱactȱisȱultimatelyȱbasedȱonȱaȱmark,ȱaȱtraceȱproȬ ducedȱ byȱ anȱ agent“ȱ (Cooren,ȱ 2000:ȱ 36;ȱ emphasisȱ inȱ original).ȱ ConseȬ quently,ȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ variousȱ mediaȱ haveȱ emergedȱ whichȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ containȱ suchȱ informationȱ startingȱ fromȱ caveȱ wallsȱ orȱ paper,ȱ orȱ theȱ electronicȱ mediaȱ ofȱ today’sȱ timeȱ (cf.ȱ Flusser,ȱ 1996).ȱ Inȱ lineȱ withȱthisȱargument,ȱartifactsȱalsoȱallowȱforȱtransformingȱverbalȱformsȱofȱ communicationȱintoȱtexts,ȱe.g.,ȱbyȱcreatingȱaȱvideoȱrecordingȱandȱbyȱmakȬ ingȱitȱaccessibleȱatȱaȱlaterȱpointȱofȱtimeȱ(cf.ȱLinstead,ȱ1999).ȱȱ TheȱcomparablyȱlongȬlastingȱcharacterȱofȱtextualȱcommunicationȱcanȱ nowȱbeȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱspecialȱcaseȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunication.ȱItȱisȱ theȱ texts’ȱ capacityȱ toȱ transcendȱ theȱ ephemeralȱ characterȱ ofȱ communicaȬ tionȱwhichȱpredestinesȱthemȱforȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱ inȱorganizationsȱandȱwhichȱmakesȱthemȱaccessibleȱforȱempiricalȱresearch,ȱ asȱ well.ȱ Seidlȱ (2006b:ȱ 161)ȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ textsȱ inȱ organizations,ȱ e.g.,ȱ projectȱreports,ȱrepresentȱ“markers”ȱorȱ“culminationȱpoints”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 1993:ȱ339)ȱwhichȱhighlightȱwhereȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱandȱorganizaȬ tionalȱinteractionsȱdoȱintersect:ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

79ȱ

Oneȱofȱtheȱmostȱprominentȱmarkersȱisȱtheȱrecordȱ(...);ȱifȱaȱcommunicationȱisȱ putȱonȱrecordȱitȱisȱaȱstrongȱsignalȱforȱtheȱorganizationȱthatȱtheȱcommunicaȬ tionȱlendsȱitselfȱtoȱbeingȱtreatedȱasȱanȱorganizationalȱdecision.ȱManyȱorganiȬ zationsȱ willȱ onlyȱ recogniseȱ somethingȱ asȱ anȱ organizationalȱ decisionȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ putȱonȱrecord.ȱForȱtheȱinteractionȱthisȱmeansȱthatȱitȱcanȱregulateȱitsȱrelationȱ toȱtheȱorganizationȱ–ȱorȱbetter:ȱtheȱboundariesȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱ–ȱbyȱdisȬ tinguishingȱ betweenȱ communicationsȱ ‘onȱ record’ȱ andȱ ‘offȱ record’.ȱ (Seidl,ȱ 2006b:ȱ161)ȱ ȱ

TheȱmaterialityȱofȱtextsȱallowsȱforȱaȱrepeatedȱclosureȱofȱtheȱcommunicaȬ tionȱ synthesisȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ sameȱ utteredȱ informationȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1992)ȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ allowsȱ forȱ differentȱ reactionsȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ information.ȱ However,ȱthisȱcomplicatesȱtheȱcontrolȱofȱcommunicationȱforȱtheȱauthorȱofȱ aȱ textȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ (MenneȬHaritz,ȱ 1999:ȱ 141).ȱ Inȱ aȱ similarȱ vein,ȱ Mayntzȱ andȱ Szyperskiȱ (1984:ȱ 11)ȱ pointȱ toȱ aȱ potentialȱ gapȱ betweenȱ theȱ “creationȱ andȱ applicationȱ context”ȱ (ErzeugungsȬȱ undȱ VerwendungszusamȬ menhang)ȱinȱtheȱusageȱofȱtextualȱrecordsȱ–ȱthereȱisȱnotȱnecessarilyȱaȱcorreȬ spondenceȱbetweenȱtheȱgatheringȱofȱanȱinformationȱandȱitsȱactualȱuse.ȱByȱ “puttingȱ itȱ onȱ file”,ȱ theȱ textualityȱ ofȱ theȱ recordȱ separatesȱ theȱ messageȱ fromȱtheȱpersonȱ(MenneȬHaritz,ȱ1999:ȱ146).ȱȱ Thisȱ assertionȱ correspondsȱ withȱ Luhmann’sȱ hypothesisȱ onȱ misunȬ derstandingȱ asȱ theȱ normalȱ caseȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1981a).ȱ Becauseȱtextualȱcommunicationȱhasȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱbridgeȱspaceȱandȱtime,ȱ theȱnecessityȱarisesȱtoȱminimizeȱtheȱlikelihoodȱofȱmisunderstanding,ȱe.g.,ȱ byȱ aȱ formalizationȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (Mayntzȱ &ȱ Szyperski,ȱ 1984:ȱ 11).ȱ Consequently,ȱtextualȱdocumentsȱgainȱaȱspecificȱimportanceȱinȱhighȬriskȬ industriesȱ (cf.ȱ Vaughan,ȱ 1999;ȱ Weickȱ &ȱ Sutcliffe,ȱ 2001).33ȱ Toȱ conclude,ȱ aȱ somewhatȱ higherȱ degreeȱ ofȱ formalityȱ andȱ exactnessȱ isȱ characteristicȱ forȱ textȬbasedȱcommunicationȱinȱorderȱtoȱensureȱaȱreconsiderationȱatȱaȱlaterȱ pointȱofȱtimeȱindependentlyȱfromȱconcreteȱsituationalȱcircumstancesȱ(cf.ȱ Kieserȱ&ȱKubicek,ȱ1977:ȱ166).ȱ ȱ

33ȱȱ Forȱanȱextensiveȱaccountȱonȱtheȱroleȱofȱ“fantasyȱdocuments”ȱtoȱtameȱdisasterȱinȱhighȬ riskȱsettingsȱseeȱClarkeȱ(1999).ȱ

80

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

TextualȱCommunicationȱandȱCrossȬProjectȱLearningȱ Asȱoutlinedȱearlierȱinȱthisȱstudy,ȱprojectȱorganizationsȱhaveȱembracedȱtheȱ issueȱofȱtheȱdistributednessȱofȱtheirȱdecisionsȱbyȱestablishingȱprocessesȱofȱ crossȬprojectȱlearningȱ(Ayasȱ&ȱZeniuk,ȱ2001;ȱKeeganȱ&ȱTurner,ȱ2001;ȱGarȬ rickȱ&ȱClegg,ȱ2001;ȱNewell,ȱ2004).ȱMostȱCPLȱmodels,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱonesȱ createdȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ daysȱ ofȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ idea,ȱ relyȱ onȱ textualȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱstoredȱinȱITȱdatabasesȱforȱestablishingȱaȱ sustainableȱsharingȱofȱexperiencesȱacrossȱtheȱprojectȱorganizationȱ(NewȬ ellȱetȱal.,ȱ2006).ȱTheȱrelianceȱonȱtextualȱmodesȱofȱcommunicationȱforȱthisȱ purposeȱ isȱ notȱ surprisingȱ givenȱ theirȱ stabilizingȱ characterȱ forȱ organizaȬ tionalȱ communication,ȱ asȱ emphasizedȱ byȱ Coorenȱ andȱ Fairhurstȱ (forthȬ coming).ȱ Muchȱ moreȱ thanȱ verbalȱ interaction,ȱ manifestedȱ textsȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ longȬlastingȱ referenceȱ forȱ futureȱ decisionsȱ ofȱ theȱ organization.ȱ Inȱ communicativeȱ terms,ȱ CPLȱ databasesȱ establishȱ aȱ metaconversationȱ acrossȱ projectȱ organizations:ȱ “Theȱ metaconversationȱ isȱ ofȱ specialȱ relevanceȱ toȱ theȱ giant,ȱ largelyȱ knowledgeȬbasedȱ corporationsȱ (...).ȱ Weȱ believeȱ thatȱ suchȱorganizationsȱ(...)ȱmustȱdevelopȱaȱmetaconversationȱthatȱbridgesȱtheȱ divisions“ȱ(Robichaud,ȱGirouxȱ&ȱTaylor,ȱ2004:ȱ631).ȱ Consequently,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱknowledgeȱ managementȱ andȱ CPLȱ canȱ beȱ presumedȱtoȱhaveȱledȱtoȱaȱrenaissanceȱofȱtextualȱmodesȱofȱcommunicationȱinȱ organizationsȱ(Totzke,ȱ2004).34ȱInȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱcaptureȱknowledgeȱasȱanȱ “asset”ȱ orȱ “commodity”ȱ inȱ projectȱ documentationȱ (Currieȱ &ȱ Kerrin,ȱ 2004),ȱ companiesȱ haveȱ createdȱ databasesȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ aimȱ toȱ storeȱ exȬ periencesȱandȱfurtherȱinformationȱrelevantȱforȱworkȱprocessesȱinȱtextualȱ formȱ (Feldmanȱ &ȱ March,ȱ 1981;ȱ Markus,ȱ 2001;ȱ Schindlerȱ &ȱ Eppler,ȱ 2003;ȱ Newellȱetȱal.,ȱ2006).ȱThisȱrenaissanceȱofȱtextsȱinȱorganizationsȱmayȱbeȱpartȱ ofȱ aȱ moreȱ generalȱ trendȱ ofȱ textualizationȱ inȱ communication,ȱ stronglyȱ enforcedȱ byȱ theȱ successȱ ofȱ electronicȱ formsȱ ofȱ communication,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Emailsȱorȱmobileȱtextȱmessagesȱ(Türcke,ȱ2005).ȱEquallyȱso,ȱtheȱincreaseȱofȱ 34ȱȱ Totzkeȱ (2004:ȱ 86)ȱ callsȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thisȱ relianceȱ onȱ textualityȱ correspondsȱ withȱaȱdominanceȱofȱwrittenȱknowledgeȱinȱtheȱWesternȱworld.ȱOtherȱformsȱofȱknowlȬ edgeȱorientedȱcommunication,ȱbeȱtheyȱnarrativeȱorȱanecdotic,ȱareȱinsteadȱseenȱasȱdeficiȬ taryȱdueȱtoȱtheirȱunreliabilityȱandȱfuzziness.ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

81ȱ

textualȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱinȱorganizationsȱisȱassumedȱtoȱbeȱorigiȬ natedȱinȱtheȱdispersionȱofȱelectronicȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱinȱorganizaȬ tionsȱ(cf.ȱMenneȬHaritz,ȱ1999:ȱ155).ȱȱ Followingȱ Zornȱ andȱ Taylorȱ (2003),ȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ askedȱ toȱ whatȱ degreeȱ textualȱmodesȱofȱcommunicationȱareȱappropriateȱtoȱfulfillȱtheȱsocialȱandȱ communicativeȱ demandsȱ inherentȱ toȱ knowledgeȬorientedȱ communicaȬ tionȱandȱwhatȱroleȱdoȱdifferentȱtypesȱofȱdocumentsȱplayȱinȱthisȱcontext?ȱ TheȱauthorsȱemphasizeȱthatȱflexibleȱandȱmoreȱsuccessfulȱformsȱofȱknowlȬ edgeȱmanagementȱapproachesȱcorrelateȱwithȱverbalȱmodesȱofȱcommuniȬ cation:ȱ “Asȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ empiricalȱ studiesȱ haveȱ shownȱ (...),ȱ tightlyȱ couȬ pledȱprofessionalȱcommunitiesȱfunctionȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱaȱwellȬunderstoodȱ distributionȱofȱresponsibilityȱandȱauthority,ȱmediatedȱbyȱverbalȱchannelsȱ ofȱcommunication.ȱPaperworkȱisȱlargelyȱabsent.ȱVerbalȱmodesȱofȱinteractȬ ingȱareȱtheȱprevailingȱstyle”ȱ(Zornȱ&ȱTaylor,ȱ2003:ȱ106).ȱHendryȱandȱSeidlȱ supportȱthisȱestimation:ȱ“Weȱcanȱalsoȱobserveȱempiricallyȱthatȱtheȱresultsȱ ofȱ strategicȱ workshopsȱ orȱ planningȱ committeesȱ areȱ oftenȱ elaboratelyȱ documented,ȱbutȱratherȱthanȱbeingȱreadȱandȱtakenȱnoticeȱofȱtheyȱareȱfiledȱ andȱforgotten”ȱ(Hendryȱ&ȱSeidl,ȱ2003:ȱ186).ȱȱ Theȱtendencyȱtoȱpreferȱverbalȱoverȱtextualȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱ inȱcertainȱorganizationalȱsettingsȱdoesȱnotȱcontradictȱLuhmann’sȱassumpȬ tionȱofȱaȱconstitutiveȱcharacterȱofȱtextualȱcommunicationȱforȱtheȱorganizaȬ tion’sȱautopoiesis.ȱAccordingȱtoȱLuhmannȱ(2000:ȱ215),ȱthereȱcanȱbeȱvariȬ ousȱreasonsȱforȱpreferringȱverbalȱoverȱtextualȱmodesȱofȱcommunication:ȱ Aȱ communication’sȱ contentȱ mayȱ affectȱ legalȱissuesȱandȱ canȱ thereforeȱ beȱ tooȱriskyȱforȱbeingȱtextuallyȱmanifested.ȱMoreover,ȱthereȱcanȱbeȱreasonsȱ toȱ invisibilizeȱ theȱ authorshipȱ ofȱ anȱ idea.ȱ Or,ȱ verbalȱ communicationȱ canȱ alsoȱ beȱ usedȱ toȱ ’preȬtest’ȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ anȱ intentionȱ isȱ acceptableȱ byȱ peersȱ beforeȱ someoneȱ risksȱ toȱ revealȱ theȱ intentionȱ toȱ largerȱ audiences.ȱ Luhmannȱconcludes:ȱ“(...)ȱitȱisȱimportantȱthatȱaȱ[social]ȱsystemȱisȱawareȱofȱ theȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱverbalȱandȱtextualȱcommunicationȱandȱisȱableȱtoȱ chooseȱ betweenȱ them”ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 215;ȱ ownȱ translation).ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱsocialȱsystemȱdoesȱnotȱonlyȱrelyȱonȱtextualȱ communicationȱforȱitsȱautopoiesisȱbutȱexactlyȱonȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱ whatȱ informationȱ isȱ conveyedȱ verballyȱ orȱ textually.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ thisȱ

82

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

studyȱconcentratesȱonȱoneȱsideȱofȱtheȱdistinction,ȱtheȱtextualȱone,ȱbecauseȱ ofȱ theȱ theoreticallyȱ presumedȱ importanceȱ ofȱ textsȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ organizationsȱoutȱofȱcommunication,ȱasȱarguedȱinȱtheȱnextȱsections.ȱ ȱ ȱ TextualȱCommunicationȱandȱOrganizationalȱAutopoiesisȱ ȱ Howȱdoesȱtheȱorganizationalȱnecessityȱtoȱensureȱitsȱautopoiesisȱrelateȱtoȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ textualȱ andȱ verbalȱ modesȱ ofȱ communication?ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Luhmann,ȱ theȱ formalityȱ ofȱ textualȱ communicationȱ inȱ orȬ ganizationsȱbecomesȱaȱpreconditionȱforȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱanȱorganizationalȱ memoryȱoverȱtimeȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ158).ȱLuhmannȱarguesȱthatȱinȱorderȱtoȱ discriminateȱ betweenȱ memorizingȱ andȱ forgetting,ȱ organizationalȱ memȬ oryȱ requiresȱ aȱ continuousȱ recalibrationȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ decisions.ȱ Theȱ conȬ tinuousȱ characterȱ ofȱ thisȱ processȱ “explainsȱ theȱ constitutive,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ technicalȬsupportiveȱ importanceȱ ofȱ textualityȱ forȱ organizations“ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 159;ȱ ownȱ translation).ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ Luhmannȱ graspsȱ forgettingȱ asȱ theȱ primaryȱ functionȱ ofȱ memory,ȱ independentȱ fromȱ whichȱ systemȱtypeȱweȱlookȱat,ȱbeȱitȱpsychicȱsystemsȱorȱsocialȱsystems:ȱ“Textualȱ recordsȱnotȱonlyȱorganizeȱmemorizationȱbutȱalsoȱforgetting”ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 160;ȱ ownȱ translation).ȱ Thisȱ preventsȱ theȱ organizationȱ fromȱ beingȱ overwhelmedȱbyȱitsȱpastȱdecisionsȱ(MenneȬHaritz,ȱ1999:ȱ153).ȱ Textualȱdocumentsȱparticularlyȱbecomeȱrelevantȱinȱcompaniesȱwhichȱ haveȱaȱhighȱpersonnelȱturnoverȱ(cf.ȱCarley,ȱ1992),ȱi.e.,ȱwhereȱitȱisȱdifficultȱ toȱgetȱinȱdirectȱtouchȱwithȱorganizationalȱmembersȱthatȱhaveȱalreadyȱleftȱ theȱcompany.ȱInȱtheȱneedȱtoȱinterconnectȱdecisionȱprocessesȱoverȱlongerȱ periodsȱofȱtime,ȱorganizationsȱcanȱbeȱpresumedȱtoȱrelyȱonȱtheȱvisibilizaȬ tionȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱformȱofȱtextualȱdocuments.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱDCVȱandȱtextualȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱappearsȱ toȱbeȱparadoxicalȱinȱitsȱnature.ȱInȱanȱarticleȱbasedȱonȱtheȱTSSȱframework,ȱ MenneȬHaritzȱ(1999)ȱexploresȱtheȱroleȱofȱtextualȱrecordsȱinȱorganizationalȱ communication.ȱ Sheȱ pointsȱ outȱ thatȱ inȱ theȱ aftermathȱ ofȱ aȱ decision,ȱ theȱ communicationȱprocessȱwhichȱhasȱledȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱremainsȱopaqueȱforȱ organizationalȱmembersȱwhoȱwereȱnotȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱprocess.ȱȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

83ȱ

Thisȱ paradoxicalȱ interrelationȱ betweenȱ organizationalȱ routinesȱ andȱ theirȱ textualȱ manifestationsȱ resemblesȱ Feldmanȱ andȱ Pentland’sȱ findingsȱ inȱ theirȱ investigationȱ ofȱ recruitingȱ routinesȱ inȱ aȱ universityȱ settingȱ (Feldmanȱ&ȱPentland,ȱ2003:ȱ104).ȱHere,ȱonlyȱtheȱtextualȱartifactsȱallowedȱ forȱ approachingȱ whatȱ actuallyȱ hadȱ happenedȱ inȱ theȱ routine.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ performativeȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ routineȱ inevitablyȱ remainedȱ opaque.ȱ Theȱ organization’sȱ unawarenessȱ forȱ itsȱ ownȱ decisionsȱ canȱ beȱ explainedȱ byȱ drawingȱonȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱandȱorganȬ izationalȱinteractions:ȱForȱtheȱorganization,ȱSeidlȱasserts,ȱ“(...)ȱtheȱinteracȬ tionalȱ processesȱ (...)ȱ areȱ incomprehensible.ȱ (...)ȱ Theȱ interactionȱ hasȱ deȬ cidedȱ theȱ undecidableȱ butȱ fromȱ outsideȱ oneȱ cannotȱ sayȱ how”ȱ (Seidl,ȱ 2006b:ȱ 164).ȱ Therefore,ȱ althoughȱ textsȱ oftenȱ representȱ theȱ onlyȱ meansȱ toȱ comprehendȱtheȱdecisionȱinȱretrospect,ȱtheyȱneedȱtoȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱlimitedȱ representationȱofȱtheȱactualȱdecisionȱprocessȱ(MenneȬHaritz,ȱ1999:ȱ143).ȱȱ Nevertheless,ȱtheȱanalysisȱhasȱledȱtoȱdistillingȱsomeȱessentialȱcharacȬ teristicsȱ ofȱ textualȱ inȱ comparisonȱ toȱ verbalȱ communication.ȱ Asȱ weȱ haveȱ seen,ȱtextualȱrecordsȱplayȱaȱconstitutiveȱroleȱforȱtheȱautopoiesisȱofȱorganȬ izationalȱ communicationȱ inȱ theȱ longȱ runȱ (cf.ȱ Coorenȱ &ȱ Fairhurst,ȱ forthȬ coming).ȱ Theȱ usageȱ ofȱ textsȱ helpsȱ toȱ stabilizeȱ thatȱ organizationsȱ emergeȱ outȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ byȱ becomingȱ “nestedȱ hierarchiesȱ ofȱ decisions”ȱ (Scott,ȱ 1998:ȱ 51).ȱ Asȱ such,ȱ textualȱ recordsȱ organizeȱ whatȱ theȱ organizationȱ canȱ memorizeȱ(theȱexceptionalȱcase)ȱandȱwhatȱitȱtendsȱtoȱforgetȱ(theȱnormalȱ case)ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 158;ȱ cf.ȱ deȱ Holanȱ &ȱ Phillips,ȱ 2004;ȱ Blaschkeȱ &ȱ Schoeneborn,ȱ2006).ȱȱ However,ȱitȱremainsȱunexploredȱsoȱfarȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱtheȱpresumedȱ renaissanceȱ ofȱ textualityȱ inȱ organizationsȱ (Totzke,ȱ 2004)ȱ affectsȱ theȱ relaȬ tionshipsȱunderȱinvestigationȱinȱthisȱstudy:ȱToȱwhatȱextentȱdoȱnewȱformsȱ ofȱtextualityȱleadȱtoȱaȱrecalibrationȱofȱfrontstageȱandȱbackstageȱmodesȱofȱ organizationalȱ communication?ȱ Howȱ doesȱ aȱ renaissanceȱ ofȱ textualityȱ affectȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ and,ȱ withȱ this,ȱ theȱ organizaȬ tionalȱ capacityȱ toȱ becomeȱ aware,ȱ remember,ȱ andȱ forgetȱ itsȱ mostȱ basicȱ operations,ȱ theȱ continuousȱ reproductionȱ ofȱ decisions?ȱ Inȱ theȱ nextȱ subȬ chapter,ȱ theȱ hypothesisȱ ofȱ aȱ renaissanceȱ ofȱ textualityȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ isȱ exploredȱ byȱ relatingȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ specificȱ roleȱ ofȱ PowerȬ

84

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

PointȱpresentationsȱasȱaȱmediumȱandȱgenreȱofȱorganizationalȱcommuniȬ cationȱ(Yatesȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱforthcoming).ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 3.2.3 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱPowerPointȱPresentationsȱȱ ȱ Inȱaȱthirdȱstepȱofȱpinningȱdownȱtheȱquestionȱhowȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱisȱ visibilizedȱ inȱ projectȱ documentationȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ verbalȱ andȱ textualȱ modesȱ ofȱ communicationȱ isȱ investigatedȱ inȱ moreȱ detail.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ realizedȱbyȱdrawingȱonȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱmediaȱandȱgenresȱofȱorȬ ganizationalȱcommunicationȱintroducedȱbyȱYatesȱandȱOrlikowskiȱ(1992).ȱ Theȱdistinctionȱallowsȱforȱtheȱanalysisȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ organizationalȱ practiceȱ correlatesȱ withȱ certainȱ communicativeȱ practicesȱ establishedȱ inȱ theȱ organization.ȱ Theȱ mainȱ reȬ searchȱissue’sȱinherentȱabstractnessȱisȱreducedȱbyȱfocusingȱonȱtheȱspecificȱ roleȱ ofȱ Microsoftȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ asȱ aȱ mediumȱ andȱ genreȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ (Yatesȱ &ȱ Orlikowski,ȱ forthcoming)ȱ –ȱ whatȱ alsoȱ crossȬlinksȱtoȱtheȱstudy’sȱfocusȱonȱconsultingȱfirmsȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.1.3)ȱbeȬ causeȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ isȱ assumedȱ toȱ beȱ particularlyȱ relevantȱ inȱ organizationsȱofȱthisȱindustry.ȱ

PowerPointȱasȱaȱMediumȱandȱGenreȱofȱOrganizationalȱCommunicationȱ Theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ mediaȱ andȱ genresȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicaȬ tionȱ(Yatesȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱ1992)ȱhelpsȱtoȱexamineȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱdifferentȱ formsȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱvaryȱinȱtheirȱabilityȱtoȱmakeȱprojectȱdeciȬ sionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ inherentȱ contingencyȱ visibleȱ toȱ organizationalȱ membersȱwhoȱdidȱnotȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱprojectȱthemselves.ȱAccordingȱtoȱ theȱ authors’ȱ definition,ȱ mediaȱ representȱ theȱ pureȱ communicationȱ instruȬ ments,ȱwhileȱtheȱtermȱgenreȱspecifiesȱaȱtypifiedȱandȱrecurrentȱpracticeȱofȱaȱ medium’sȱapplication:ȱ“Aȱgenreȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱ(e.g.,ȱaȱ recommendationȱletterȱorȱaȱproposal)ȱisȱaȱtypifiedȱcommunicativeȱactionȱ invokedȱ inȱ responseȱ toȱ aȱ recurrentȱ situation.ȱ Theȱ recurrentȱ situationȱ orȱ sociallyȱ definedȱ needȱ includesȱ theȱ historyȱ andȱ natureȱ ofȱ establishedȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

85ȱ

practices,ȱ socialȱ relations,ȱ andȱ communicationȱ mediaȱ withinȱ organizaȬ tions”ȱ (Yatesȱ &ȱ Orlikowski,ȱ 1992:ȱ 301).35ȱ Theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ mediaȱ andȱ genresȱ thusȱ allowsȱ forȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ evolutionȱ ofȱ communicaȬ tiveȱpracticesȱinȱorganizationsȱoverȱtime.ȱȱ Inȱ aȱ subsequentȱ article,ȱ Yatesȱ andȱ Orlikowskiȱ (forthcoming)ȱ underȬ lineȱ theȱ increasingȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ presentationȱ genreȱ inȱ orȬ ganizationalȱcommunication.ȱPowerfullyȱdrivenȱbyȱtheȱworkȱpracticesȱofȱ consultingȱ firms,ȱ slidewareȱ applicationsȱ suchȱ asȱ Microsoftȱ PowerPointȱ increasinglyȱ enterȱ communicationȱ settingsȱ inȱ businessȱ andȱ education.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Microsoftȱ numbers,ȱ PowerPointȱ reachesȱ aȱ shareȱ ofȱ 95ȱ perȬ centȱinȱtheȱmarketȱofȱslideware,ȱdayȱperȱdayȱ30ȱmillionȱpresentationsȱareȱ createdȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱitȱworldwideȱ(Parker,ȱ2001:ȱ76).ȱYatesȱandȱOrliȬ kowskiȱargueȱthatȱtheȱsoftware’sȱsuccessȱisȱrootedȱinȱtheȱhistoricalȱdevelȬ opmentȱofȱtheȱbusinessȱpresentationȱgenre:ȱ“(...)ȱtheȱbusinessȱpresentationȱ genreȱemergedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱrecurrentȱrequirementȱtoȱshareȱcomplexȱ informationȱwithȱmultipleȱpeopleȱinȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱmeetings”ȱ(Yatesȱ&ȱOrliȬ kowski,ȱ forthcoming:ȱ noȱ page).ȱ Theȱ technologyȱ isȱ presumedȱ toȱ beȱ espeȬ ciallyȱ wideȱ spreadȱ inȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ whereȱ PowerPointȱ decksȱ mostȱ commonlyȱ representȱ theȱ mainȱ workȱ productȱ ofȱ aȱ deployment.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ canȱ beȱ termedȱ asȱ primarilyȱ representingȱ slideȱ producingȱcompanies.ȱ TheȱriseȱofȱPowerPointȱhasȱbeenȱsubjectȱtoȱaȱnumberȱofȱcriticalȱartiȬ clesȱ inȱ popularȱ mediaȱ (Zuckerman,ȱ 1999;ȱ Nunberg,ȱ 1999;ȱ Stewart,ȱ 2001;ȱ Parker,ȱ2001;ȱKeller,ȱ2003;ȱSchmundt,ȱ2004;ȱKaube,ȱ2006).ȱInȱparticular,ȱaȱ criticalȱessayȱbyȱTufteȱ(2003)ȱhasȱinitiatedȱacademicȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱsubȬ jectȱofȱPowerPoint.36ȱTufteȱarguesȱthatȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱtendȱtoȱ elevateȱformatȱoverȱcontent.ȱTypicalȱformalȱcharacteristicsȱofȱPowerPointȱ 35ȱȱ Framedȱ thisȱ way,ȱ genresȱ asȱ communicativeȱ practicesȱ involveȱ restrictionsȱ toȱ selectivityȱ whichȱcanȱpresumedȱtoȱbecomeȱparticularlyȱsalientȱonȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtheȱutteranceȱselecȬ tion.ȱRestrictionsȱtoȱtheȱselectionȱofȱutterance,ȱinȱturn,ȱcanȱhaveȱimplicationsȱtoȱbothȱreȬ mainingȱ selectionsȱ ofȱ communication:ȱ informationȱ andȱ understandingȱ (cf.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ 1992);ȱfollowingȱTe’eni,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱaddedȱthatȱinformationȱtechnologyȱ“canȱaffectȱnotȱonlyȱ howȱweȱcommunicateȱbutȱalsoȱwhatȱweȱcommunicate”ȱ(Te’eni,ȱ2001:ȱ251;ȱownȱemphasisȱ added).ȱ 36ȱȱ SeeȱWorleyȱandȱDyrudȱ(2004)ȱforȱaȱrecentȱoverview.ȱ

86

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

presentationsȱ areȱ bulletȱ pointȱ lists,ȱ anȱ extensiveȱ usageȱ ofȱ graphicalȱ eleȬ mentsȱtoȱsupportȱtextualȱinformation,ȱandȱlargeȬscaleȱfonts.ȱFurthermore,ȱ theȱsoftwareȱisȱassumedȱtoȱhaveȱaȱsimplifyingȱeffectȱonȱtheȱpresentationȱ ofȱinformation:ȱ„AȱPowerPointȱslideȱtypicallyȱshowsȱ40ȱwords,ȱwhichȱisȱ aboutȱ8ȱsecondsȬworthȱofȱsilentȱreadingȱmaterial“ȱ(Tufte,ȱ2003:ȱ12).ȱTufteȱ illustratesȱ theȱ relevanceȱ ofȱ thisȱ hypothesisȱ byȱ drawingȱ onȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ NASA’sȱ Columbiaȱ disasterȱ inȱ 2003.ȱ Heȱ developsȱ theȱ argumentȱ thatȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ Microsoftȱ PowerPointȱ byȱ NASA’sȱ techniciansȱ forȱ docuȬ mentationȱpurposesȱledȱtoȱanȱunderestimationȱofȱtheȱcrucialȱfaultȱwhichȱ finallyȱcausedȱtheȱfatalȱaccidentȱ(Tufte,ȱ2003:ȱ8).ȱ Tufte’sȱargumentsȱareȱrelativizedȱbyȱauthorsȱwhoȱrejectȱaȱdeterminisȬ ticȱorȱcausalȱinfluenceȱofȱaȱmedium’sȱapplicationȱonȱorganizationalȱcomȬ municationȱ (e.g.,ȱ Thompson,ȱ 2003;ȱ Shwom,ȱ 2003).ȱ Inȱ theirȱ accountȱ onȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ asȱ aȱ genreȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communication,ȱ Yatesȱ andȱ Orlikowskiȱ (forthcoming)ȱ disagreeȱ withȱ Tufte’sȱ assumptionȱ thatȱitȱisȱtheȱsoftwareȱasȱaȱtechnologyȱwhichȱisȱableȱtoȱdetermineȱorganȬ izationalȱ communication.ȱ Instead,ȱ theyȱ baseȱ theirȱ analysisȱ onȱ structuraȬ tionȱ theoryȱ (Giddens,ȱ 1984;ȱ DeSanctisȱ &ȱ Poole,ȱ 1994)ȱ whichȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ dualityȱ ofȱ genresȱ asȱ aȱ socialȱ structure:ȱ Genresȱ bothȱ shapeȱ andȱ areȱ shapedȱbyȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunication.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ TheȱGenreȱConflictȱofȱPowerPointȱ Withȱreferenceȱtoȱempiricalȱstudies,ȱYatesȱandȱOrlikowskiȱhighlightȱthatȱ inȱ theȱ evolutionȱ ofȱ communicativeȱ practicesȱ inȱ consultingȱ firms,ȱ PowerȬ PointȱpresentationsȱhaveȱgainedȱimportanceȱinȱreplacementȱofȱtheȱtradiȬ tionalȱbusinessȱreportȱgenre:ȱ“WeȱhaveȱalsoȱfoundȱthatȱinȱmanyȱconsultȬ ingȱ firms,ȱ theȱ writtenȱ reportȱ thatȱ traditionallyȱ servedȱ asȱaȱ finalȱ ‘deliverȬ able’ȱ toȱ theȱ clientȱ(sometimesȱ inȱ conjunctionȱ withȱ aȱ verbalȱ presentation)ȱ hasȱbeenȱreplacedȱwithȱaȱPowerPointȱ‘deck’,ȱorȱstackȱofȱpaperȱprintoutsȱ ofȱPowerPointȱslides”ȱ(Yatesȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱforthcoming:ȱnoȱpage).ȱȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

87ȱ

IfȱYatesȱandȱOrlikowski’sȱaccountȱisȱvalidȱthatȱwrittenȱreportsȱinȱconȬ sultingȱ firmsȱ areȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ replacedȱ byȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ (Yatesȱ &ȱ Orlikowski,ȱ forthcoming),ȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ assumedȱ thatȱ PowerPointȱ alsoȱ findsȱ increasingȱ usageȱ asȱ projectȱ documentationȱ forȱ internalȱ CPLȱ purposes.37ȱHowever,ȱinȱcaseȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱserveȱasȱtheȱonlyȱ textualȱ referenceȱ ofȱ whatȱ hasȱ actuallyȱ happenedȱ inȱ aȱ specificȱ project,ȱ aȱ conflictȱofȱgenreȱfunctionsȱisȱlikelyȱtoȱemerge:ȱaȱconflictȱbetweenȱtheȱexterȬ nalȱpresentationȱfunctionȱandȱtheȱinternalȱdocumentationȱfunction:ȱȱ ȱ Thisȱ informalȱ presentationȱ practiceȱ andȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ deckȱ challengeȱ asȬ pectsȱofȱbothȱtheȱPowerPointȱpresentationȱandȱtheȱbusinessȱreportȱgenre.ȱInȱ particular,ȱ theȱ deckȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ slidesȱ isȱ expectedȱ toȱ serveȱ twoȱ differentȱ purposes:ȱfirst,ȱtoȱfunctionȱasȱaȱvisualȱaidȱsupportingȱanȱoralȱ(informal)ȱpreȬ sentation;ȱandȱsecond,ȱtoȱperformȱasȱaȱstandȬaloneȱdeliverableȱ(inȱmanyȱcaȬ sesȱ theȱ onlyȱ deliverable)ȱ reportingȱ theȱ resultsȱ andȱ conclusionsȱ ofȱ aȱ project.ȱ PowerPointȱ textsȱ createdȱ withȱ thisȱ dualȱ purposeȱ typicallyȱ haveȱ tooȱ muchȱ contentȱtoȱbeȱeffectiveȱpresentationȱaidsȱ(...)ȱandȱtooȱlittleȱcontentȱandȱcontextȱ (...)ȱ toȱ fulfillȱ expectationsȱ forȱ theȱ reportȱ genreȱ (Yatesȱ &ȱ Orlikowski,ȱ forthȬ coming:ȱnoȱpage).ȱ38ȱȱ ȱ

TheȱgenreȱconflictȱofȱPowerPointȱdocumentsȱappliedȱasȱaȱmeansȱforȱbothȱ presentationȱ andȱ documentationȱ purposesȱ recallsȱ Goffman’sȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ backstageȱ andȱ frontstageȱ settingsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (Goffman,ȱ 1959).ȱ Whileȱ PowerPointȱ asȱ aȱ mediumȱ ofȱ presentationȱ isȱ primarilyȱ deȬ signedȱ forȱ frontstageȱ settings,ȱ e.g.,ȱ inȱ communicationȱ toȱ theȱ client,ȱ theȱ documentationȱofȱprojectȱprocessesȱasȱappliedȱinȱCPLȱsettingsȱisȱaimedȱtoȱ 37ȱȱ Inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ canȱ representȱ “collaborativeȱ massȱ media”ȱ (Rafaeliȱ&ȱLaRose,ȱ1993),ȱdefinedȱasȱcombiningȱfeaturesȱofȱbothȱmediaȱofȱinterpersonalȱ communicationȱ andȱ massȱ media,ȱ ifȱ appliedȱ inȱ companyȬwideȱ databasesȱ accessibleȱ toȱ multipleȱusersȱinȱanȱorganization.ȱ 38ȱȱ Theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ documentationȱ andȱ presentationȱ functionȱ resemblesȱ Habermas’sȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱcommunicativeȱrationalityȱ(followingȱ theȱgoalȱofȱ muȬ tualȱunderstanding)ȱandȱinstrumentalȱrationalityȱ(followingȱtheȱgoalȱofȱachievingȱsucȬ cessesȱwhichȱlieȱoutsideȱofȱcommunication;ȱcf.ȱHabermas,ȱ1987);ȱhowever,ȱhisȱtheorizaȬ tionȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ incompatibleȱ withȱ theȱ paradigmaticȱ frameworkȱ underlyingȱ thisȱ study,ȱparticularlyȱinȱitsȱassumptionȱofȱanȱobjectiveȱrealityȱandȱaȱgeneralisticȱnotionȱofȱ rationality.ȱ

88

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

beȱperceivedȱbackstageȱexclusively,ȱe.g.,ȱbyȱotherȱcolleaguesȱofȱtheȱsameȱ firm.ȱ Inȱ aȱ relativisticȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱ frontstageȬbackstageȱ distinctionȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 3.1.3),ȱ aȱ companyȬwideȱ CPLȱ databaseȱ canȱ neverthelessȱ beȱ interȬ pretedȱ asȱ representingȱ aȱ frontstage,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ ratherȱ anonymousȱ orȬ ganizationsȱwithȱ aȱlargeȱnumberȱ ofȱemployeesȱ whereȱ itȱisȱimpossibleȱ toȱ knowȱeverybodyȱinȱperson.ȱ Inȱ frontstageȱ settings,ȱ forȱ exampleȱ inȱ clientȱ meetings,ȱ demandsȱ forȱ maintainingȱ anȱ elaborateȱ impressionȱ managementȱ canȱ beȱ presumedȱ toȱ conflictȱwithȱtheȱorganizationalȱnecessityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱvisibiliȬ zation.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱbeȱpersuasive,ȱtheȱprojectȱdocument’sȱnarrativeȱisȱmostȱ commonlyȱ optimizedȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ itsȱ consistencyȱ (ratherȱ thanȱ itsȱ conȬ tingency).ȱ Asȱ Bloomfieldȱ andȱ Vurdubakisȱ pointȱ out,ȱ “toȱ aȱ certainȱ extentȱ theȱstyleȱofȱreportsȱmayȱserveȱtoȱimmuniseȱthemȱagainstȱambiguity.ȱ(...)ȱ Theȱ priceȱ toȱ beȱ paidȱ forȱ allowingȱ theȱ frameȱ toȱ becomeȱ tooȱ expansiveȱ wouldȱ beȱ toȱ openȱ upȱ gaps:ȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ alternativeȱ readingsȱ andȱ thereforeȱdisagreementsȱaboutȱtheȱsolutions”ȱ(Bloomfieldȱ&ȱVurdubakis,ȱ 1994:ȱ 462).ȱ Garrickȱ andȱ Cleggȱ addȱ thatȱ organizationalȱ identityȱ canȱ haveȱ effectsȱ ofȱ “privilegingȱ whatȱ isȱ visibleȱ –ȱ competent,ȱ observableȱ performȬ ance“ȱ (Garrickȱ &ȱ Clegg,ȱ 2001:ȱ 124).ȱ Itȱ canȱ beȱ assumedȱ thatȱ additionalȱ culturalȱconstraintsȱapplyȱinȱorganizationsȱwhichȱfollowȱaȱratherȱknowlȬ edgeȬintensive,ȱ immaterialȱ typeȱ ofȱ workȱ (cf.ȱ Starbuck,ȱ 1992;ȱ Glücklerȱ &ȱ Armbürster,ȱ2003),ȱandȱbyȱanȱorganizationalȱcultureȱwhichȱdevaluesȱmisȬ takesȱ(cf.ȱHofstede,ȱ1991;ȱHustedȱ&ȱMichailova,ȱ2002).ȱAsȱEisenbergȱandȱ Wittenȱ assert,ȱ “theȱ disincentivesȱ toȱ revealȱ negativeȱ informationȱ areȱ wellȱ documented”ȱ(Eisenbergȱ&ȱWitten,ȱ1987:ȱ422).ȱ ȱ ȱ PowerPointȱandȱtheȱHypothesisȱofȱInvisibilizationȱ TheȱambiguousȱroleȱofȱPowerPointȱinȱprojectȱdocumentationȱcanȱnowȱbeȱ linkedȱ toȱ theȱ distinctionȱ madeȱ byȱ Seidlȱ (2006b)ȱ betweenȱ decisionȱ comȬ municationȱandȱorganizationalȱinteractionsȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.1.2).ȱInȱtheȱconȬ tinuousȱnecessityȱtoȱdeparadoxifyȱtheȱundecidabilityȱofȱdecisions,ȱorganȬ izationalȱ communicationȱ tendsȱ toȱ attributeȱ decisionsȱ toȱ interactionsȱ –ȱ

AnalysisȱofȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱ

89ȱ

similarlyȱtoȱtheȱwayȱtheȱcommunicativeȱselectionsȱofȱinformation,ȱutterȬ ance,ȱandȱunderstandingȱcommonlyȱareȱattributedȱtoȱpersonsȱandȱnotȱtoȱ communicationȱitself.ȱInȱthisȱcontext,ȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱappearȱtoȱ beȱanȱartifactualȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱorganization’sȱrequirementȱtoȱcloakȱ theȱparadoxȱofȱitsȱmostȱbasicȱprocess:ȱdecidingȱinȱsituationsȱofȱundecidaȬ bility.ȱ Inȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ invisibilizeȱ theȱ processesȱ whichȱ haveȱ ledȱ toȱ aȱ deciȬ sion,ȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱ projectȱ documentationȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ toȱ postȬrationalizeȱtheȱwayȱdecisionsȱhaveȱbeenȱmade:ȱ Decisionȱ making,ȱ inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱ isȱ lessȱ orientedȱ accordingȱ toȱ organizationalȱ andȱmoreȱtoȱinteractionalȱstructures.ȱRetrospectively,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱdecisionȱ premisesȱforȱtheȱdecisionsȱcanȱbeȱ–ȱandȱprobablyȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱ–ȱsought,ȱreconȬ structed,ȱ reinterpretedȱ orȱ evenȱ invented.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ decisionsȱ canȱ beȱ presentedȱretrospectivelyȱasȱifȱtheyȱhadȱbeenȱguidedȱbyȱdecisionȱpremisesȱ–ȱ decisionsȱareȱ‘postȬrationalised’.ȱ(Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ165)ȱ39ȱ ȱ

Ifȱ weȱ relateȱ thisȱ estimationȱ toȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ ourȱ study,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ doubtfulȱthatȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱindeedȱdoȱcontributeȱtoȱaȱvisibiȬ lizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ ifȱ appliedȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Asȱ Nassȱ putsȱ it,ȱ “PowerPointȱ givesȱ youȱtheȱoutcomeȱbutȱitȱremovesȱtheȱprocess“ȱ(citedȱbyȱParker,ȱ2001:ȱ76).ȱ Inȱ itsȱ usageȱ asȱ aȱ projectȱ report,ȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ presentationȱ genreȱ mayȱ insteadȱ abetȱ aȱ generalȱ tendencyȱ inȱ textualȱ formsȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ comȬ municationȱ “toȱ protocolȱ onlyȱ theȱ result,ȱ notȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ uncertaintyȱ absorption“ȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ215;ȱownȱtranslation).ȱ ThisȱfinallyȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱPowerPointȱpresenȬ tationsȱ asȱ aȱ mediumȱ andȱ genreȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ canȱ causallyȱ influenceȱaȱretrospectiveȱvisibilizationȱorȱinvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱproȬ cessesȱandȱtheirȱcontingency.ȱAccordingȱtoȱactorȬnetworkȱtheoryȱ(Latour,ȱ 1996;ȱLawȱ&ȱHassard,ȱ1999;ȱHarris,ȱ2005;ȱNoeȱ&ȱAlroe,ȱ2006),ȱartifactsȱareȱ theorizedȱasȱagentsȱinȱtheirȱownȱrightȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱareȱassumedȱtoȱacȬ tivelyȱshapeȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱprocesses:ȱȱ ȱ 39ȱȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ organizationsȱ mayȱ resembleȱ postȬhocraciesȱ ratherȱ thanȱ adȬhocraciesȱ (cf.ȱ Mintzbergȱ&ȱMcHugh,ȱ1985).ȱ

90

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

(...)ȱmediationȱbeginsȱwithȱgoalȱtranslation:ȱtechnicalȱmeansȱinvolveȱaȱcertainȱ displacementȱorȱdetourȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱactorȱandȱaimȱinȱorderȱtoȱaccomplishȱ theirȱgoal.ȱTechnologicalȱmediationȱisȱalwaysȱanȱinstanceȱofȱ‘shifting’;ȱaȱtaskȱ orȱgoalȱthatȱwouldȱinitiallyȱbeȱperformedȱinȱaȱcertainȱfashion,ȱisȱshiftedȱintoȱ anȱensembleȱofȱalternateȱmaterialsȱthatȱcanȱcarryȱoutȱthisȱtaskȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱ itȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱaȱcertainȱ‘functionȱcreep’.ȱ(Harris,ȱ2005:ȱ166;ȱemphasisȱinȱoriȬ ginal)ȱȱ ȱ

Inȱlineȱwithȱthisȱargument,ȱLatourȱhypothesizesȱaȱ“delegationȱofȱactionsȱ inȱtechnology”ȱ(Latour,ȱ1999:ȱ182).ȱTheȱstructurationȱperspectiveȱunderlyȬ ingȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱmediaȱandȱgenresȱofȱorganizationalȱcommuȬ nicationȱ(Yatesȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱ1992;ȱforthcoming;ȱZillien,ȱ2005;ȱ2006)ȱsugȬ gestsȱ toȱ assumeȱ anȱ intertwinedȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ performativeȱ usageȱofȱmediaȱandȱitsȱrecurrentȱusageȱpatterns,ȱtheirȱgenre.ȱInȱthisȱframȬ ing,ȱmediaȱandȱgenresȱdoȱnotȱcausallyȱdetermineȱaȱspecificȱcommunicaȬ tiveȱpractice,40ȱtheyȱratherȱrepresentȱartifactualȱmanifestationȱofȱtheȱevoȬ lutionȱ ofȱ communicativeȱ practicesȱ overȱ time,ȱ constrainedȱ byȱ theirȱ genreȱ specificȱhistory.ȱȱ Takenȱtogether,ȱtheȱanalysisȱyieldsȱrelevantȱaspectsȱforȱtheȱempiricalȱ investigationȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ inȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ projectȱ doȬ cumentation.ȱ Itȱ canȱ beȱ askedȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ aȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱprojectȱ documentationȱ doesȱ indeedȱ contributeȱ toȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ processesȱ havingȱ takenȱ placeȱ inȱ aȱ projectȱ (asȱ anȱ organizationalȱ interacȬ tion),ȱevenȱifȱdoneȱsoȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱaȱretrospectiveȱrationalization,ȱorȱifȱ theyȱratherȱtendȱtoȱmaskȱthatȱthereȱhaveȱbeenȱdecisionȱprocesses,ȱandȱtoȱ presentȱ decisionsȱ asȱ beingȱ inevitable.ȱ Asȱ Seidlȱ putsȱ it,ȱ “(...)ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ understandȱtheȱinteractionalȱcommunicationsȱoneȱhasȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱ ‘interactionalȱ meaning’ȱ behindȱtheȱ façadeȱ ofȱ decisionȱ communications”ȱ (Seidl,ȱ2006b:ȱ159;ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal).ȱ ȱ

40ȱȱ This,ȱinȱturn,ȱrelativizesȱMcLuhanȱandȱFiore’sȱclassicalȱterm:ȱ“TheȱmediumȱisȱtheȱmesȬ sage”ȱ(McLuhanȱ&ȱFiore,ȱ1967).ȱ

Synthesis:ȱTheȱTwoȱForcesȱofȱDCVȱ

91ȱ

3.3 Synthesis:ȱTheȱTwoȱForcesȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱ(InȬ)Visibilityȱ ȱ Inȱtheȱtheoreticalȱanalysis,ȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱhasȱbeenȱ approachedȱfromȱtwoȱdirections:ȱInȱaȱfirstȱstep,ȱtheȱorganizationalȱsideȱofȱ theȱcoinȱhasȱbeenȱanalyzedȱbyȱaskingȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱdeciȬ sionȱcontingencyȱdoesȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱautopoiesisȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱ aȱsocialȱsystemȱandȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱthisȱcontributionȱisȱatȱstakeȱinȱtheȱspeȬ cialȱ caseȱ ofȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ suchȱ asȱ consultingȱ firms.ȱ Inȱ aȱ secondȱ step,ȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoinȱhasȱbeenȱanalyzedȱbyȱaskingȱ toȱwhatȱextentȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱcanȱbecomeȱvisibleȱinȱorganizationalȱ communicationȱandȱwhatȱroleȱisȱplayedȱinȱthisȱcontextȱbyȱtextualȱmediaȱ ofȱ communicationȱ suchȱ asȱ Microsoftȱ PowerPoint.ȱ Thisȱ chapterȱ summaȬ rizesȱ mainȱ insightsȱ generatedȱ byȱ theȱ twofoldȱ analysis.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theoȬ reticalȱ distinctionsȱ andȱ researchȱ questionsȱ areȱ introducedȱ whichȱ willȱ guideȱtheȱfurtherȱcourseȱofȱtheȱanalysis.ȱ

SummaryȱofȱInsightsȱFromȱtheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDualityȱ Theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ coinȱ highlightedȱ thatȱ conȬ tingenciesȱareȱinherentȱtoȱdecisions.ȱByȱmeansȱofȱdecisions,ȱorganizationsȱ transformȱstatesȱofȱopenȱcontingencyȱintoȱfixedȱcontingency.ȱForȱorganiȬ zationsȱ asȱ autopoieticȱ systems,ȱ whichȱ essentiallyȱ consistȱ ofȱ communiȬ catedȱ decisions,ȱ theȱ problemȱ arisesȱ toȱ ensureȱ aȱ connectivityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ communicationȱoverȱtime:ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ thisȱ connectivityȱ requiresȱ toȱ highlightȱ thatȱ thereȱ haveȱ beenȱ alternativesȱ takenȱ intoȱ considerationȱ andȱ thatȱ aȱ selectionȱ hasȱ beenȱmadeȱfromȱthem.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱnecessityȱtoȱmarkȱdecisionsȱ asȱdecisionsȱisȱopposedȱbyȱtheȱparadoxȱofȱtheȱundecidabilityȱofȱdecisions.ȱ Organizationsȱ needȱ toȱ cloakȱ theȱ paradoxȱ characterȱ ofȱ theirȱ basicȱ operaȬ tionsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ remainȱ capableȱ forȱaction.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱlargelyȱ unexȬ ploredȱ thusȱ farȱ howȱ organizationsȱ copeȱ withȱ theȱ contradictingȱ forcesȱ toȱ visibilizeȱ theȱ contingencyȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ andȱ toȱ invisibilizeȱ theirȱ basicȱ opȬ erations.ȱExistingȱorganizationalȱstrategiesȱofȱdeparadoxificationȱcanȱthenȱ serveȱasȱaȱreferenceȱpointȱforȱtheȱempiricalȱinvestigationȱofȱthisȱdilemma.ȱ

92

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

TheȱorganizationalȱdilemmaȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱforcesȱofȱdecisionȱconȬ tingencyȱvisibilizationȱandȱinvisibilizationȱisȱpresumedȱtoȱbeȱparticularlyȱ salientȱ inȱ projectȱ organizations.ȱ Theȱ featureȱ ofȱ distributedȱ decisionȱ proȬ cessesȱhasȱputȱforthȱtheȱchallengeȱofȱCPLȱinȱorderȱtoȱpreventȱtoȱ“reȬinventȱ theȱ wheel”ȱ repetitivelyȱ inȱ projects.ȱ Recentȱ workȱ onȱ CPL,ȱ however,ȱ emȬ phasizesȱthatȱtheȱlearningȱvalueȱfromȱfailureȱisȱunderratedȱinȱcomparisonȱ toȱstrategiesȱofȱlearningȱfromȱsuccess.ȱHighlightingȱtheȱcontingencyȱofȱtheȱ projectȱprocess,ȱitȱisȱassumedȱhere,ȱwillȱallowȱanȱexpertiseȬseekingȱnoviceȱ toȱ learnȱ moreȱ aboutȱ aȱ projectȱ thanȱ fromȱ aȱ mereȱ presentationȱ ofȱ results.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ andȱ orȬ ganizationalȱ interactionsȱ showsȱ thatȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ tendȱ toȱ cultiȬ vateȱaȱforgetfulnessȱofȱtheirȱdecisionsȱinȱprojectsȱonȱanȱoverarchingȱlevelȱ inȱ orderȱ notȱ toȱ becomeȱ overwhelmedȱ byȱ theȱ contingenciesȱ ofȱ theirȱ disȬ tributedȱoperations.ȱȱ Aȱtypicalȱexampleȱforȱprojectȱorganizationsȱareȱconsultingȱfirms.ȱBeȬ causeȱ theȱ businessȱ modelȱ ofȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ knowledgeȬ based,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ atȱ theȱ forefrontȱ inȱ establishingȱ processesȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱmanagementȱandȱCPL.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱambiguityȱofȱtheirȱworkȱ hasȱforcedȱconsultingȱfirmsȱtoȱestablishȱelaborateȱstrategiesȱofȱimpressionȱ management,ȱasȱwell.ȱWithȱthis,ȱweȱapproachȱanotherȱinstanceȱwhereȱtheȱ decisionȱcontingencyȱvisibilizationȱandȱinvisibilizationȱinȱprojectȱorganiȬ zationsȱcollide.ȱTheȱstudyȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱconsultingȱfirms’ȱemphasisȱonȱ bothȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ andȱ impressionȱ managementȱ createsȱ aȱ dilemmaȱ situation:ȱ Effortsȱ toȱ makeȱ projectȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ continȬ gencyȱvisibleȱareȱopposedȱbyȱeffortsȱtoȱmaintainȱaȱconsistentȱpresentationȱ ofȱtheȱconsultingȱproject.ȱ ȱ ȱ SummaryȱofȱInsightsȱFromȱtheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDualityȱ TheȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoinȱstartedȱwithȱaȱdefiȬ nitionȱ ofȱ communicationȱ asȱ aȱ threefoldȱ selectionȱ consistingȱ ofȱ informaȬ tion,ȱ utterance,ȱ andȱ understanding.ȱ Decisions,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ areȱ graspedȱ asȱ aȱ specificȱsubȬtypeȱofȱcommunication.ȱTheyȱrepresentȱperformativeȱspeechȱ

Synthesis:ȱTheȱTwoȱForcesȱofȱDCVȱ

93ȱ

actsȱinȱthatȱtheyȱcreateȱtheȱstateȱofȱtheȱworldȱtheyȱareȱreferringȱto.ȱMoreȬ over,ȱdecisionsȱcreateȱtheȱimpressionȱofȱanȱinvariantȱpastȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱ provocateȱtoȱdissent.ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱdecisionsȱinherentlyȱcreateȱnewȱconȬ tingencies,ȱandȱwithȱthis,ȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱemergenceȱandȱstabilizationȱofȱ theȱorganizationȱasȱanȱautopoieticȱsystem.ȱNevertheless,ȱtheȱvisibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ estimatedȱ asȱ beingȱ ambivalent:ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱliteratureȱonȱtheȱaspectȱofȱvisibilityȱhaveȱputȱforwardȱtheȱ claimȱ forȱanȱ enhancedȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ workȱ andȱ decisionȱ processes.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱhand,ȱtheȱtheoreticalȱanalysisȱbringsȱforthȱskepticalȱaccountsȱonȱtheȱ realizabilityȱ ofȱ aȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communication.ȱȱ Theȱ challengeȱ ofȱ CPLȱ isȱ hypothesizedȱ toȱ haveȱ promotedȱ aȱ renaisȬ sanceȱ ofȱ textualityȱ inȱ projectȱ organizations.ȱ Textualȱ modesȱ differȱ fromȱ verbalȱmodesȱofȱcommunicationȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheirȱinherentȱcapacityȱtoȱ stabilizeȱ communicationȱ overȱ time.ȱ Consequently,ȱ textsȱ canȱ beȱ assumedȱ toȱ constituteȱ theȱ projectȱ organization’sȱ communicativeȱ memory.ȱ Butȱ again,ȱthisȱdoesȱnotȱguaranteeȱaȱfullȬblownȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱconȬ tingenciesȱinȱtextualȱform.ȱParticularly,ȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱlongȬlastingȱcharȬ acterȱ ofȱ texts,ȱ theyȱ createȱ specialȱ requirementsȱ forȱ theȱ projectȱ organizaȬ tionsȱ toȱ handleȱ theȱ dilemmaȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ achieveȱ someȱ formȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ visibilityȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ establishȱ façadesȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ cloakȱ theȱ paradoxȱofȱdecisionsȱasȱtheirȱbasicȱoperations.ȱȱ Inȱ consultingȱ firms,ȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ haveȱ gainedȱ increasȬ ingȱimportanceȱasȱaȱmediumȱandȱgenreȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunication.ȱ NotȱonlyȱtheyȱareȱusedȱtoȱgenerateȱpresentationȱtoȱbeȱheldȱinȱclientȱmeetȬ ing,ȱtheyȱareȱalsoȱappliedȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱCPLȱbyȱdocumentingȱwhatȱ hasȱ happenedȱ inȱ aȱ particularȱ project.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ assumedȱ toȱ causeȱ aȱ genreȱ conflictȱ betweenȱ theȱ presentationȱ andȱ theȱ documentationȱ functionȱ ofȱ PowerPoint.ȱ Itȱ isȱ unexploredȱ thusȱ farȱ howȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ genreȱ develȬ opsȱinȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱcontradictingȱfunctions.ȱTheȱquestionȱarisesȱtoȱ whatȱ extentȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ presentationȱ genreȱ promotesȱ orȱ inhibitȱ theȱ visibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱprojectȱdocumentation.ȱ

94

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

GuidingȱDistinctionsȱandȱResearchȱQuestionsȱ Takenȱtogether,ȱallȱsixȱpartsȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱilluminateȱfromȱdifferentȱanȬ klesȱthatȱprojectȱorganizations,ȱandȱconsultingȱfirmsȱinȱparticular,ȱresideȱ inȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ forcesȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ visibilizationȱ andȱ inȬ visibilization:ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ themȱ coercesȱ theȱ projectȱ organizationȱ toȱ revealȱ itsȱ contingencies.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ organizationalȱ necessityȱ toȱ highlightȱ decisionsȱasȱdecisionsȱinȱorderȱtoȱaccomplishȱtheirȱconnectivityȱoverȱtime.ȱ Furthermore,ȱaȱrevelationȱofȱcontingencyȱcanȱbeȱassumedȱtoȱbeȱpromotedȱ byȱeffortsȱspentȱonȱCPLȱpracticesȱwhichȱfocusȱonȱtheȱlearningȱvalueȱfromȱ mistakesȱ madeȱ andȱ alternativesȱ considered.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ oneȱ ofȱ themȱ coȬ ercesȱ theȱ organizationȱ toȱ cloakȱ theȱ paradoxȱ andȱ contingentȱ characterȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ avoidȱ aȱ paralysisȱ byȱ becomingȱ overlyȱ awareȱ ofȱ them.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ analysisȱ yieldsȱ thatȱ organizationalȱ constraintsȱ mayȱ inhibitȱtoȱrevealȱmistakesȱandȱambiguitiesȱinȱcommunicativeȱworkȱpracȬ tices.ȱ Theseȱ insightsȱ canȱ beȱ summarizedȱ byȱ anȱ outlineȱ ofȱ theoreticalȱ disȬ tinctionsȱwhichȱareȱhelpfulȱtoȱguideȱtheȱfurtherȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱvisibilizaȬ tionȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱorganizationalȱpractice.ȱTheȱguidingȱdisȬ tinctionsȱareȱsummarizedȱbyȱfigureȱ2:ȱ ȱ

ComparativeȱCriterionȱ

MainȱDocumentȱFunctionȱ CommunicativeȱSettingȱ NarrativeȱFocusȱ

Visibilizationȱofȱȱ DecisionȱContingencyȱ

Invisibilizationȱofȱ DecisionȱContingencyȱ

documentationȱfunctionȱȱ (knowledgeȱmanagement)ȱ

presentationȱfunctionȱ (impressionȱmanagement)ȱ

backstageȱsettingȱ

frontstageȱsettingȱ

focusȱonȱcontingencyȱ

focusȱonȱconsistencyȱ

ȱ

Figureȱ2:

ȱ ȱ

GuidingȱDistinctionsȱofȱtheȱEmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

Synthesis:ȱTheȱTwoȱForcesȱofȱDCVȱ

95ȱ

Theȱ distinctionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ presentationȱ andȱ documentationȱ function,ȱ impressionȱ managementȱ andȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ purposes,ȱ frontȬ stageȱ andȱ backstageȱ settings,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ consistencyȱ andȱ contingencyȬ centeredȱcommunicationȱdefineȱtheȱtensionȱinȱwhichȱPowerPointȱpresenȬ tationsȱ prolongȱ whenȱ appliedȱ asȱ documentsȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ crossȬ projectȱlearning.ȱOriginallyȱcreatedȱinȱaȱfrontstageȱsettingȱforȱpresentationȱ toȱtheȱclient,ȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱareȱpresumedȱtoȱremainȱinȱaȱconȬ sistencyȬcenteredȱ narrativeȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ fulfillȱ impressionȱ managementȱ purposes.ȱ Theȱ theoreticalȱ distinctionsȱ introducedȱ hereȱ areȱ usefulȱ forȱ theȱ empiricalȱanalysisȱinȱthatȱtheyȱallowȱtoȱevaluateȱwhetherȱtheȱPowerPointȱ genreȱ inȱ practiceȱ ratherȱ developsȱ towardsȱ oneȱ orȱ theȱ otherȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ distinctions.ȱ Accordingly,ȱtheȱmainȱresearchȱquestionȱofȱthisȱstudy,ȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱ doȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ becomeȱ visibleȱ inȱ PowerȬ PointȬbasedȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation,ȱ canȱ beȱ furtherȱ differentiȬ ated.ȱBasedȱonȱtheȱtwoȬsidedȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱDCVȱissue,ȱtwoȱgeneralȱsetsȱ ofȱ researchȱ questionsȱ canȱ beȱ derivedȱ –ȱ oneȱ ofȱ whichȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ comȬ municationalȱ sideȱ and,ȱ theȱ otherȱ oneȱ toȱ theȱ organizationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȬcommunicationȱduality:ȱ Byȱlookingȱatȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoin,ȱitȱisȱcentralȱtoȱaskȱ howȱdecisionsȱandȱtheirȱinherentȱcontingencyȱareȱactuallyȱmadeȱvisibleȱinȱ organizationsȱbyȱmeansȱofȱcommunication.ȱIsȱPowerPointȱindeedȱincreasȬ inglyȱ usedȱ toȱ replaceȱ previousȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation?ȱ Andȱ ifȱ thisȱ isȱ valid,ȱtoȱ whatȱ extentȱ doesȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱPowerPointȱ presentationsȱ forȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱpromoteȱorȱhinderȱaȱvisibilizaȬ tionȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ theȱ projectȱ organization?ȱ Howȱ doesȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ presentationȱ genreȱ developȱ betweenȱ itsȱ partlyȱ conflictingȱ functionsȱ–ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtoȱcreateȱaȱlinear,ȱconsistent,ȱandȱambiguityȬ reducedȱ“storyline”ȱinȱcommunicationȱtoȱtheȱclient,ȱor,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ projectȱ decisionsȱ observableȱ toȱ colleaguesȱ whichȱ involvesȱ theȱ considerationȱ ofȱ alternatives,ȱ doubts,ȱ andȱ sideȬpaths?ȱ FiȬ nally,ȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱdoesȱtheȱgenreȱconflictȱofȱPowerPointȱtransformȱtheȱ genreȱ asȱ such,ȱ e.g.,ȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ isȱ theȱ narrativeȱ transformedȱ intoȱ aȱ

96

TheoreticalȱAnalysisȱȱ

ȱ

contingencyȬcenteredȱmodeȱofȱcommunicationȱinȱorderȱtoȱsatisfyȱknowlȬ edgeȱmanagementȱpurposes?ȱȱ Byȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ organizationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ coin,ȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ DCVȱ becomesȱaȱmatterȱofȱorganizationalȱautopoiesis.ȱHowever,ȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱ abstractȱ notionȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ asȱ communicativeȱ systems,ȱ theseȱ reȬ searchȱ questionsȱ canȱ hardlyȱ beȱ validatedȱ inȱ aȱ directȱ empiricalȱ way.ȱ Forȱ theȱempiricalȱinvestigator,ȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱsocialȱsystemȱappearsȱtoȱ becomeȱvisibleȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱfromȱitsȱcommunicationalȱside.ȱThereȬ fore,ȱ theȱ followingȱ questionsȱ willȱ requireȱ toȱ drawȱ theoreticalȱ inferencesȱ fromȱ theȱ empiricalȱ materialȱ withȱ theȱ helpȱ ofȱ thisȱ study’sȱ theoreticalȱ framework:ȱToȱwhatȱextentȱdoȱPowerPointȬbasedȱprojectȱdocumentsȱconȬ tributeȱtoȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱandȱwithȱthisȱtoȱmainȬ tainȱaȱconnectivityȱofȱepisodesȱofȱdecisionȱcommunication?ȱHowȱdoesȱtheȱ projectȱ organizationȱ oscillateȱ betweenȱ theȱ contradictoryȱ functions,ȱ theȱ project’sȱnecessityȱtoȱsustainȱaȱborderȱbetweenȱitselfȱandȱitsȱenvironmentȱ andȱtheȱorganization’sȱnecessityȱtoȱassureȱaȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionsȱcontinȬ gency?ȱ Andȱ finally,ȱ whatȱ doesȱ itȱ meanȱ forȱ theȱ projectȱ organization’sȱ autopoiesisȱ andȱ memoryȱ ifȱ theȱ dilemmaȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ (inȬ)ȱ visibilityȱisȱeitherȱsolvedȱinȱfavorȱofȱaȱvisibilizationȱorȱinvisibilizationȱofȱ contingencies?ȱ Havingȱarrivedȱatȱthisȱpointȱofȱtheȱanalysis,ȱtheȱtheoreticalȱconsideraȬ tionsȱcanȱbeȱgroundedȱinȱanȱempiricalȱanalysisȱofȱDCVȱinȱorganizationalȱ practice.ȱ Argumentsȱ forȱ applyingȱ anȱ empiricalȱ investigationȱ canȱ beȱ deȬ rivedȱ fromȱ thisȱ study’sȱ mainȱ researchȱ focusȱ whichȱ relatesȱ toȱ projectȱ documentationȱasȱanȱempiricalȱissue.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱempiricalȱpartȱofȱtheȱ analysisȱcanȱhelpȱtoȱavoidȱaȱtheorizationȱonȱaȱmerelyȱabstractȱlevelȱwhichȱ lacksȱanyȱconnectionȱtoȱperformativeȱsocialȱrealityȱinȱorganizationalȱcomȬ munication.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱempiricalȱanalysisȱtoȱyieldȱaȱbasicȱsenseȱ forȱ theȱ idiosyncrasiesȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ inȱ theȱ everydayȱ practiceȱ ofȱanȱactualȱorganization.ȱConsequently,ȱtheȱfollowingȱchapterȱpresentsȱaȱ methodologyȱ howȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ canȱ beȱ apȬ proachedȱempirically.ȱ ȱ

4 Methodology:ȱHowȱtoȱInvestigateȱtheȱ (InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱȱ inȱtheȱPracticeȱofȱProjectȱDocumentationȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Thisȱ chapterȱ introducesȱ theȱ methodologyȱ ofȱ theȱ empiricalȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ analysis.ȱTheȱoutlineȱbeginsȱwithȱbasicȱmethodologicalȱconsiderationsȱonȱ theȱ empiricalȱ accessibilityȱ ofȱ theȱ researchȱ issue,ȱ interrelationsȱ betweenȱ theoryȱandȱempiricalȱdata,ȱandȱtheȱcaseȱstudyȱapproachȱtheȱfurtherȱanalyȬ sisȱisȱbasedȱonȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.1).ȱInȱaȱnextȱstep,ȱtheȱspecificȱcaseȱorganizaȬ tionȱ selectedȱ forȱ theȱ analysisȱ isȱ presentedȱ inȱ itsȱ mainȱ characteristicsȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ4.2).ȱFinally,ȱtheȱparticularȱcombinationȱofȱmethodsȱisȱdescribedȱ inȱ detail:ȱ Thisȱ involvesȱ considerationsȱ onȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ methods,ȱ samplingȱheuristics,ȱandȱdataȱanalysisȱtechniquesȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.3).ȱ

ȱ 4.1 BasicȱMethodologicalȱConsiderationsȱ ȱ 4.1.1 TheȱEmpiricalȱAccessibilityȱofȱtheȱResearchȱIssueȱ ȱ TheȱcontingencyȱofȱdecisionsȱandȱitsȱvisibilityȱinȱorganizationalȱcommuȬ nicationȱ isȱ highlyȱ abstractȱ inȱ itsȱ theoreticalȱ origin.ȱ Theȱ researchȱ issueȱ isȱ groundedȱonȱtheȱtheorizationȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱemergentȱsocialȱsystemsȱ consistingȱ ofȱ nothingȱ elseȱ thanȱ ephemeralȱ butȱ interȬrelatedȱ episodesȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000;ȱ Taylorȱ &ȱ vanȱ Every,ȱ 2000).ȱ Therefore,ȱ theȱquestionȱisȱlegitimate,ȱhowȱcanȱtheȱphenomenonȱofȱcontingencyȱvisiȬ bilizationȱ empiricallyȱ atȱ all,ȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ abstractȱ andȱ somewhatȱ counterȬintuitiveȱconceptȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunication?ȱ

98

Methodologyȱȱ

ȱ

Withȱ theȱ termȱ recalcitrance,ȱ Latourȱ (2000)ȱ identifiesȱ oneȱ specificȱ asȬ pectȱ thatȱ distinguishesȱ researchȱ objectsȱinȱ theȱ naturalȱ andȱ theȱ socialȱ sciȬ ences.ȱ Researchȱ objectsȱ inȱ theȱ naturalȱ sciences,ȱ suchȱ asȱ moleculesȱ orȱ atȬ omsȱ forȱ example,ȱ areȱ recalcitrantȱ whichȱ meansȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ ableȱ toȱ takeȱtheȱintentionsȱofȱtheȱresearcherȱwhoȱinvestigatesȱthemȱintoȱaccount.ȱ Theyȱ“provideȱanswersȱonȱtheirȱownȱterms”ȱ(Sørensenȱetȱal.,ȱ2001:ȱ301).ȱ Inȱcontrast,ȱtheȱresearchȱobjectsȱinȱtheȱsocialȱsciences,ȱhumanȱbeings,ȱacȬ tuallyȱdoȱhaveȱtheirȱownȱresentments,ȱassumptions,ȱreluctance,ȱandȱcuriȬ osityȱ aboutȱ theȱ intentionsȱ ofȱ theȱ socialȱ scientistȱ whoȱ observesȱ orȱ interȬ viewsȱ them.ȱ Theirȱ reflexivityȱ enablesȱ humanȱ beingsȱ toȱ adaptȱ orȱ opposeȱ theirȱ behaviorȱ toȱ theȱ scientificȱ intervention.ȱ Objectsȱ likeȱ aȱ ball,ȱ instead,ȱ willȱ rollȱ downȱ theȱ hillȱ afterȱ theȱ secondȱ orȱ thirdȱ attemptȱ givenȱ constantȱ environmentalȱconditions,ȱevenȱwhenȱbeingȱobserved.ȱȱ Inȱaȱsimilarȱvein,ȱGiddensȱ(1984)ȱhasȱframedȱtheȱnotionȱofȱtheȱdoubleȱ hermeneuticȱtoȱdefineȱaȱdistinctȱfeatureȱofȱtheȱresearchȱprocessȱinȱtheȱsocialȱ sciences:ȱ Theȱ researcherȱ isȱ tryingȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ researchȱ objectȱ inȱ aȱ hermeneuticȱ way,ȱ whereasȱ theȱ researchȱ objectȱ itselfȱ alsoȱ triesȱ toȱ underȬ standȱtheȱresearcher:ȱ“Allȱsocialȱactors,ȱitȱcanȱproperlyȱbeȱsaid,ȱareȱsocialȱ theorists,ȱ whoȱ alterȱ theirȱ theoriesȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ experience”ȱ (Giddens,ȱ 1984:ȱ335).ȱ Latour’sȱnotionȱofȱrecalcitranceȱcanȱbeȱusedȱtoȱevaluateȱtheȱempiricalȱ accessibilityȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱinȱpractice.ȱLetȱusȱconsiderȱ thatȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱimaginesȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱanȱautopoieticȱsysȬ temȱ whichȱ operatesȱ onȱ itsȱ ownȱ terms,ȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ continuousȱ reproȬ ductionȱ ofȱ decisiveȱ episodesȱ andȱ aȱ transformationȱ fromȱ openȱ intoȱ fixedȱ contingency.ȱTheȱorganizationȱisȱtheorizedȱhereȱasȱaȱphenomenonȱwhichȱ reliesȱonȱtheȱparticipationȱofȱhumanȱbeingsȱboundȱtoȱitȱasȱorganizationalȱ membersȱ butȱ whichȱ operatesȱ autonomouslyȱ toȱ aȱ largeȱ extent.ȱ Thisȱ abȬ stractȱandȱimmaterialȱconceptȱofȱtheȱorganization,ȱhowever,ȱcomplicatesȱ itsȱdirectȱempiricalȱinvestigation.ȱAsȱarguedȱinȱtheȱtheoreticalȱanalysisȱ(cf.ȱ chapterȱ3.2.2),ȱtextualȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱcanȱthenȱserveȱasȱanȱemȬ piricalȱ anchorȱ toȱ approachȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ processesȱ (cf.ȱ Andersen,ȱ2003).ȱThisȱalsoȱjustifiesȱaȱfocusȱonȱtextualȱprojectȱdocumentsȱ asȱtheȱkeyȱfocusȱforȱtheȱempiricalȱanalysisȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.3.1).ȱȱ

BasicȱMethodologicalȱConsiderationsȱ

99ȱ

4.1.2 InterrelationsȱBetweenȱTheoryȱandȱEmpiricalȱDataȱ ȱ TheȱstatusȱofȱempiricalȱresearchȱinȱstudiesȱbasedȱonȱtheȱTSSȱperspectiveȱ isȱ subjectȱ toȱ anȱ ongoingȱ debateȱ inȱ theȱ socialȱ sciencesȱ (e.g.,ȱ Nassehiȱ &ȱȱ Saake,ȱ 2002;ȱ Hirschauerȱ &ȱ Bergmann,ȱ 2002).ȱ Inȱ aȱ positivisticȱ interpretaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱTSSȱframework,ȱtheȱtheoryȱisȱcriticizedȱforȱlackingȱanyȱinterestȱ inȱ theȱ investigationȱ ofȱ causeȬeffectȱ relationshipsȱ andȱ forȱ neglectingȱ theȱ influenceȱofȱindividualsȱinȱanȱoverȬemphasisȱonȱsocialȱaspectsȱ(cf.ȱEsser,ȱ 2002).ȱThisȱpositionȱisȱopposedȱbyȱresearchersȱwhoȱfollowȱtheȱTSSȱframeȬ work:ȱ „Althoughȱ Luhmann’sȱ theoryȱ oftenȱ getsȱ characterizedȱ asȱ aȱ veryȱ abstractȱandȱoverȱtheorizedȱsociology,ȱitȱisȱinȱfactȱaȱremarkablyȱempiricalȱ theoryȱbecauseȱitȱisȱinterestedȱinȱtheȱbasicȱprocessesȱinȱwhichȱsocialȱsysȬ temsȱoccurȱandȱinȱwhichȱstructuresȱcomeȱintoȱbeing“ȱ(Nassehi,ȱ2005:ȱ183).ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Andersen,ȱ theȱ TSSȱ frameworkȱ differsȱ fromȱ otherȱ apȬ proachesȱ inȱ itsȱ focusȱ onȱ functionalȱ analysesȱ ratherȱ thanȱ causalȱ explanaȬ tions:ȱȱ ȱ Luhmann’sȱ theoryȱ aboutȱ decisionȱ andȱ organisationȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ theoryȱ aboutȱ whatȱdecisionsȱare,ȱwhatȱanȱorganisationȱis,ȱorȱwhyȱorganisationsȱreachȱparȬ ticularȱdecisions.ȱItȱisȱnotȱaȱtheoryȱofȱexplanationsȱandȱprobablyȱnotȱevenȱaȱ theoryȱ ofȱ understanding.ȱ Theȱ theoryȱ merelyȱ servesȱ asȱ programȱ forȱ theȱ obȬ servationȱ ofȱ howȱ organisationsȱ emergeȱ throughȱ observations.ȱ (Andersen,ȱ 2003:ȱ255;ȱemphasesȱomitted)ȱ ȱ

ItȱisȱarguedȱhereȱthatȱaȱprofoundȱinterestȱinȱsocialȱrealityȱisȱinsteadȱtestiȬ fiedȱ byȱ theȱ theory’sȱ aimȱ toȱ exploreȱ theȱ “preȬempiricalȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ theȱ possibilityȱofȱsystems“ȱ(Nassehi,ȱ2005:ȱ181).41ȱInȱsimilarȱfashion,ȱthisȱstudyȱ isȱfocusedȱonȱuncoveringȱtheȱpreȬempiricalȱconditionsȱofȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱ projectȱorganizationsȱasȱautopoieticȱsocialȱsystems:ȱHowȱisȱitȱpossibleȱthatȱ organizationsȱareȱableȱtoȱsustainȱtheirȱexistenceȱinȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱconnectȱ oneȱdecisionȱtoȱtheȱnextȱoneȱ–ȱandȱhowȱdoesȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱ contingencyȱcontributeȱtoȱthisȱphenomenon?ȱȱ

41ȱȱ ThisȱrelatesȱtoȱKant’sȱepistemologicalȱassumptionȱtoȱfocusȱ“conditionsȱofȱpossibilities”ȱ insteadȱofȱaȱfocusȱonȱmereȱcausalityȱ(cf.ȱMonod,ȱ2004).ȱ

100

Methodologyȱȱ

ȱ

AnotherȱobjectionȱfrequentlyȱputȱforthȱagainstȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱisȱ theȱ criticismȱ ofȱ itsȱ hermeticȱ terminologyȱ (Seidlȱ &ȱ Becker,ȱ 2006b:ȱ 10)ȱ –ȱ andȱ thatȱ thisȱ terminologyȱ hindersȱ theȱ theoryȱ fromȱ becomingȱ empiricallyȱ apȬ plicableȱ atȱ all.ȱ Forȱ theȱ followersȱ ofȱ theȱ TSSȱ framework,ȱ establishingȱ aȱ strictȱ andȱ hermeticȱ borderȱbetweenȱ theȱ theory’sȱ terminologyȱ andȱeveryȬ dayȱ languageȱ representsȱ anȱ essentialȱ preconditionȱ forȱ beingȱ ableȱ toȱ obȬ serveȱtheȱsocialȱworldȱ(cf.ȱSoentgen,ȱ1992).ȱThisȱassumptionȱisȱconsistentȱ withȱtheȱsystemsȬenvironmentȱdistinctionȱplacedȱrightȱatȱtheȱcenterȱofȱtheȱ framework:ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ observeȱ itsȱ surroundingȱ world,ȱ aȱ sysȬ temȱ needsȱ toȱ establishȱ aȱ distinctȱ borderȱ betweenȱ itselfȱ andȱ itsȱ environȬ mentȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1984:ȱ 22).ȱ Inȱ analogy,ȱ theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ inȱ itselfȱrepresentsȱaȱcommunicativeȱsystemȱwhichȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱterminologiȬ callyȱ distinctȱ fromȱ itsȱ communicativeȱ environmentȱ (interactions,ȱ organiȬ zations,ȱandȱsociety)ȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱobserveȱtheseȱsystemsȱ(Nicolai,ȱ 2004:ȱ956).ȱȱ Inȱgeneral,ȱtheȱassertionȱthatȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱcomesȱshortȱonȱanyȱ interestȱinȱempiricalȱsocialȱrealityȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱestimatedȱasȱinappropriate:ȱ “WhenȱaȱsocialȱscientistȱtheorizesȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱsocialȱsysȬ tems,ȱ heȱ automaticallyȱ generatesȱ conceptsȱ whichȱ relateȱ toȱ empiricalȱ obȬ jects”ȱ(Vogd,ȱ2005:ȱ21;ȱownȱtranslation).ȱVogdȱcomparesȱtheȱtheory’sȱinȬ terestȱ forȱ empiricalȱ phenomenaȱ toȱ structuralistȱ approachesȱ whichȱ striveȱ forȱuncoveringȱtheȱlatencyȱofȱsocialȱstructures.ȱInȱconsequence,ȱheȱrecomȬ mendsȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱworkȱwithȱtheȱTSSȱparadigmȱtoȱbaseȱtheirȱworkȱonȱ reconstructiveȱ methodologies.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ Knudsen’sȱ assertionȱ thatȱ “Luhmann’sȱanalyticalȱmoveȱconsistsȱinȱreconstructingȱ–ȱnotȱprimarilyȱinȱ revealingȱ –ȱ theȱ organization“ȱ (Knudsen,ȱ 2006ȱ 110).ȱ Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ ethnoȬ graphicȱ methodsȱ whichȱ primarilyȱ striveȱ forȱ aȱ thickȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ socialȱ phenomena,ȱ reconstructiveȱ methodsȱ aimȱ toȱ developȱ theoriesȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ “sociogeneticȱ typologies”ȱ (Vogd,ȱ 2005:ȱ 27),ȱ typologiesȱ whichȱ areȱ generȬ atedȱbyȱuncoveringȱlatentȱstructuresȱofȱsocialȱphenomena,ȱinconceivableȱ inȱ everydayȱ language.ȱ Typologiesȱ thenȱ allowȱ forȱ comparativeȱ analysesȱ and,ȱwithȱthis,ȱtoȱfurtherȱdevelopȱandȱimproveȱtheȱ theoryȬdrivenȱtermiȬ nologyȱofȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱ(Vogd,ȱ2005:ȱ27).ȱ

BasicȱMethodologicalȱConsiderationsȱ

101ȱ

InȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱadaptȱempiricalȱmethodsȱtoȱtheȱTSSȱframework,ȱitsȱ followersȱ haveȱ mostlyȱ leanedȱ towardsȱ qualitativeȱ ratherȱ thanȱ quantitaȬ tiveȱ methodologiesȱ (e.g.,ȱ Schneider,ȱ 1995;ȱ Nassehiȱ &ȱ Saake,ȱ 2002;ȱ Vogd,ȱ 2005;ȱ Gibson,ȱ Gregoryȱ&ȱRobinson,ȱ2005;ȱ Knudsen,ȱ 2006).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ dataȱgatheredȱbyȱhelpȱofȱtheseȱmethodsȱhaveȱaȱdifferentȱstatusȱinȱrelationȱ toȱ theȱ theoryȱ thanȱ inȱ conventionalȱ approaches.ȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ generatingȱ theoryȱ fromȱ scratchȱ inȱ anȱ explorativeȱ way,ȱ empiricalȱ investigationsȱ aimȱ toȱenrichȱandȱgroundȱanalyticalȱadvancementsȱthatȱareȱsupposedȱtoȱtakeȱ placeȱprimarilyȱonȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtheorization.ȱAccordingly,ȱresearchersȱwhoȱ workȱwithȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱhaveȱempiricallyȱappliedȱit,ȱforȱinstance,ȱtoȱ shedȱ newȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ (Willke,ȱ 1998;ȱ Hilse,ȱ 2000),ȱ strategicȱ changeȱ (Hendryȱ &ȱ Seidl,ȱ 2003)ȱ andȱ decisionȱ makȬ ingȱ(Knudsen,ȱ2006).ȱTheȱperspectiveȱfurthermoreȱhasȱinspiredȱtoȱreconȬ siderȱ existingȱ methodologiesȱ inȱ hermeneuticsȱ (Schneider,ȱ 1995),ȱ groundedȱtheoryȱ(Gibson,ȱGregoryȱ&ȱRobinson,ȱ2005)ȱandȱsocialȱsimulaȬ tionsȱ(Kron,ȱ2002).ȱInȱlineȱwithȱthisȱtradition,ȱthisȱstudyȱfollowsȱtheȱnonȬ puristicȱargumentȱthatȱqualitativeȱformsȱofȱresearchȱcanȱgenerallyȱenrichȱ theȱtheoryȱdevelopmentȱbasedȱonȱtheȱTSSȱframework.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 4.1.3 CaseȱStudyȱApproachȱ ȱ TheȱchoiceȱofȱanȱempiricalȱanalysisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱdoesȱnotȱ predetermineȱ theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ aȱ specificȱ methodology.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ itȱ isȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ caseȱ studyȱapproachȱ(Yin,ȱ 1984;ȱ Eisenhardt;ȱ 1989;ȱ Milesȱ &ȱ Huberman,ȱ1994),ȱaȱwellȱestablishedȱempiricalȱframeworkȱinȱorganizationȱ studiesȱ(cf.ȱHartley,ȱ1994),ȱisȱbestȱsuitedȱforȱthisȱstudy’sȱpurposeȱtoȱanaȬ lyzeȱcommunicativeȱpracticesȱinȱorganizations.ȱTheȱcaseȱstudyȱapproachȱ suggestsȱ toȱ combineȱ qualitativeȱ andȱ quantitativeȱ methodologiesȱ inȱ anȱ integratedȱ researchȱ designȱ forȱ theȱ inȬdepthȱ studyȱ ofȱ aȱ smallȱ numberȱ ofȱ empiricalȱobjects.ȱWithȱthis,ȱtheȱapproachȱtranscendsȱconcurrentȱdebatesȱ whichȱfavorȱeitherȱaȱquantitativeȱorȱaȱqualitativeȱempiricalȱscope.ȱThisȱisȱ inȱlineȱwithȱMilesȱandȱHuberman:ȱ„theȱquantitativeȬqualitativeȱargumentȱ

102

Methodologyȱȱ

ȱ

isȱessentiallyȱunproductiveȱ[andȱthereȱis]ȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱtieȱtheȱdistinctionȱ toȱepistemologicalȱpreferences“ȱ(Milesȱ&ȱHuberman,ȱ1994:ȱ41).ȱ Theȱ empiricalȱ objectiveȱ ofȱ aȱ caseȱ studyȱ usuallyȱ isȱ reconstructiveȱ orȱ explorativeȱratherȱthanȱconfirmingȱ(Bohnsack,ȱ1989).ȱItsȱmainȱfocusȱisȱtheȱ developmentȱofȱtheoriesȱratherȱthanȱtheȱvalidationȱorȱfalsificationȱofȱexȬ istingȱ theoriesȱ (Eisenhardt,ȱ 1989:ȱ 532).ȱ Bohnsackȱ (1989:ȱ 33)ȱ recommendsȱ comparativeȱ analysesȱ asȱ theȱ keyȱ methodȱ forȱ theȱ theoryȱ developmentȱ basedȱonȱcaseȱstudies.ȱWhileȱaȱfocusȱonȱonlyȱoneȱorganizationȱasȱaȱsingleȱ caseȱstudyȱisȱadvantageousȱforȱanȱinȬdepthȱinvestigationȱofȱDCVȱinȱorgaȬ nizationalȱ practice,ȱ aȱ broaderȱ setȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ wouldȱ allowȱ forȱ conȬ trastingȱ andȱ comparingȱ differentȱ typesȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱproblemȱofȱDCV.ȱȱ TheȱexplorativeȱcharacterȱofȱthisȱstudyȱsuggestsȱtoȱconcentrateȱonȱonȬ lyȱoneȱsingleȱcaseȱforȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱDCVȱinȱpractice.ȱResearchȱpragmaticȱ reasonsȱsupportȱtheȱargumentȱtoȱfocusȱonȱaȱsingleȱcaseȱstudy.ȱMoreover,ȱ theȱ confidentialityȱ ofȱ theȱ documentsȱ underȱ investigationȱ complicateȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ acquisitionȱ ofȱ aȱ caseȱ organizationȱ forȱ thisȱ thematicȱ focus.ȱ EsȬ tablishingȱ aȱ trustfulȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ researcherȱ andȱ theȱ caseȱ companyȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱdevelopedȱoverȱaȱlongerȱperiodȱofȱtimeȱ(cf.ȱBurgleȬ man,ȱ 2002).ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱ theȱ givenȱ timeȱ restrictionsȱ ofȱ thisȱ researchȱ projectȱ inhibitedȱ toȱ includeȱ additionalȱ organizationsȱ inȱ theȱ analysisȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ6.3).ȱTheȱadvantagesȱofȱstudyingȱonlyȱoneȱsingeȱcaseȱareȱassumedȱ toȱ balanceȱ outȱ theȱ disadvantageȱ ofȱ aȱ diminishedȱ generalizabilityȱ ofȱ theȱ empiricalȱstudy.ȱInsightsȱgeneratedȱinȱthisȱmethodologyȱallowȱforȱtentaȬ tiveȱinferencesȱonȱaȱbiggerȱpopulationȱofȱsimilarȱorganizations.ȱTheȱnextȱ subȬchapterȱexplainsȱtheȱdecisionsȱwhichȱhaveȱledȱtoȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱaȱspeȬ cificȱcaseȱorganizationȱandȱintroducesȱtheȱorganizationȱinȱmoreȱdetail.ȱ

CaseȱSelectionȱandȱDescriptionȱ

103ȱ

4.2 CaseȱSelectionȱandȱDescriptionȱ ȱ Theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ aȱ specificȱ caseȱ forȱ theȱ empiricalȱ analysisȱ followsȱ theȱ heuȬ risticȱofȱtheoreticalȱsamplingȱ(Glaserȱ&ȱStrauss,ȱ1967:ȱ45).ȱDependingȱonȱtheȱ researchȱ question,ȱ theoreticalȱ samplingȱ suggestsȱ toȱ chooseȱ eitherȱ anȱ exȬ tremeȱorȱaȱtypicalȱcaseȱforȱtheȱexplorationȱofȱaȱresearchȱissue.ȱExtremeȱcasesȱ areȱwellȱchosenȱtoȱillustrateȱdeviationsȱfromȱtheȱnormȱorȱtoȱconstructȱidealȱ typesȱ (cf.ȱ Weber,ȱ 1969).ȱ Typicalȱ casesȱ insteadȱ areȱ appropriateȱ toȱ diminishȱ problemsȱ ofȱ generalizabilityȱ inȱ qualitativeȱ studies.ȱ Taylorȱ andȱ Trujilloȱ expandȱ onȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ generalizability:ȱ “(...)ȱ whenȱ judgedȱ byȱ posiȬ tivistȱ standards,ȱ qualitativeȱ studiesȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ usuallyȱ haveȱ beenȱ foundȱ wanting.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ dismissedȱ usingȱ suchȱ stereotypesȱ asȱ ‘soft’,ȱ ‘imprecise’,ȱ ‘unverifiable’,ȱ ‘unreliable’,ȱ andȱ‘nonȬgeneralizable’”ȱ(Taylorȱ&ȱTrujillo,ȱ2001:ȱ181).ȱ However,ȱaȱlogicallyȱcoherentȱandȱsystematicȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheoȬ reticalȱ criteriaȱ forȱ caseȱ selectionȱ canȱ helpȱ toȱ identifyȱ typicalȱ casesȱ whichȱ areȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ analogicallyȱ generalizableȱ (Schofield,ȱ 1990).ȱ Inȱ aȱ broaderȱ notionȱ ofȱ generalizability,ȱ theȱ studyȱ indeedȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ generalizationȱ fromȱconceptsȱtoȱtheoryȱinȱthatȱtheȱconceptsȱexploredȱinȱtheȱcaseȱstudyȱcanȱ helpȱ toȱ developȱ aȱ theoryȱ ofȱ DCVȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ (cf.ȱ Leeȱ&ȱBaskerville,ȱ2003).ȱThisȱway,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱassertedȱthatȱcaseȱstudiesȱcanȱ facilitateȱ theoreticalȱ advancementsȱ “(...)ȱ ifȱ notȱ statisticalȱ generalizationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ distributionȱ ofȱ variablesȱ withinȱ aȱ populationȱ (...)”ȱ butȱaȱ“theoȬ reticalȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱoperationsȱofȱthoseȱvariablesȱwithinȱthatȱpopuȬ lation”ȱ(Taylorȱ&ȱTrujillo,ȱ2001:ȱ183).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ study,ȱ theȱ questionȱ isȱ investigatedȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ decisionȱ processesȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱbecomeȱvisibleȱinȱdocumentedȱformsȱofȱ communicationȱ withinȱ projectȱ organizations.ȱ Becauseȱ theȱ studyȱ aimsȱ toȱ exploreȱempiricalȱphenomenaȱwhichȱareȱassumedȱtoȱapplyȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱaȱ singleȱ organization,ȱ aȱ caseȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ chosenȱ whichȱ isȱ hypothesizedȱ toȱ beȱ generalizableȱ toȱ theȱ overallȱ populationȱ ofȱ projectȱ organizations,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱtheȱonesȱwhichȱfaceȱtheȱchallengeȱofȱCPL.ȱBothȱcriteriaȱapplyȱtoȱ theȱconsultingȱbusiness,ȱasȱarguedȱinȱtheȱtheoreticalȱanalysisȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ 3.1.3).ȱ Consultingȱ isȱ typicallyȱ executedȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ projectȱ work.ȱ Givenȱ aȱ

104

Methodologyȱ

ȱ

certainȱsizeȱofȱtheȱorganization,ȱconsultingȱservicesȱareȱoftenȱdistributedȱ toȱ severalȱ locations.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ consultingȱ servicesȱ areȱ essentiallyȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ consultants’ȱ expertise,ȱ whileȱ theȱ servicesȱ theyȱ provideȱ areȱ immaterialȱand,ȱthus,ȱdifficultȱtoȱshare.ȱȱ Forȱ theȱ selectionȱ ofȱ aȱ specificȱ caseȱ organization,ȱ additionalȱ criteriaȱ canȱbeȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱmainȱresearchȱquestionȱwhatȱincreasesȱtheȱlikeliȬ hoodȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱinvestigateȱtheȱphenomenaȱinȱfocus.ȱFirst,ȱtheȱaccessiȬ bilityȱ ofȱ analyzableȱ documentsȱ isȱ moreȱ likelyȱ inȱ organizationsȱ withȱ aȱ strongȱfocusȱonȱITȱsolutionsȱasȱtheyȱtendȱtoȱstoreȱtheirȱrecordsȱinȱanȱelecȬ tronicȱ form.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ aȱ longitudinalȱ analysisȱ requiresȱ toȱ chooseȱ anȱ organizationȱwhichȱhasȱaȱcomparablyȱlongȬreachingȱtraditionȱinȱsharingȱ experiencesȱacrossȱprojectsȱbasedȱonȱanȱITȱsolution.ȱAllȱofȱtheȱintroducedȱ criteriaȱapplyȱtoȱtheȱspecificȱorganizationȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱchosenȱasȱaȱtypiȬ calȱcaseȱforȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱcontingencyȱvisibilizationȱwithinȱprojectȱorgaȬ nizations.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ confidentialityȱ agreements,ȱ Iȱ willȱ useȱ theȱ anonymizedȱ termsȱ “caseȱ organization”ȱ orȱ “caseȱ company”ȱ throughoutȱ theȱ studyȱ inȱ replacementȱforȱtheȱcompany’sȱrealȱname.ȱ Theȱ particularȱ caseȱ organizationȱ chosenȱ forȱ thisȱ studyȱ isȱ aȱ multiȬ nationalȱ businessȱ consultingȱ firm.ȱ Theȱ companyȱ isȱ headquarteredȱ inȱ NorthȱAmericaȱbutȱitȱhasȱalsoȱlargeȱoperationsȱinȱEuropeȱandȱAsia.ȱTheȱ companyȱ offersȱ aȱ broadȱ rangeȱ ofȱ servicesȱ fromȱ strategyȱ consultingȱ toȱ moreȱ specializedȱ ITȱ consulting.ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ itsȱ employeesȱ workȱ asȱ consultȬ antsȱ onȱ variousȱ hierarchicalȱ levels.ȱ Inȱ theirȱ dailyȱ work,ȱ theȱ consultantsȱ areȱ supportedȱ byȱ assistingȱ staff,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ byȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ comȬ pany’sȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱsection.ȱTheȱcompanyȱhasȱaȱlongȱreachȬ ingȱ traditionȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ ITȬbasedȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ solutions.ȱ Forȱtheȱempiricalȱanalysis,ȱthisȱisȱadvantageousȱinȱthatȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱ inȱ useȱ atȱ theȱ companyȱ reachȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1990s.ȱ Thisȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ longitudinalȱ analysisȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentsȱ overȱ aȱ periodȱ ofȱ tenȱ yearsȱ (1995ȱ toȱ2004).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ fullȱ timeȱ rangeȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ takenȱ intoȱ acȬ countȱ inȱ allȱ instancesȱ becauseȱ ofȱ tooȱ smallȱ numbersȱ ofȱ documentsȱ forȱ someȱyearsȱinȱtheȱsample,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱearlierȱdaysȱofȱtheȱdatabase.ȱ

MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudyȱ

105ȱ

Withȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱcompany’sȱhistory,ȱitȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱthatȱ theȱcompanyȱhasȱgrownȱdueȱtoȱmergersȱandȱacquisitionsȱinȱrecentȱyearsȱ andȱhasȱspentȱsignificantȱeffortsȱinȱintegrationȱprocesses.ȱTheȱbiggestȱoneȱ ofȱtheȱfirmsȱwhichȱwereȱtakenȱoverȱrecentlyȱhadȱanȱeventfulȱhistoryȱitself,ȱ characterizedȱbyȱseveralȱacquisitionsȱofȱsmallerȱcompetitors.ȱThisȱheteroȬ geneityȱofȱtheȱcaseȱcompany’sȱhistoryȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱkeptȱinȱmindȱwhenȱtheȱ studyȱapproachesȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱcompany’sȱCPLȱdatabases.ȱVariousȱ projectȱentriesȱrelateȱtoȱearlierȱconsultingȱprojectsȱconductedȱbyȱpartsȱofȱ theȱcompanyȱwhichȱwereȱintegratedȱlaterȱonȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱmergersȱandȱ acquisitions.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ twoȱ companyȱ partsȱ originallyȱ differedȱ inȱ theirȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱapproaches,ȱasȱitȱwillȱbeȱdescribedȱinȱchapȬ terȱ5.1.1.ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.3 MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudyȱ ȱ TheȱcombinationȱofȱdistinctȱmethodsȱinȱaȱcaseȱstudyȱdesignȱcanȱbeȱrealȬ izedȱinȱtwoȱways:ȱeitherȱinȱfollowingȱaȱclassicalȱphaseȱmodelȱwhichȱappliesȱ aȱ subsequentȱ chainȱ ofȱ methodsȱ ofȱ explorationȱ andȱ confirmation,ȱ orȱ inȱ formȱofȱaȱsynchronousȱmethodologyȱbasedȱonȱtheȱprincipleȱofȱtriangulaȬ tionȱ(Taylorȱ&ȱTrujillo,ȱ2001:ȱ183).ȱWithȱtheȱconceptȱofȱtriangulation,ȱDenȬ zinȱ (1970)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ Flickȱ (1992)ȱ suggestȱ toȱ combineȱ differentȱ empiricalȱ methodsȱ byȱ drawingȱ onȱ aȱ metaphorȱ whichȱ originatesȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ geȬ odesy.ȱTriangulationȱessentiallyȱmeansȱtoȱlocateȱtheȱpositionȱofȱaȱspecificȱ landmarkȱ byȱ lookingȱ atȱ itȱ fromȱ (atȱ least)ȱ twoȱ differentȱ viewpoints.ȱ Theȱ authorsȱtransferȱthisȱnotionȱtoȱtheȱsocialȱsciencesȱbyȱstatingȱthatȱanȱexactȱ locationȱofȱsocialȱissuesȱcanȱbeȱvalidatedȱbyȱaȱcombinedȱapplicationȱofȱatȱ leastȱ twoȱ distinctȱ methods.ȱ Repeatedȱ findingsȱ thenȱ confirmȱ theȱ robustȬ nessȱofȱtheȱtheoryȱandȱtheȱempiricalȱmethodology.ȱȱ Inȱthisȱstudy,ȱaȱtriangulatedȱmethodologyȱisȱchosenȱforȱtheȱinvestigaȬ tionȱ ofȱ DCVȱinȱ organizationalȱ practice.ȱ Theȱ combinationȱ ofȱ methodsȱ forȱ theȱanalysisȱisȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱmainȱresearchȱquestion:ȱToȱwhatȱextentȱ doȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theȱ contingencyȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ becomeȱ visibiȬ lizedȱ inȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱ projectȱ documentation?ȱ Theȱ focusȱ onȱ textualȱ

106

Methodologyȱ

ȱ

formsȱofȱcommunicationȱfavorsȱtoȱselectȱtextualȱartifacts,ȱsuchȱasȱprojectȱ documents,ȱasȱtheȱcentralȱreferenceȱpointȱofȱtheȱempiricalȱanalysis.ȱHowȬ ever,ȱaȱfocusȱonȱdocumentȱanalysesȱdoesȱnotȱpredetermineȱwhetherȱtoȱapȬ proachȱ thisȱ empiricalȱ materialȱ inȱ aȱ ratherȱ quantitativeȱ orȱ qualitativeȱ manner.ȱ Aȱ combinedȱ quantitativeȱ andȱ qualitativeȱ approachȱ hasȱ theȱ adȬ vantageȱ ofȱ integratingȱ insightsȱ gainedȱ fromȱ aȱ quantitativeȱ analysisȱ ofȱ aȱ bigȱ numberȱ ofȱ documentsȱ inȱ aȱ standardizedȱ formȱ withȱ insightsȱ gainedȱ fromȱaȱqualitativeȱanalysisȱofȱtypicalȱorȱextremeȱexamplesȱofȱdocumentsȱ (cf.ȱYin,ȱ1984).ȱGherardiȱandȱTurnerȱaddȱtheȱestimationȱthatȱ„inȱqualitaȬ tiveȱanalyses,ȱthereȱareȱnoȱreasonsȱwhyȱnumbersȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱappropriȬ atelyȱdeployed“ȱ(Gherardiȱ&ȱTurner,ȱ2002:ȱ91).ȱȱ Inȱ theȱ rangeȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ prominentȱ socialȱ scientificȱ methodologies,ȱ textualȱanalyses,ȱinterviews,ȱandȱobservationsȱ(Kromrey,ȱ1998:ȱ369),ȱagainȱaȱ selectionȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱmadeȱregardingȱtheȱappropriateȱmethodsȱtoȱrealizeȱ aȱ triangulatedȱ viewȱ onȱ theȱ researchȱ question.ȱ Interviewsȱ allowȱ forȱ aȱ reȬ contextualizationȱofȱtheȱdocumentsȱanalyzedȱinȱtheȱtextualȱanalysis.ȱTheȱ sameȱadvantageȱappliesȱforȱtheȱmethodȱofȱobservation:ȱAȱdirectȱobservaȬ tionȱofȱprojectȱdecisionȱprocessesȱwouldȱallowȱtoȱenhanceȱtheȱresearcher’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ performativeȱ andȱtheȱ osȬ tensiveȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ processȱ (cf.ȱ Latour,ȱ 1986;ȱ Feldmanȱ &ȱ PentȬ land,ȱ2003).ȱHowever,ȱobservationsȱareȱparticularlyȱcostlyȱinȱtheirȱrealizaȬ tion:ȱ“[The]ȱobservationȱisȱcertainlyȱaȱpowerfulȱandȱreliableȱmethod,ȱbutȱ extremelyȱdemandingȱofȱresearchȱresourcesȱ(...)ȱtherefore,ȱtheȱresearcherȱ isȱobligedȱtoȱrelyȱheavilyȱonȱinterviewing.ȱTheȱbestȱtraceȱofȱtheȱcompletedȱ processȱremainsȱinȱtheȱmindsȱofȱthoseȱpeopleȱwhoȱcarriedȱitȱout”ȱ(MintzȬ berg,ȱ Raisinghaniȱ &ȱ Théorêt,ȱ 1976:ȱ 248).ȱ Furthermore,ȱ aȱ participantȱ obȬ servationȱ causesȱ theȱ problemȱ thatȱ theȱ situationȱ underȱ investigationȱ isȱ alteredȱbyȱtheȱmereȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱresearcherȱ(Kromrey,ȱ1998:ȱ370).ȱȱ Forȱtheȱgivenȱreasons,ȱtheȱmethodȱofȱqualitativeȱinterviewsȱisȱchosenȱ inȱorderȱtoȱrealizeȱaȱtriangulationȱofȱinsightsȱgainedȱfromȱtheȱdocumentȱ analysis.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ aȱ qualitativeȱ characterȱ ofȱ theȱ interviewsȱ winsȱ overȱ aȱ quantitativeȱ characterȱ mostlyȱ becauseȱ itȱ allowsȱ forȱ anȱ inȬdepthȱ inquiryȱonȱtheȱphenomenonȱofȱDCVȱandȱanȱiterativeȱoptimizationȱofȱtheȱ interviewingȱ approachȱ (cf.ȱ Witzel,ȱ 2000).ȱ Theȱ followingȱ subȬchaptersȱ

MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudyȱ

107ȱ

explainȱfurtherȱmethodologicalȱdecisionsȱonȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱempiricalȱ methodsȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.3.1),ȱheuristicsȱofȱsamplingȱandȱdataȱgatheringȱ(cf.ȱ chapterȱ4.3.2),ȱandȱtechniquesȱofȱdataȱanalysisȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.3.3).ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.3.1 EmpiricalȱMethodsȱ ȱ DocumentȱAnalysisȱ Inȱthisȱstudy,ȱtheȱdocumentȱanalysisȱisȱrightȱatȱtheȱcenterȱofȱtheȱempiricalȱ scopeȱ onȱ theȱ (inȬ)visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ communicationȱ inȱ PowerPointȬ basedȱ projectȱ documents.ȱ Theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ documentationȱ isȱaȱwellȱestablishedȱmethodȱinȱresearchȱonȱorganizationsȱ(Forster,ȱ1994:ȱ 148).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Forster,ȱ organizationalȱ documentsȱ representȱ easilyȱ accessibleȱ andȱ robustȱ indicatorsȱ forȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ communicationȱ pracȬ ticesȱ withinȱ theȱ organizationȱ inȱ retrospect.ȱ Asȱ heȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ organizaȬ tionalȱdocumentationȱcanȱprovideȱ„aȱrichȱsourceȱofȱinsightsȱintoȱdifferentȱ employeeȱ groupȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ life,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ principalȱ byȬproductsȱ ofȱ theȱ interactionsȱ andȱ communicationȱ ofȱ individualsȱ andȱgroups,ȱ atȱ allȱlevels,ȱ inȱ organizations“ȱ(Forster,ȱ 1994:ȱ 148).ȱȱ Aȱ centralȱ advantageȱ ofȱ documentȱ analysesȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ dimensionȱ ofȱtime:ȱOrganizationalȱdocumentsȱ“areȱoftenȱcontemporaneousȱcloselyȱatȱ historicalȱ processesȱ andȱ developmentsȱ inȱ organizationsȱ andȱ canȱ helpȱ inȱ interpretingȱ informants’ȱ ‚rewriting’ȱ ofȱ historyȱ inȱ laterȱ verbalȱ accounts“ȱ (Forster,ȱ 1994:ȱ 148).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ documentȱ analysesȱ alsoȱ fulfillȱ theȱ criterionȱ ofȱ recalcitranceȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 4.1.1).ȱ Projectȱ documentsȱ representȱ condensedȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ reactȱ toȱ beȱ investigatedȱbyȱtheȱresearcher.ȱTheȱmethodȱsharesȱtheȱgeneralȱadvantageȱ ofȱ nonȬreactivityȱ withȱ techniquesȱ ofȱ contentȱ analysisȱ whichȱ areȱ widelyȱ usedȱ inȱ mediaȱ andȱ communicationȱ studiesȱ (cf.ȱ Krippendorff,ȱ 1980),ȱ butȱ transcendsȱ theirȱ focusȱ onȱ enumerating,ȱ microȬtextualȱ analysesȱ (Forster,ȱ 1994:ȱ150).ȱ

108

Methodologyȱ

ȱ

Theseȱ advantages,ȱ however,ȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ confrontedȱ withȱ theȱ meȬ thod’sȱweaknesses,ȱasȱwell.ȱForsterȱmentionsȱtheȱsubjectiveȱandȱfragmenȬ taryȱcharacterȱofȱorganizationalȱdocumentationȱwhichȱcomplicatesȱaȱgenȬ eralizationȱtoȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱwholeȱ(Forster,ȱ1994:ȱ149).ȱInȱgeneral,ȱ theȱcommunicationȱmanifestedȱinȱprojectȱdocumentsȱcanȱbeȱpresumedȱtoȱ beȱ inȱ discrepancyȱ toȱ actualȱ verbalȱ formsȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicaȬ tion.42ȱFinally,ȱtoȱmakeȱsenseȱofȱorganizationalȱdocumentsȱisȱhighlyȱconȬ textȬdependentȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱrequiresȱtoȱbeȱcrossȬcomparedȱwithȱotherȱ formsȱofȱresearch.ȱ Despiteȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheseȱweaknesses,ȱeachȱofȱthemȱcanȱbeȱinȬ validatedȱifȱweȱconsiderȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentsȱunȬ derȱinvestigationȱinȱthisȱstudy.ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱconcernsȱregardingȱtheȱ fragmentaryȱcharacterȱofȱorganizationalȱdocumentation,ȱtheȱprojectȱdocuȬ mentsȱinȱuseȱatȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱchosenȱforȱthisȱstudyȱareȱgeneratedȱinȱaȱ largeȬscaleȱ andȱ systematicȱ mannerȱ (inȱ theirȱ functionȱ asȱ aȱ referenceȱ forȱ eachȱ projectȱ deployed).ȱ Discrepanciesȱ toȱ verbalȱ formsȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ andȱ theȱ contextȬdependencyȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ docuȬ mentsȱ areȱ aimedȱ toȱ beȱ balancedȱ outȱ byȱ qualitativeȱinterviewsȱ whichȱ acȬ companyȱandȱtriangulateȱtheȱdocumentȱanalysis.ȱ Withinȱtheȱrangeȱofȱpossibleȱdocumentȱanalysisȱtechniques,ȱaȱcombiȬ nationȱofȱaȱqualitativeȱandȱaȱquantitativeȱapproachȱisȱapplied.ȱThisȱmeansȱ toȱ developȱ projectȱ documentȱ typologiesȱ inductivelyȱ fromȱ theȱ empiricalȱ material,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ toȱ compareȱ variousȱ typesȱ ofȱ projectȱ doȬ cumentsȱwithȱregardsȱtoȱquestionsȱdeductively.ȱTheȱspecificȱdataȱanalysisȱ techniquesȱ whichȱ combineȱ theseȱ inductiveȱ andȱ deductiveȱ perspectivesȱ areȱpresentedȱinȱchapterȱ4.3.3.ȱ ȱ ȱ QualitativeȱInterviewsȱ Withinȱtheȱrangeȱofȱmethodsȱinȱtheȱsocialȱsciences,ȱqualitativeȱinterviewsȱ intentionallyȱ createȱ conversationȱ settingsȱ withȱ individualsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ 42ȱȱ Thisȱ againȱ linksȱ toȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ ostensiveȱ andȱ theȱ performativeȱ sideȱ ofȱ organizationalȱroutinesȱ(cf.ȱLatour,ȱ1986;ȱFeldmanȱ&ȱPentland,ȱ2003).ȱ

MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudyȱ

109ȱ

approachȱtheirȱperceptionȱwithȱtheȱregardsȱtoȱtheȱsocialȱsituationsȱbeingȱ studiedȱ(cf.ȱLamneck,ȱ1995:ȱ35f.).ȱQualitativeȱinterviewsȱdifferȱfromȱquanȬ titativeȱtechniquesȱinȱthatȱtheyȱleverageȱnarrationsȱinȱtheȱterminologyȱofȱ theȱ interviewees.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ achievedȱ byȱ askingȱ openȱ ratherȱ thanȱ closedȱ questions.ȱ Theȱ heterogeneityȱ ofȱ answersȱ generatedȱ thisȱ wayȱ followsȱ theȱ aimȱtoȱmaximizeȱtheȱvarianceȱofȱperspectives.ȱTheȱqualitativeȱapproach,ȱ however,ȱgivesȱawayȱopportunitiesȱforȱaȱlargeȬscaleȱcomparabilityȱwhichȱ wouldȱinsteadȱrequireȱtoȱapplyȱquantitativeȱsurveyȱmethods.ȱInȱtheȱstudyȱ ofȱ organizations,ȱ qualitativeȱ interviewsȱ representȱ theȱ mostȱ frequentlyȱ appliedȱresearchȱmethodȱ(King,ȱ1994:ȱ14).ȱ Inȱthisȱstudy,ȱtheȱqualitativeȱinterviewsȱfollowȱtheȱobjectiveȱtoȱenrichȱ andȱ triangulateȱ insightsȱ gatheredȱ fromȱ theȱ documentȱ analysis.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ rangeȱ ofȱ possibleȱ interviewingȱ techniques,ȱ aȱ ratherȱ narrativeȱ formȱ wasȱchosen.ȱThisȱchoiceȱmatchesȱtheȱinterview’sȱobjectiveȱ“toȱgatherȱdeȬ scriptionsȱofȱtheȱlifeȬworldȱofȱtheȱintervieweeȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱmeaningȱ ofȱtheȱdescribedȱphenomena“ȱ(Kvale,ȱ1983:ȱ174).ȱNarrationsȱbyȱtheȱinterȬ vieweesȱwereȱinitiatedȱbasedȱonȱtheȱmethodologyȱofȱtheȱproblemȬcenteredȱ interviewȱ(Witzel,ȱ1982;ȱ2000).ȱTheȱideaȱbehindȱthisȱtechniqueȱisȱtoȱstimuȬ lateȱnarrationsȱbyȱproblematizingȱaȱcertainȱissueȱwhichȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱlifeȬ worldȱofȱtheȱinterviewee.ȱTheȱintervieweeȱisȱaskedȱtoȱpersonallyȱpositionȱ himselfȱorȱherselfȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱaȱsuggestedȱissue.ȱ Inȱcontrastȱtoȱotherȱqualitativeȱinterviewingȱtechniques,ȱtheȱproblemȬ centeredȱinterviewȱacknowledgesȱthat,ȱbeingȱaȱsecondȱorderȱobserver,ȱtheȱ researcherȱ isȱ notȱ ableȱ toȱ consciouslyȱ turnȱ offȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ theoreticalȱ preȬ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ issueȱ underȱ investigation.ȱ Thisȱ linksȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ aȱ theoreticalȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ isȱ alreadyȱ inȬ herentȱtoȱanyȱdistinctions,ȱcategories,ȱconcepts,ȱandȱwithȱthis,ȱtoȱlanguageȱ perȱse.ȱHence,ȱitȱisȱlegitimateȱforȱtheȱresearcherȱtoȱbringȱinȱhisȱorȱherȱtheoȬ reticalȱ preȬunderstandingȱ inȱ theȱ interviewingȱ situation.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱmethodȱallowsȱforȱmutuallyȱcontrollingȱanȱemicȱandȱanȱeticȱperspecȬ tiveȱonȱtheȱsubjectȱmatterȱ(Pike,ȱ1967).ȱWhileȱanȱemicȱaccountȱofȱbehaviorȱ isȱaȱdescriptionȱinȱtermsȱmeaningfulȱtoȱtheȱactor,ȱanȱeticȱaccountȱisȱaȱdeȬ scriptionȱ inȱ termsȱ familiarȱ toȱ theȱ scientificȱ observer.ȱ Byȱ groundingȱ theȱ researcher’sȱ perspectiveȱ inȱ descriptionsȱ byȱ theȱ intervieweesȱ personallyȱ

110

Methodologyȱ

ȱ

involvedȱ inȱ theȱ socialȱ situationsȱ beingȱ studied,ȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ conceptsȱ canȱbeȱgroundedȱinȱtheirȱownȱlifeworld.ȱThisȱallowsȱforȱavoidingȱaȱmereȱ theorizationȱ whichȱ lacksȱ anyȱ connectionȱ toȱ theȱ socialȱ phenomenaȱ beingȱ studied.ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.3.2 SamplingȱandȱDataȱGatheringȱ ȱ DocumentȱAnalysisȱ TheȱdocumentȱanalysisȱhasȱbeenȱexecutedȱinȱtheȱmonthsȱfromȱSeptemberȱ toȱDecemberȱ2004ȱatȱoneȱofȱtheȱcompany’sȱofficesȱinȱFrankfurt/Germany.ȱ Duringȱ thisȱ time,ȱ theȱ researcherȱ workedȱ asȱaȱ graduateȱ studentȱinternȱ inȱ theȱ companyȱ andȱ hadȱ fullȱ accessȱ toȱ companyȬwideȱ projectȱ databases.ȱ Furthermore,ȱspecialȱaccessȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱaȱfewȱprojectȱspecificȱorȱpracticeȱ specificȱdatabases.ȱȱ TheȱsampleȱofȱprojectȱdocumentsȱhasȱbeenȱgeneratedȱinȱtwoȱsuccesȬ siveȱsteps:ȱInȱaȱfirstȱstep,ȱtheȱgivenȱrangeȱofȱprojectȱdatabasesȱinȱuseȱatȱtheȱ caseȱcompanyȱwasȱscreenedȱandȱaȱselectionȱwasȱmadeȱoutȱofȱit.ȱTheȱmainȱ selectionȱcriterionȱhasȱbeenȱifȱdataȱwereȱaccessibleȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱtheȱmemȬ bersȱ ofȱ aȱ particularȱ projectȱ butȱ acrossȱ theȱ companyȱ asȱ aȱ whole.ȱ Aȱ narȬ rowerȱfocusȱofȱtheȱdatabases,ȱforȱexampleȱifȱanȱaccessȱwasȱgivenȱonlyȱtoȱaȱ specificȱpracticeȱorȱtoȱoneȱsingleȱproject,ȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱallowedȱforȱproȬ vidingȱanȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱmainȱresearchȱquestionsȱwhichȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱvisiȬ bilityȱofȱdecisionȱprocessesȱwithinȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱThisȱway,ȱ twoȱdatabasesȱwereȱchosenȱwhichȱbothȱwereȱaccessibleȱtoȱallȱconsultantsȱ workingȱ forȱ theȱ companyȱ worldwide.ȱ Projectȱ entriesȱ inȱ theseȱ databasesȱ reachedȱfromȱyearȱ1995ȱtoȱ2004ȱ–ȱwithȱaȱgenerallyȱincreasingȱnumberȱofȱ documentsȱsubmittedȱtoȱtheȱdatabasesȱinȱrecentȱyears.ȱ TheȱsecondȱstepȱrequiredȱtoȱmakeȱaȱselectionȱofȱprojectȱentriesȱinȱorȬ derȱ toȱ generateȱ aȱ datasetȱ ofȱ anȱanalyzableȱ size.ȱ Toȱavoidȱ anyȱ researcherȱ bias,ȱthisȱselectionȱwasȱrandomized.ȱAȱcomputerȱgeneratedȱlistȱofȱrandomȱ numbersȱ wasȱ matchedȱ withȱ aȱ listȱ ofȱ projectȱ entries.ȱ Byȱ meansȱ ofȱ this,ȱ aȱ totalȱ numberȱ ofȱ 640ȱ projectȱ entriesȱ wereȱ chosenȱ fromȱ eachȱ databaseȱ

111ȱ

MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudyȱ

whichȱrepresentedȱ10ȱpercentȱofȱtheirȱoverallȱsizeȱofȱmoreȱthanȱ6,400ȱproȬ jectȱ entriesȱ atȱ thatȱ timeȱ (i.e.,ȱ inȱ November,ȱ 2004).ȱ Withinȱ thisȱ sample,ȱ aȱ quotaȱ88ȱpercentȱofȱprojectȱentriesȱturnedȱoutȱtoȱbeȱanalyzableȱbecauseȱinȱ someȱcases,ȱfundamentalȱprojectȱdataȱwereȱmissing.ȱInȱresult,ȱaȱsetȱofȱ565ȱ projectȱentriesȱwereȱfinallyȱincludedȱinȱtheȱanalysisȱ(cf.ȱfigureȱ3).ȱAȱproȬ jectȱ entryȱ typicallyȱ containedȱ aȱ standardizedȱ templateȱ withȱ basicȱ inforȬ mationȱaboutȱtheȱproject:ȱtheȱprojectȱname,ȱconsultantȱteam,ȱclientȱnameȱ andȱ industry,ȱ projectȱ duration,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ aȱ shortȱ projectȱ descriptionȱ inȱ formȱofȱanȱabstractȱtext.ȱInȱmostȱcases,ȱtheȱprojectȱentryȱalsoȱincludedȱanȱ attachmentȱofȱseparateȱprojectȱdocumentsȱwhichȱwereȱusuallyȱgeneratedȱ withȱeitherȱMicrosoftȱPowerPoint,ȱWord,ȱorȱExcel.43ȱ ȱ

Database A: 2,600 Project Entries

Database B: 3,800 Project Entries

Total Number of Project Entries N = 6,400

Randomized Sample n = 640

Valid Sample n = 565

ȱ

ȱ

Figureȱ3:

SamplingȱProcedureȱofȱtheȱDocumentȱAnalysisȱ

43ȱȱ Inȱrareȱcasesȱ(usuallyȱinȱolderȱprojectȱentries),ȱattachmentsȱwereȱgeneratedȱbyȱmeansȱofȱ LotusȱFreelance,ȱanȱolderȱPowerPointȱequivalent.ȱLotus®ȱandȱFreelance®ȱareȱregisteredȱ trademarksȱofȱLotusȱDevelopmentȱCorporationȱ(anȱIBMȱcompany),ȱCambridge/MA.ȱ

112

Methodologyȱ

ȱ

Withinȱeachȱprojectȱentry,ȱaȱselectionȱhadȱtoȱbeȱmadeȱwhichȱdocumentȱorȱ whichȱtextualȱelementȱtoȱincludeȱinȱtheȱanalysisȱandȱwhichȱnot.ȱInȱorderȱ toȱ ensureȱ selectionsȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ interestȱ ofȱ theȱ study,ȱ aȱ heuristicȱ wasȱ generatedȱ whichȱ allowedȱ forȱ theȱ executionȱ ofȱ reliableȱ andȱ distinctȱchoices.ȱWithinȱeachȱprojectȱentry,ȱoneȱdocumentȱwasȱdefinedȱasȱ theȱ primaryȱ documentȱ –ȱ theȱ oneȱ whichȱ providedȱ anȱ “expertiseȬseekingȱ novice”ȱ (Markus,ȱ 2001:ȱ 59)ȱ withȱ theȱ comparablyȱ mostȱ detailedȱ informaȬ tionȱ whatȱ theȱ projectȱ wasȱ aboutȱ andȱ howȱ itȱ wasȱ proceeded.ȱ Inȱ practice,ȱ thisȱ procedureȱ meantȱ forȱ theȱ researcherȱ toȱ browseȱ throughȱ theȱ docuȬ mentsȱattachedȱtoȱeachȱselectedȱprojectȱentryȱandȱtoȱgetȱaȱquickȱoverviewȱ ofȱtheirȱcontentȱinȱorderȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱprimaryȱdocument.ȱInȱanȱiterativeȱ way,ȱ thisȱ procedureȱ ledȱ toȱ crystallizingȱ aȱ typologyȱ ofȱ mostȱ commonȱ documentsȱattached.ȱThisȱagainȱfortifiedȱtheȱprocedure’sȱreliability.44ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ noteȱ thatȱ textualȱ abstractsȱinȱfactȱwereȱ foundȱ toȱ beȱ includedȱ inȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ templates.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ frequentȱ cases,ȱ theyȱrepresentedȱfragmentaryȱcontentȱcopiedȱfromȱPowerPointȱpresentaȬ tionsȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱprojectȱentry.ȱWithinȱtheȱPowerPointȱfile,ȱtheȱequivaȬ lentȱ contentȱ usuallyȱ couldȱ beȱ foundȱ onȱ theȱ firstȱ slideȱ titledȱ “executiveȱ summary”.ȱ Therefore,ȱ abstractȱ textsȱ wereȱ codedȱ asȱ theȱ primaryȱ docuȬ mentȱ onlyȱ inȱ caseȱ theȱ projectȱ entryȱ didȱ notȱ containȱ anyȱ attachedȱ docuȬ mentsȱ atȱ all.ȱ Inȱ someȱ cases,ȱ neitherȱ PowerPointȱ documentsȱ norȱ aȱ Wordȱ documentȱbutȱinsteadȱonlyȱExcelȱfilesȱwereȱattachedȱtoȱaȱprojectȱentry.ȱInȱ theseȱrareȱcases,ȱtheȱprojectȱfilesȱwereȱexcludedȱfromȱtheȱanalysesȱbecauseȱ theȱcodingȱschemeȱwouldȱnotȱallowȱforȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱtheseȱdocumentsȱ withȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingency.45ȱȱ Toȱsummarizeȱtheȱprocedure,ȱthreeȱselectionsȱwereȱnecessaryȱtoȱgenȬ erateȱ theȱ dataset:ȱ aȱ selectionȱ ofȱ databases,ȱ aȱ selectionȱ ofȱ projectȱ entries,ȱ andȱ aȱ selectionȱ ofȱ primaryȱ documents.ȱ Theȱ datasetȱ generatedȱ thisȱ wayȱ 44ȱȱ Forȱ example,ȱ “lessonsȱ learnedȱ documents”ȱ usuallyȱ providedȱ moreȱ informationȱ onȱ projectȱprocessesȱandȱdecisionsȱfacedȱthanȱ“finalȱclientȱpresentations”ȱwhichȱagainȱproȬ videdȱ moreȱ usefulȱ proceduralȱ informationȱ thanȱ “oneȬpageȱ citation“ȱ documentsȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ5.1.2).ȱ 45ȱȱ Documentsȱ inȱ pdfȱ format,ȱ readableȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ theȱ Adobe’sȱ Acrobatȱ software,ȱ wereȱ notȱseenȱasȱaȱseparateȱdocumentȱtypeȱbecauseȱtheyȱusuallyȱwereȱgroundedȱonȱaȱpreviȬ ousȱcreationȱofȱeitherȱaȱWordȱorȱaȱPowerPointȱfile.ȱ

MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudyȱ

113ȱ

involvesȱ565ȱdocumentsȱandȱwasȱsubjectȱtoȱaȱcombinedȱquantitativeȱandȱ qualitativeȱ documentȱ analysis.ȱ Theȱ codingȱ procedureȱ itselfȱ isȱ explainedȱ inȱmoreȱdetailȱinȱchapterȱ4.3.3.ȱ ȱ ȱ QualitativeȱInterviewsȱ Inȱtheȱaimȱtoȱtriangulateȱtheȱdataȱgatheredȱbyȱtheȱdocumentȱanalysis,ȱ14ȱ semiȬstructuredȱ interviewsȱ wereȱ conductedȱ withȱ companyȱ membersȱ fromȱ Novemberȱ 2004ȱ toȱ Juneȱ 2005ȱ eitherȱ viaȱ telephoneȱ orȱ faceȬtoȬface.ȱ Theȱ objectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ interviewsȱ hasȱ beenȱ toȱ achieveȱ aȱ deeperȱ contextualȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ documentationȱ processȱ andȱ theȱ databaseȱ usageȱwithinȱtheȱcaseȱcompany.ȱTheȱintervieweesȱwereȱagainȱselectedȱbyȱ meansȱofȱtheoreticalȱsamplingȱ(Glaserȱ&ȱStrauss,ȱ1967:ȱ45;ȱcf.ȱchapterȱ4.2.1)ȱ –ȱfollowingȱtheȱaimȱtoȱcoverȱaȱmaximumȱvarianceȱofȱgivenȱperspectivesȱ onȱ projectȱ documentationȱ processesȱ inȱ theȱ company.ȱ Inȱ practice,ȱ thisȱ meantȱ toȱ startȱ withȱ anȱ intervieweeȱ whoȱ workedȱ closelyȱ withȱ settingȱ upȱ theȱ CPLȱ databases,ȱ e.g.,ȱ someoneȱ fromȱ theȱ caseȱ company’sȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ section.ȱ Inȱ aȱ nextȱ step,ȱ theȱ heuristicȱ suggestedȱ toȱ makeȱ anȱ opposedȱselection,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱsomeoneȱusingȱtheȱdatabases,ȱe.g.,ȱaȱconȬ sultant.ȱȱ Finally,ȱtheȱsampleȱinvolvedȱintervieweesȱworkingȱeitherȱasȱconsultȬ antsȱ(7ȱinterviewees)ȱorȱinȱtheȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱsupportȱdivisionȱ (7)ȱofȱtheȱcompany.ȱIntervieweesȱwereȱbasedȱinȱGermanyȱ(7),ȱtheȱUnitedȱ Statesȱ(5),ȱtheȱUnitedȱKingdomȱ(1),ȱorȱSwitzerlandȱ(1).ȱLastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱ theȱgroupȱofȱintervieweesȱinvolvedȱ9ȱmaleȱandȱ5ȱfemaleȱmembersȱofȱtheȱ company.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ interview,ȱ narrationsȱ byȱ theȱ intervieweesȱ wereȱ initiatedȱ byȱ askingȱ themȱ toȱ describeȱ theirȱ personalȱ involvementȱ inȱ crossȬprojectȱ documentationȱ practicesȱ atȱ theȱ caseȱ company.ȱ Startingȱ fromȱ here,ȱ theȱ intervieweesȱ themselvesȱ pointedȱ toȱ subsequentȱ topicsȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ iniȬ tialȱsituation.ȱDuringȱtheȱinterview,ȱtheirȱnarrationsȱwereȱonlyȱcautiouslyȱ guidedȱandȱreȬinitiatedȱbyȱtheȱinterviewerȱ(followingȱtheȱprincipleȱofȱtheȱ problemȬcenteredȱinterview;ȱcf.ȱchapterȱ4.3.1).ȱForȱthisȱpurpose,ȱtheȱinterȬ

114

Methodologyȱ

ȱ

viewerȱ maintainedȱ anȱ interviewingȱ schemeȱ whichȱ inȱ itselfȱ developedȱ fromȱinterviewȱtoȱinterview.ȱWhileȱtheȱfirstȱinterviewsȱcontributedȱtoȱanȱ expansionȱ ofȱ varianceȱ inȱ topics,ȱ theȱ recurrentȱ mentioningȱ ofȱ topicsȱ inȱ laterȱ interviewsȱ thenȱ allowedȱ forȱ aȱ consolidation.ȱ Amongȱ theȱ finalȱ andȱ recurrentȱ topicsȱ yieldedȱ byȱ theȱ interviews,ȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ CPLȱ databasesȱ andȱprojectȱdocuments,ȱtheȱcreationȱandȱsubmissionȱofȱownȱprojectȱdocuȬ mentsȱtoȱtheȱdatabase,ȱandȱlastȱbutȱnotȱleastȱtheȱroleȱofȱPowerPointȱdocuȬ mentsȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ projectȱ presentationȱ andȱ documentationȱ wereȱ theȱmostȱprominentȱonesȱandȱwillȱthereforeȱbeȱresumedȱinȱtheȱpresentaȬ tionȱofȱresultsȱofȱtheȱtriangulatedȱstudyȱinȱchapterȱ5.1.ȱ ȱ ȱ 4.3.3 DataȱAnalysisȱ ȱ DocumentȱAnalysisȱ Inȱtheȱquantifyingȱpartȱofȱtheȱdocumentȱanalysis,ȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentsȱ wereȱ codedȱ byȱ helpȱ ofȱ aȱ preȬdefinedȱ setȱ ofȱ categories.ȱ Theseȱ categoriesȱ representȱ aȱ theoreticalȱ operationalizationȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ DCV.ȱ Withȱ regardsȱ toȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ analysis,ȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ continȬ gencyȱcanȱbeȱassumedȱtoȱoccurȱonȱthreeȱdistinctȱlevels.ȱTheseȱthreeȱlevelsȱ buildȱ upȱ onȱ eachȱ other,ȱ or,ȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ precise,ȱ theȱ firstȱ levelȱ representsȱ theȱpreconditionȱforȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱtheȱlevelsȱtwoȱandȱthree:ȱ Onȱ theȱ firstȱ level,ȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ asȬ sumedȱtoȱrequireȱatȱleastȱsomeȱformȱofȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱprojectȱprocessȱ(cf.ȱ Schoen,ȱ 1983;ȱ Raelin,ȱ 1997).ȱ Thisȱ correspondsȱ withȱ Garrickȱ andȱ Clegg’sȱ assertionȱ thatȱ “forȱ manyȱ contemporaryȱ projectȬbasedȱ learningȱ theoristsȱ ‘reflection’ȱ isȱ aȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ learningȱ (...)”ȱ (Garrickȱ &ȱ Clegg,ȱ 2001:ȱ 120).ȱ Learningȱbyȱreflection,ȱinȱturn,ȱcanȱbeȱreȬdescribedȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱLuhȬ mann’sȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱfirstȱorderȱandȱsecondȱorderȱobservationsȱ(LuhȬ mann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 323).ȱ Secondȱ orderȱ observationȱ areȱ reflectiveȱ inȱ thatȱ theyȱ signifyȱ anȱ observationȱ whichȱ observesȱ aȱ previousȱ observation.ȱ Thisȱ canȱ eitherȱmeanȱthatȱanotherȱobserverȱisȱinvolvedȱorȱthatȱtheȱsameȱobserverȱ perceivesȱ ownȱ previousȱ observationsȱ fromȱ retrospectȱ (Kneerȱ &ȱNassehi,ȱ

MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudyȱ

115ȱ

1997:ȱ100f).ȱInȱthisȱstudy’sȱcontext,ȱwhileȱtheȱcommunicationȱtoȱtheȱclientȱ remainsȱ onȱ aȱ firstȱ orderȱ observationȱ levelȱ (observationȱ ofȱ theȱ client),ȱ aȱ reȬ flectionȱofȱtheȱprojectȱinȱcommunicationȱtoȱcolleaguesȱrequiresȱ‘toȱtakeȱaȱ stepȱaside’ȱandȱtoȱobserveȱtheȱprojectȱprocessȱasȱsuchȱinȱformȱofȱaȱsecondȱ orderȱobservationȱ(observationȱofȱtheȱobservation).ȱInȱpractice,ȱthisȱvariableȱ wasȱcodedȱbyȱcountingȱhowȱmanyȱslidesȱorȱpagesȱofȱaȱprojectȱdocumentȱ alsoȱ containedȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ processȱ itselfȱ insteadȱ ofȱ referȬ ringȱexclusivelyȱtoȱtheȱclient’sȱsituation.ȱȱ Theȱ codingȱ ofȱ thisȱ variableȱ isȱ demandingȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ requiresȱ someȱ contextualȱunderstandingȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱdistinguishȱbetweenȱtheȱ twoȱ levelsȱ ofȱ observationȱ representedȱ inȱ theȱ documents.ȱ Thisȱ dilemmaȱ wasȱsolvedȱbyȱdrawingȱonȱtheȱhypotheticalȱroleȱofȱtheȱ“expertiseȬseekingȱ novice”ȱ (Markus,ȱ 2001:ȱ 59).ȱ Theȱ researcher,ȱ workingȱ forȱ theȱ caseȱ comȬ panyȱonȱaȱtemporaryȱcontract,ȱrepresentedȱaȱsomewhatȱtypicalȱexampleȱ ofȱaȱnewȱemployeeȱ(alsoȱinȱtermsȱofȱhisȱqualificationȱlevel)ȱtryingȱtoȱgraspȱ whatȱhasȱhappenedȱinȱpastȱprojectsȱbyȱreadingȱthroughȱofȱprojectȱdocuȬ mentation.ȱTherefore,ȱifȱtheȱresearcherȱwasȱunableȱtoȱgraspȱtheȱdifferenceȱ betweenȱclientȱanalysesȱandȱprojectȱprocessȱdescriptions,ȱaȱnewȱmemberȱ ofȱtheȱcompanyȱcouldȱbeȱpresumedȱtoȱfaceȱsimilarȱdifficulties.ȱ Onȱ theȱ secondȱ level,ȱ andȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ learningȬfromȬmistakesȱ principleȱ (Edmondson,ȱ 1996;ȱ Zhaoȱ &ȱ Olivera,ȱ 2006),ȱ contingencyȱ canȱ beȱ visibilizedȱ byȱ aȱ criticalȱ projectȱ reflectionȱwhichȱ allowsȱ forȱaȱ learningȱ fromȱ pastȱfailure.ȱThisȱoperationalizationȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱtheȱ visibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱcanȱbeȱaccomplishedȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱanȱ explicationȱ ofȱ alternativesȱ consideredȱ butȱ alsoȱ byȱ mistakesȱ made.ȱ Byȱ highlightingȱ mistakesȱ inȱ aȱ retrospectiveȱ reconstructionȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ process,ȱitȱisȱimpliedȱthatȱtheȱdecisionȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱdifferentlyȱ–ȱ andȱ thatȱ thisȱmayȱ haveȱ beenȱ forȱ theȱ better.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ theȱ documentsȱ whichȱcontainedȱatȱleastȱsomeȱformȱofȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱprocessȱitselfȱ(firstȱ levelȱ ofȱ DCV)ȱ wereȱ codedȱ withȱ regardsȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ifȱ theȱ projectȱ documentȱincludedȱanyȱnegativeȱorȱcriticalȱstatementsȱatȱall.ȱȱ Onȱtheȱthirdȱlevel,ȱtextualȱelementsȱwereȱcodedȱwithȱregardsȱtoȱtheirȱ contributionȱtoȱanȱexplicitȱmentioningȱofȱalternativesȱtoȱdecisions.ȱThisȱvariȬ ableȱmostȱcloselyȱcorrespondsȱwithȱtheȱconceptȱofȱDCVȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ

116

Methodologyȱ

ȱ

64).ȱ Theȱ realizationȱ ofȱ thisȱ variableȱ typicallyȱ involvesȱ toȱ highlightȱ deciȬ sionsȱ asȱ decisionsȱ byȱ definingȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ alternativesȱ theȱ decisionȱ hasȱ beenȱ basedȱ onȱ (Seidl,ȱ 2006a:ȱ 39).ȱ Inȱ theȱ codingȱ process,ȱ thisȱ variableȱ turnedȱoutȱtoȱbeȱtheȱoneȱwhereȱtheȱdistinctionsȱcouldȱbeȱmadeȱmostȱpreȬ cisely.ȱ However,ȱ itsȱ distinctiveȱ valueȱ mayȱ haveȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ anȱ explicitȱ outlineȱ ofȱ alternativesȱ toȱ decisionsȱ wasȱ foundȱ onlyȱ veryȱ seldomȱinȱtheȱsampleȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1.2).ȱ Furthermore,ȱtheȱcodingȱprocessȱinvolvedȱvariablesȱonȱbasicȱprojectȱ dataȱ(e.g.,ȱprojectȱdate,ȱclient,ȱandȱdatabaseȱtheȱdocumentȱhadȱbeenȱsubȬ mittedȱ to)ȱ andȱ generalȱ documentȱ characteristicsȱ (e.g.,ȱ mediumȱ type,ȱ fileȱ size,ȱ andȱ wordȱ count)ȱ whichȱ allowȱ forȱ aȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ theȱ DCVȱ levelsȱ withȱregardsȱtoȱtheseȱvariables.ȱUnfortunately,ȱvariablesȱlikeȱtheȱdatabaseȱ typeȱorȱclientȱtypeȱdidȱnotȱyieldȱanyȱsignificantȱdifferencesȱwithȱrespectȱ toȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingenciesȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ willȱ notȱ beȱ referredȱtoȱinȱtheȱpresentationȱofȱempiricalȱresultsȱinȱchapterȱ5.1.ȱ Inȱ theȱ qualitativeȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ documentȱ analysis,ȱ recurrentȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱdocumentsȱwereȱidentifiedȱandȱcondensedȱintoȱaȱtypologyȱbasedȱ onȱtheȱgenreȱapproachȱ(Yatesȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱ1992).ȱThisȱprocessȱinvolvedȱ toȱ identifyȱ recurrentȱ genreȱ criteriaȱandȱtoȱ condenseȱ themȱ toȱ idealȱtypes.ȱ AccordingȱtoȱWeber’sȱdefinition,ȱȱ ȱ (...)ȱ anȱ idealȬtypeȱ isȱ formedȱ byȱ theȱ oneȬsidedȱ accentuationȱ ofȱ oneȱ orȱ moreȱ pointsȱofȱviewȱandȱbyȱtheȱsynthesisȱofȱaȱgreatȱmanyȱdiffuse,ȱdiscrete,ȱmoreȱ orȱ lessȱ presentȱ andȱ occasionallyȱ absentȱ concreteȱ individualȱ phenomena,ȱ whichȱareȱarrangedȱ(...)ȱintoȱaȱunifiedȱanalyticalȱconstruct.ȱInȱitsȱconceptualȱ purityȱthisȱmentalȱconstructȱcanȱnotȱbeȱfoundȱempiricallyȱanywhereȱinȱrealȬ ity.ȱ(Weber,ȱ1969:ȱ90)ȱ ȱ

TheȱidealȬtypicalȱdistinctionȱthenȱallowedȱforȱaȱcrossȬgenresȱcomparisonȱ withȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱthreeȱlevelsȱofȱDCV.ȱSingleȱdocumentsȱwereȱselectedȱ toȱillustrateȱtheȱgenresȱidentifiedȱinȱthisȱanalysis.ȱFinally,ȱaȱsmallȱrangeȱofȱ documentsȱwhereȱanȱexplicitȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱcouldȱ beȱ expectedȱ dueȱ toȱ theirȱ genreȱ characteristicsȱ wereȱ alsoȱ subjectȱ toȱ addiȬ tionalȱ analysesȱ onȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ textualȱ elements.ȱ Thisȱ againȱ allowedȱ forȱ generatingȱanȱidealȬtypicalȱcomparisonȱonȱaȱsubordinateȱlevelȱbyȱidentiȬ

MethodologyȱofȱtheȱResearchȱStudyȱ

117ȱ

fyingȱtypicalȱtextualȱelementsȱandȱbyȱcomparingȱthemȱinȱtheirȱcapacityȱtoȱ makeȱdecisionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱvisible.ȱ

QualitativeȱInterviewsȱ Theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ theȱ documentȱ analysisȱ areȱ contextuallyȱ enrichedȱ byȱ emȬ ployeeȱ statementsȱ gatheredȱ byȱ helpȱ ofȱ qualitativeȱ interviews.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ purpose,ȱ narrationsȱ ofȱ theȱ intervieweesȱ wereȱ generatedȱ byȱ helpȱ ofȱ theȱ techniqueȱofȱtheȱproblemȬcenteredȱinterviewȱ(Witzel,ȱ1982;ȱ2000).ȱBecauseȱ theȱcontractȱforȱtheȱresearchȱcoȬoperationȱwithȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱprohibȬ itedȱ anyȱ electronicȱ recordingsȱ andȱ fullȬtextȱ transcripts,ȱ theȱ qualitativeȱ codingȱ ofȱ theȱ interviewsȱ hadȱ insteadȱ toȱ beȱ basedȱ onȱ notesȱ takenȱ byȱ theȱ researcherȱduringȱtheȱinterview.ȱTheȱabsenceȱofȱfullȬtextȱtranscriptsȱofȱtheȱ interviews,ȱ however,ȱ canȱ beȱ evaluatedȱ asȱ lessȱ severeȱ givenȱ thatȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ focusȱ onȱ differencesȱ inȱ interviewees’ȱ accountsȱ onȱ aȱ linguisticalȱ levelȱ (cf.ȱLamneck,ȱ1995:ȱ163).ȱ Inȱtheȱcodingȱprocess,ȱmainȱcategoriesȱwereȱdevelopedȱinȱanȱiterativeȱ processȱ whichȱ goesȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ groundedȱ theoryȱ approachȱ (Glaserȱ &ȱ Strauss,ȱ1967).ȱThisȱinvolvedȱtoȱattributeȱcodesȱtoȱrecurrentȱaspectsȱmenȬ tionedȱinȱtheȱinterviewsȱinȱtheȱaimȱtoȱidentifyȱemergentȱtopicsȱrelevantȱtoȱ theȱinterviewees.ȱTheseȱaspectsȱwereȱthenȱcondensedȱtoȱcodesȱwhich,ȱinȱ turn,ȱ allowedȱ forȱ aȱ systematizationȱ ofȱ theȱ empiricalȱ dataȱ inȱ tabulatedȱ form.ȱItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱkeepȱinȱmindȱthat,ȱinȱcongruenceȱwithȱtheȱframeȬ workȱ underlyingȱ thisȱ study,ȱ theȱ interviewȱ resultsȱ areȱ notȱ seenȱ asȱ repreȬ sentingȱ aȱ factualȱ andȱ objectiveȱ organizationalȱ realityȱ butȱ muchȱ moreȱ aȱ representationȱ ofȱ howȱ organizationalȱ membersȱ perceiveȱ andȱ enactȱ theȱ communicativeȱ organizationalȱ realityȱ inȱ theirȱ personalȱ observationȱ (cf.ȱ Orlikowski,ȱ2002).46ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱtheȱinterviewsȱaimȱtoȱrevealȱanȱemicȱ descriptionȱinsteadȱofȱanȱeticȱdescriptionȱofȱsocialȱrealityȱ(Pike,ȱ1967).ȱȱ

46ȱȱ Withȱ this,ȱ theȱ studyȱ leansȱ towardsȱ aȱ socialȱ constructivistȱ approachȱ inȱ theȱ empiricalȱ investigationȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱ(cf.ȱBergerȱ&ȱLuckmann,ȱ1966).ȱ

5 EmpiricalȱAnalysis:ȱExploringȱtheȱȱ (InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱ inȱtheȱPracticeȱofȱProjectȱDocumentationȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1 EmpiricalȱResultsȱFromȱanȱArchaeologicalȱExpeditionȱ ȱ ȱ TheȱsearchȱforȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱtheȱprojectȱdocumenȬ tationȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱresembledȱanȱarchaeologicalȱexpediȬ tionȱtryingȱtoȱfindȱtheȱremainsȱofȱaȱrareȱspecies.ȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱpresenȬ tationȱofȱempiricalȱresultsȱisȱstructuredȱbyȱfollowingȱtheȱsuccessiveȱstepsȱ ofȱtheȱarchaeologicalȱexpedition.ȱInȱaȱfirstȱstep,ȱtheȱCPLȱdatabases,ȱrightȱ atȱtheȱentryȱdoorȱofȱtheȱexpedition,ȱareȱdescribedȱregardingȱtheȱquestionȱ whichȱmediaȱandȱgenresȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱareȱappliedȱhereȱmostȱ frequentlyȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1.1).ȱInȱaȱsecondȱstep,ȱtheȱPowerPointȱpresentaȬ tionȱ genre,ȱ asȱ theȱ mostȱ frequentȱ genreȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ inȱ theȱ sample,ȱisȱdifferentiatedȱintoȱaȱsubȬtypology.ȱThisȱtypologyȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱ theȱmainȱresearchȱissueȱbyȱaskingȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱdecisionȱprocessesȱandȱ theirȱcontingencyȱbecomeȱvisibleȱinȱvariousȱsubȬgenresȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1.2).ȱ Inȱaȱfinalȱstep,ȱtheȱanalysisȱarrivesȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱprojectsȱdocuments.ȱItȱisȱ examinedȱ hereȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ theȱ selectedȱ documentsȱ contributeȱ toȱ aȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ theȱ projectȱ organizationȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ5.1.3).ȱ

120

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

5.1.1 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱCrossȬProjectȱLearningȱ Databasesȱ ȱ CrossȬProjectȱLearningȱDatabasesȱinȱUseȱatȱtheȱCaseȱCompanyȱ Theȱ documentȱ analysisȱ isȱ groundedȱ onȱ documentsȱ extractedȱ fromȱ twoȱ CPLȱdatabasesȱinȱuseȱatȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.2).ȱItȱisȱtheȱaimȱofȱ thisȱ outlineȱ toȱ provideȱ initialȱ contextȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ databases’ȱ backgroundȱ whichȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ referenceȱ forȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ reȬ sultsȱinȱtheȱfurtherȱcourseȱofȱtheȱanalysis.ȱ Theȱtwoȱdatabasesȱinȱuseȱatȱtheȱcompany,ȱalthoughȱdifferingȱinȱtheirȱ historicalȱ origin,ȱ wereȱ bothȱ setȱ upȱ asȱ electronicȱ repositoriesȱ forȱ sharingȱ experiencesȱ andȱ workȱ productsȱ generatedȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ consultingȱ projects.ȱ Therefore,ȱ projectȱ documentsȱ wereȱ madeȱ digitallyȱ accessibleȱ toȱ companyȱmembersȱinȱorderȱtoȱleverageȱaȱlearningȱfromȱknowledgeȱgenȬ eratedȱinȱpastȱprojects.ȱBothȱdatabasesȱcouldȱbeȱaccessedȱbyȱtheȱconsultȬ antsȱandȱbyȱtheȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱstaffȱviaȱtheȱdatabaseȱsoftwareȱ Lotusȱ Notesȱ whichȱ wasȱ usedȱ asȱ anȱ ITȱ infrastructureȱ solutionȱ acrossȱ theȱ wholeȱ company.ȱ Eachȱ projectȱ wasȱ givenȱ anȱ identifiableȱ numberȱ (“priȬ maryȱ key”),ȱ aȱ templateȱ containingȱ basicȱ projectȱ dataȱ andȱ anȱ openȱ textȱ fieldȱ forȱ aȱ projectȱ summaryȱ (“abstract”)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ opportunityȱ toȱ attachȱ furtherȱ documentsȱ toȱ provideȱ moreȱ detailedȱ informationȱ onȱ theȱ projectȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.2).ȱItȱwasȱtheȱprojectȱleader’sȱresponsibilityȱtoȱsubmitȱ projectȱdocumentation.ȱHowever,ȱinȱfrequentȱcases,ȱaȱlowerȬrankedȱproȬ jectȱteamȱmemberȱwasȱappointedȱtoȱmaintainȱtheseȱsubmissions.ȱȱ Theȱ wholeȱ processȱ wasȱ assistedȱ byȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ company’sȱ knowledgeȱmanagementȱsection.ȱTheyȱwereȱinȱchargeȱofȱremindingȱproȬ jectȱ managersȱ toȱ submitȱ projectȱ documentsȱ toȱ theȱ databasesȱ andȱtoȱ conȬ ductȱ qualityȱ reviews.ȱ Onȱ theȱ users’ȱ side,ȱ aȱ searchȱ functionalityȱ allowedȱ forȱ findingȱ specificȱ projectȱ entriesȱ byȱ enteringȱ searchȱ termsȱ whichȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

121ȱ

matchedȱ theȱ template’sȱ content.47ȱ However,ȱ theȱ searchȱ functionalityȱ didȱ notȱenableȱitsȱusersȱtoȱsearchȱonȱtheȱlevelȱofȱattachedȱdocuments.ȱ Theȱtwoȱdatabasesȱdifferedȱinȱtheirȱhistoricalȱorigin.ȱWhileȱtheȱolderȱ one,ȱdatabaseȱA,ȱhadȱaȱlongȱandȱconsistentȱtraditionȱwithinȱtheȱcompany,ȱ databaseȱBȱconsistedȱofȱanȱaccumulationȱofȱprojectȱdocumentsȱwhichȱhadȱ beenȱintegratedȱinȱsuccessiveȱstepsȱafterȱrecentȱmergersȱandȱacquisitionsȱ ofȱtheȱcompany.ȱDespiteȱitsȱheterogeneity,ȱdatabaseȱBȱwasȱtheȱoneȱchosenȱ byȱtheȱcompanyȱforȱcurrentȱandȱfutureȱCPLȱprocesses,ȱdatabaseȱAȱinsteadȱ wasȱplannedȱtoȱbeȱshutȱdownȱinȱtheȱnearȱfuture.ȱThisȱcanȱbeȱexplainedȱbyȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thisȱ databaseȱ hadȱ itsȱ originsȱ inȱ oneȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ companyȱ takenȱoverȱinȱmergerȱinȱ2002ȱwhichȱhadȱestablishedȱtheȱtechnicallyȱmostȱ elaborateȱformȱofȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱprocedures.ȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ sectionȱ ofȱ theȱ companyȱ mostlyȱ consistedȱ ofȱ companyȱ membersȱ whoȱ originallyȱ workedȱ forȱ theȱ consultingȱ firmȱ thatȱ hadȱbeenȱtakenȱoverȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.2).ȱ InȱaȱPowerPointȱpresentationȱservingȱasȱaȱguideȱtoȱtheȱdatabase,ȱtheȱ olderȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ databases,ȱ databaseȱ A,ȱ isȱ describedȱ asȱ focusingȱ mainlyȱ onȱ “capturableȱ knowledge”,ȱ suchȱ asȱ “whiteȱ papers”,ȱ “presentaȬ tions”,ȱ“checkȱlists”,ȱandȱ“plans”.ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱtheȱdatabaseȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱ distinguishedȱfromȱotherȱinstrumentsȱinȱplaceȱatȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱwhichȱ primarilyȱaimedȱtoȱpromoteȱdirectȱcontactsȱbetweenȱemployees.ȱAmongȱ theseȱ instruments,ȱ theȱ companyȱ madeȱ useȱ ofȱ “yellowȱ pages”,ȱ “commuȬ nityȱmaps”ȱasȱwellȱasȱ“instantȱmessaging”ȱtools.ȱTheȱoverallȱknowledgeȱ managementȱapproachȱwasȱdescribedȱasȱdeliveringȱ“theȱrightȱknowledgeȱ toȱtheȱrightȱhandsȱofȱtheȱrightȱpeopleȱatȱtheȱrightȱtime”.ȱ Inȱaȱsimilarȱway,ȱdatabaseȱBȱisȱdescribedȱinȱaȱPowerPointȱpresentaȬ tionȱ createdȱ byȱ theȱ company’sȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ section.ȱ Theȱ documentsȱ storedȱ inȱ theȱ databaseȱ wereȱ supposedȱ toȱ representȱ “engageȬ mentȱexperiencesȱandȱworkȱproducts”.ȱByȱmeansȱofȱthis,ȱitȱwasȱaimedȱ“toȱ saveȱ consultantsȱ timeȱ andȱ costlyȱ reinventionȱ byȱ capturingȱ keyȱ projectȱ deliverablesȱandȱworkȱproducts”.ȱToȱachieveȱthisȱgoal,ȱitȱwasȱtheȱprojectȱ 47ȱȱ StatisticsȱprovidedȱbyȱtheȱknowedgeȱmanagementȱsectionȱshowedȱaȱgenerallyȱincreasȬ ingȱusageȱofȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱoverȱtheȱyears.ȱUnfortunately,ȱtheseȱstatisticsȱturnedȱoutȱ notȱbeȱconsiderableȱforȱtheȱanalysisȱlaterȱonȱdueȱtoȱtechnicalȱinconsistencies.ȱ

122

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

team’sȱ dutyȱ toȱ accomplishȱ aȱ “harvestingȱ ofȱ projectȱ summaries,ȱ deliverȬ ables,ȱ projectȱ workȱ plans,ȱ andȱ tools”.ȱ Overall,ȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ manageȬ mentȱapproachȱwasȱdrivenȱbyȱtheȱaimȱtoȱ“achieveȱconsistency”ȱacrossȱtheȱ firmȱandȱwithȱthis,ȱfinally,ȱtoȱ“reduceȱcosts”.ȱ Takenȱ together,ȱ theȱ terminologyȱ ofȱ bothȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ approachesȱ reflectsȱ aȱ reifiedȱ understandingȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ asȱ aȱ materialȱ entityȱ(cf.ȱCurrieȱ&ȱKerrin,ȱ2004).ȱTermsȱlikeȱ”toȱharvest”ȱorȱ“toȱcapture”ȱ indicateȱ thatȱ knowledgeȱ isȱ seenȱ hereȱ asȱ anȱ entityȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ packaged,ȱ sentȱ toȱ colleagues,ȱ andȱ beȱ unpackedȱ inȱ basicallyȱ theȱ sameȱ form.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ databasesȱ inȱ useȱ atȱ theȱ caseȱ companyȱ canȱ beȱ interȬ pretedȱ asȱ representingȱ typicalȱ examplesȱ ofȱ theȱ “knowledgeȱ asȱ theory”ȱ approachȱ (Werrȱ &ȱ Stjernberg,ȱ 2003:ȱ 883;ȱ cf.ȱ chapterȱ 3.1.3).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ approach,ȱ knowledgeȱ isȱ understoodȱ toȱ beȱ generallyȱ codifiableȱ (cf.ȱ Zolloȱ&ȱWinter,ȱ2002).ȱȱ Thisȱ interpretationȱ wasȱ substantiatedȱ byȱ theȱ interviews.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ interviewees,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ inȱ chargeȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptualȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theȱ CPLȱ databases,ȱ highlightedȱ thatȱ theȱ databases’ȱ aimȱ isȱ “toȱ captureȱ bestȱ practicesȱ andȱ toȱ integrateȱ theȱ deliveryȱ ofȱ excellenceȱ fromȱ projects”.ȱ AcȬ cordingȱ toȱ thisȱ view,ȱ projectȱ documentsȱ areȱ seenȱasȱ“assets”ȱ whichȱ conȬ tainedȱ valuableȱ resourcesȱ forȱ futureȱ projectsȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ “exploited”ȱ(Winterȱ&ȱSzulanski,ȱ2001).ȱAnotherȱinterviewee,ȱworkingȱonȱ aȱ middleȱ managementȱ levelȱ inȱ theȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ theȱ CPLȱ databases,ȱ emphasizedȱ thatȱ theȱ mergerȬbasedȱ growthȱ ofȱ theȱ companyȱ hadȱ signifiȬ cantlyȱincreasedȱtheȱdemandȱforȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱinȱrecentȱyears.ȱ Sinceȱ then,ȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ documentsȱ hasȱ changedȱ toȱ concentrateȱ onȱȱ “flashes”,ȱshortȱsummariesȱofȱ“bestȱpracticeȱprojects”ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱusedȱ forȱbothȱinternalȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱandȱforȱexternalȱmarketingȱandȱ projectȱacquisition.ȱȱ Theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ databases’ȱ purposeȱ standsȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ wayȱitsȱisȱevaluatedȱbyȱitsȱmainȱtargetȱgroup,ȱtheȱconsultants.ȱAmongȱtheȱ interviewees,ȱ theȱ consultantsȱ primarilyȱ estimateȱ theȱ existingȱ CPLȱ dataȬ basesȱ andȱ processesȱ asȱ insufficientȱ inȱ fulfillingȱ theȱ objectivesȱ theyȱ wereȱ setȱupȱfor:ȱȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

123ȱ

Firstȱ ofȱ all,ȱ itȱ wasȱ mentionedȱ thatȱ theȱ accessibilityȱ ofȱ theȱ CPLȱ dataȬ basesȱ isȱ farȱ fromȱ trivialȱ inȱ dailyȱ practice.ȱ Inȱ frequentȱ cases,ȱ documentsȱ wereȱnotȱsharedȱinȱtheȱcompanyȬwideȱdatabasesȱbutȱonlyȱinȱprojectȱdataȬ basesȱ orȱ “projectȱ hardȱ drives”ȱ withȱ limitedȱ accessȱ toȱ participantsȱ ofȱ theȱ project,ȱ theirȱ superiors,ȱ andȱ (inȱ someȱ cases)ȱ otherȱ invitedȱ orȱ permittedȱ organizationalȱ members:ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ oneȱ interviewee,ȱ thisȱ usuallyȱ inȬ volvedȱaȱgroupȱofȱ3ȱupȱtoȱ50ȱusers.ȱInȱextremeȱcases,ȱprojectȱdocumentsȱ wereȱstoredȱonȱaȱCDȱexclusively.ȱInȱsuchȱcases,ȱtheȱformerȱprojectȱdataȬ baseȱ inȱ useȱ wasȱ shutȱ downȱ toȱ anyȱ furtherȱ access.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ consultȬ antsȱfrequentlyȱworkedȱatȱaȱclient’sȱsiteȱwhereȱtheyȱdidȱnotȱalwaysȱhaveȱ accessȱtoȱtheirȱcorporateȱIntranet.ȱTheȱproblemsȱevenȱmultipliedȱifȱaȱcliȬ entȬownedȱhardȱdriveȱorȱprojectȱdatabaseȱwasȱused.48ȱȱ Evenȱifȱanȱaccessȱtoȱtheȱdatabasesȱcouldȱbeȱguaranteed,ȱaȱsecondȱsetȱ ofȱ obstaclesȱ remains:ȱ theȱ retrievabilityȱ ofȱ usefulȱ information.ȱ Thisȱ issueȱ wasȱcomplicatedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthatȱconsultantsȱdifferȱinȱwhatȱtheyȱprimarilyȱ lookȱ forȱ whenȱ accessingȱ theȱ CPLȱ databases.ȱ Asȱ oneȱ consultantȱ highȬ lighted,ȱheȱandȱhisȱcolleaguesȱwereȱmostlyȱinterestedȱinȱfindingȱinformaȬ tionȱ onȱ aȱ specificȱ client.ȱ Anotherȱ consultantȱ insteadȱ putȱ aȱ strongerȱ emȬ phasisȱonȱtheȱreȬusabilityȱofȱpastȱprojectȱexperienceȱ–ȱinȱtheȱassumptionȱ thatȱ“aboutȱ90ȱpercentȱofȱoldȱprojectsȱcanȱbeȱutilizedȱforȱnewȱprojects”.ȱȱ However,ȱtheȱintervieweesȱmostlyȱagreedȱinȱtheȱestimationȱthatȱtheȱ existingȱCPLȱdatabasesȱsufferedȱfromȱtheȱproblemȱofȱ“informationȱoverȬ load”ȱandȱaȱlackȱofȱappropriateȱsearchȱfacilitiesȱinȱbothȱcases.ȱMoreover,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ aȱ suitableȱ documentȱ couldȱ beȱ retrieved,ȱ itȱ wasȱ reportedȱ toȱ lackȱ contextualȱ informationȱ andȱ toȱ beȱ farȱ fromȱ selfȬexplainingȱ –ȱ whatȱ againȱ diminishedȱtheirȱusefulnessȱofȱprojectȱdocumentsȱinȱpractice:ȱ“Soȱfarȱweȱ onlyȱcreateȱaȱpileȱofȱdocumentsȱinȱtheȱdatabases,ȱbutȱitȱisȱnotȱorganizedȱorȱ putȱ intoȱ contextȱ atȱ all“.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ ofȱ deȬcontextualizedȱ informationȱ

48ȱȱ Theȱ sharedȱ usageȱ ofȱ projectȱ hardȱ drivesȱ byȱ consultantsȱ andȱ theȱ clientȱ favorablyȱ comȬ paresȱ toȱ Czarniawskaȱ andȱ Mazza’sȱ (2003)ȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱ „liminalȱ space“ȱ establishedȱ inȱ consultingȱ projects.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ concept,ȱ consultingȱ projectsȱ createȱ aȱ spaceȱ onȱ theirȱownȱwhichȱsuspendsȱtheȱclearȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱconsultingȱfirmȱandȱtheȱcliȬ entȱfirmȱforȱaȱlimitedȱtimeȱframeȱ

124

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

becomesȱ particularlyȱ relevantȱ dueȱ toȱ aȱ highȱ gradeȱ ofȱ specializationȱ aȬ mongȱconsultants,ȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱintervieweesȱnoted.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ overcomeȱ theȱ obstaclesȱ ofȱ deȬcontextualization,ȱ consultȬ antsȱ frequentlyȱ triedȱ toȱ getȱ directlyȱ inȱ touchȱ withȱ theȱ creatorsȱ ofȱprojectȱ documents.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱ databasesȱ indeedȱ seemedȱ toȱ fulfillȱ theirȱ functionȱ asȱ aȱ referenceȱ listȱ byȱ providingȱ anȱ overviewȱ ofȱ whichȱ consultȬ antsȱ wereȱ involvedȱ inȱ whichȱ projects.ȱ However,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ theȱ documentȱ creatorsȱ undeniablyȱ representȱ aȱ valuableȱ sourceȱ ofȱ contextualȱ informaȬ tion,ȱ theyȱ oftenȱ wereȱ notȱ approachableȱ anymore,ȱ asȱ someȱ consultantsȱ remarked.ȱ Thisȱ canȱ beȱ explainedȱ byȱ aȱ generallyȱ highȱ fluctuationȱ ofȱ emȬ ployeesȱinȱconsultingȱfirmsȱ(Olivera,ȱ2000:ȱ818)ȱbutȱevenȱhigherȱsoȱinȱtheȱ particularȱcaseȱorganizationȱdueȱtoȱrecentȱmergersȱandȱacquisitions.ȱFurȬ thermore,ȱtheȱcompanyȱdidȱnotȱhaveȱestablishedȱanyȱsystematicȱformȱofȱ keepingȱinȱtouchȱwithȱformerȱemployees,ȱsometimesȱreferredȱtoȱasȱ“postȬ exitȱmanagement”ȱ(Alvesson,ȱ2000).ȱItȱisȱnoȱsurprise,ȱinȱconsequence,ȱthatȱ consultantsȱ hadȱ toȱ relyȱ mostlyȱ onȱ existingȱ personalȱ andȱ informalȱ netȬ worksȱinsteadȱofȱcontactsȱinitiatedȱbyȱhelpȱofȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱinȱcaseȱ theyȱattemptedȱtoȱgatherȱinformationȱonȱpastȱprojectȱprocesses.ȱȱ Inȱgeneral,ȱtheȱinterviewsȱuncoveredȱaȱmismatchȱinȱtheȱwayȱdifferentȱ subȬgroupsȱ ofȱ intervieweesȱ evaluateȱ theȱ existingȱ CPLȱ practicesȱ atȱ theȱ company.ȱ Inȱ theȱ interviews,ȱ organizationalȱ membersȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ conceptualȱ developmentȱ andȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ theȱ databasesȱ predomiȬ nantlyȱ referredȱ toȱ theȱ objectivesȱ andȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ CPLȱ dataȬ bases.ȱInȱcontrast,ȱtheȱconsultants,ȱwhoȱusedȱtheȱdatabasesȱinȱtheirȱdailyȱ activities,ȱ moreȱ stronglyȱ emphasizedȱ theȱ constraintsȱ toȱ documentȱ subȬ missionȱandȱdatabaseȱusage.ȱȱ TheȱdifferencesȱinȱtheȱwayȱtheȱCPLȱroutineȱwasȱdescribedȱcanȱbeȱexȬ plainedȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱostensiveȱandȱperforȬ mativeȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ anȱ organizationalȱ routineȱ (Latour,ȱ 1986;ȱ Feldmanȱ &ȱ Pentland,ȱ 2003).ȱ Feldmanȱ andȱ Pentlandȱ noteȱ thatȱ theȱ referenceȱ toȱ eitherȱ ostensiveȱorȱperformativeȱaspectsȱdependsȱonȱhowȱorganizationalȱmemȬ bersȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱspecificȱroutine:ȱ ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

125ȱ

(...)ȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ ostensiveȱ andȱ performativeȱ [helps]ȱ toȱ explainȱ whyȱeticȱandȱemicȱdescriptionsȱofȱroutinesȱdiffered.ȱInȱresponseȱtoȱquestionsȱ aboutȱhowȱtasksȱareȱaccomplishedȱinȱorganizations,ȱpeopleȱwhoȱareȱlookingȱ fromȱtheȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱroutine,ȱsuchȱasȱhierarchicalȱsuperiorsȱorȱresearchers,ȱ atȱ timesȱ willȱ beȱ moreȱ likelyȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ ostensiveȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ routine,ȱ whileȱpeopleȱwhoȱareȱactuallyȱengagedȱinȱtheȱroutineȱmayȱbeȱmoreȱlikelyȱtoȱ describeȱ whatȱ theyȱ do,ȱ orȱ theȱ performativeȱ aspect.ȱ Knowingȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ twoȱ aspectsȱ toȱ thisȱ behaviorȱ willȱ helpȱ studentsȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ routinesȱ sortȱ outȱ suchȱ contradictionsȱ whenȱ theyȱ occur.ȱ (Feldmanȱ &ȱ Pentland,ȱ 2003:ȱ 111;ȱcf.ȱFeldman,ȱ2000)ȱ ȱ

Inȱthisȱchapter,ȱtheȱdatabases’ȱpurposeȱandȱstructureȱhasȱbeenȱdescribedȱ inȱorderȱtoȱestablishȱaȱframeȱofȱreferenceȱforȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱempiriȬ calȱresultsȱinȱtheȱfurtherȱcourseȱofȱtheȱstudy.ȱTheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱ performativeȱandȱostensiveȱsideȱshowsȱthatȱbothȱgroupsȱdifferȱinȱmakingȱ senseȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ routines.ȱ Forȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ DCV,ȱ thisȱ imȬ pliesȱthatȱtheseȱdifferingȱperspectivesȱneedȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱintoȱaccountȱwhenȱ insightsȱfromȱtheȱinterviewsȱareȱusedȱforȱtheȱtriangulationȱofȱresultsȱfromȱ theȱdocumentȱanalysis.ȱȱ ȱ TheȱDominanceȱofȱPowerPointȱPresentationsȱinȱtheȱCPLȱDatabasesȱ Inȱ aȱ nextȱ stepȱ ofȱ theȱ expedition,ȱ weȱ leaveȱ theȱ generalȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ CPLȱdatabasesȱandȱdescendȱtoȱtheȱcaseȱcompany’sȱprojectȱdocumentationȱ practices.ȱGuidedȱbyȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱmediaȱandȱgenresȱofȱorganȬ izationalȱ communicationȱ (Yatesȱ &ȱ Orlikowski,ȱ 1992),ȱ theȱ documentȱ analysisȱyieldsȱasȱaȱfirstȱresultȱthatȱtheȱtheoreticallyȱpresumedȱpredomiȬ nanceȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱasȱaȱgenreȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱisȱ generallyȱconfirmed.ȱInȱaȱmajorityȱofȱcasesȱ(87ȱpercent;ȱaȱtotalȱofȱnumberȱ 492ȱ documents),ȱ PowerPointȱ wasȱ theȱ mediumȱ ofȱ choiceȱ forȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱdefinedȱearlierȱasȱ“primaryȱdocuments”ȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.3.2)ȱ–ȱtheȱonesȱ whichȱofferedȱanȱexpertiseȬseekingȱnoviceȱtheȱcomparablyȱmostȱdetailedȱ informationȱ aboutȱ howȱ aȱ projectȱ wasȱ executed.ȱ Inȱ theȱ remainingȱ cases,ȱ theȱprimaryȱsourcesȱofȱinformationȱaboutȱtheȱprojectȱwereȱeitherȱaȱprojectȱ reportȱbasedȱinȱformȱofȱaȱWordȱdocumentȱ(3ȱpercent;ȱaȱtotalȱnumberȱofȱ17ȱ

126

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

documents)ȱorȱaȱtextualȱabstractȱdirectlyȱenteredȱintoȱtheȱdatabases’ȱmainȱ templateȱ(10ȱpercent;ȱaȱtotalȱnumberȱofȱ56ȱdocuments).ȱ AȱcausalȱattributionȱofȱeffectsȱtoȱPowerPointȱasȱtheȱmediumȱofȱchoiceȱ forȱ projectȱ documentationȱ wouldȱ requireȱ toȱ contrastȱ itsȱ usageȱ toȱ otherȱ mediaȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ previousȱformsȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱratherȱreliedȱonȱfullȬtextȱdocuȬ mentsȱinsteadȱofȱPowerPointȱdecksȱ(cf.ȱBloomfieldȱ&ȱVurdubakis,ȱ1994).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ rarityȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentsȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ onesȱ basedȱ onȱ PowerPointȱcomplicatedȱaȱcrossȬmediaȱcomparisonȱinȱtheȱfurtherȱcourseȱ ofȱtheȱanalysis.ȱInȱconsequence,ȱtheȱubiquityȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱ inȱtheȱsampleȱentailedȱtheȱdecisionȱtoȱconcentrateȱexclusivelyȱonȱthisȱdoȬ cumentȱtype.49ȱȱ TheȱpredominanceȱofȱPowerPointȱasȱaȱmediumȱofȱprojectȱdocumenȬ tationȱ inȱ theȱ sampleȱ allowedȱ forȱ aȱ firstȱ analysisȱ whetherȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ assumptionsȱ ofȱ aȱ reducedȱ textualȱ contentȱ inȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱ docuȬ mentsȱ(Tufte,ȱ2003)ȱcanȱbeȱvalidated.ȱForȱthisȱreason,ȱtheȱbodyȱofȱPowerȬ Pointȱ documentsȱ wasȱ analyzedȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ descriptiveȱ quantitativeȱ variablesȱsuchȱasȱwordsȱperȱslideȱandȱfileȱsizeȱperȱslideȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.3.3)ȱinȱaȱ longitudinalȱ comparison.ȱ Theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ theseȱ variablesȱ wasȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ theyȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ indicatorsȱ forȱ theȱ tendencyȱ toȱ reȬ duceȱtextualȱcontentȱ(indicatedȱbyȱloweredȱwordsȬperȬslideȱquota)ȱforȱtheȱ benefitȱofȱgraphicalȱelementsȱ(indicatedȱbyȱanȱelevatedȱfileȱsizeȱperȱslideȱ quota)ȱ–ȱaȱtendencyȱcriticallyȱestimatedȱbyȱTufteȱ(2003).ȱMoreover,ȱaȱreȬ ducedȱ amountȱ ofȱ textualȱ contentȱ wouldȱ correspondȱ withȱ guidelinesȱ inȱ educationalȱmaterialȱonȱ“slideȬwriting”ȱinȱuseȱatȱtheȱcaseȱcompany.ȱHere,ȱ itȱ wasȱ recommended,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ toȱ useȱ aȱ maximumȱ ofȱ “sevenȱ wordsȱ perȱline,ȱthreeȱlinesȱperȱbulletȱpoint”ȱ–ȱinȱorderȱtoȱenhanceȱtheȱapplicabilȬ ityȱ ofȱ slidesȱ inȱ faceȬtoȬfaceȱ presentations.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ study’sȱ context,ȱ aȱ conȬ firmationȱofȱaȱreducedȱwordsȬperȬslideȱquotaȱwasȱassumedȱtoȱrepresentȱaȱ firstȱ(thoughȱnotȱyetȱsufficient)ȱindicationȱforȱaȱstrongerȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱ presentationȱ functionȱ inȱ comparisonȱ toȱ theȱ documentationȱ functionȱ ofȱ PowerPoint.ȱ 49ȱȱ Hence,ȱ inȱ theȱ furtherȱ courseȱ ofȱ analysis,ȱ theȱ sampleȱ ofȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱ documentsȱ (n=492)ȱwillȱusuallyȱrepresentȱtheȱreferenceȱgroupȱforȱanyȱstatisticalȱcomparisons.ȱ

127ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

45

180

40

160

35

140

30

120

25

100

20

80

15

60

10

40

5

20

0

0

No. of Project Documents in Each Year (Total N=187)

2004

200

2003

220

50

2002

55

2001

240

2000

60

1999

Words per Slide

1998

KByte per Slide

n=9

n=12

n=10

n=11

n=26

n=44

n=75

ȱ

Figureȱ4:

FileȱSizeȱperȱSlideȱandȱWordsȱperȱSlideȱinȱPowerPointȬBasedȱProjectȱ Documentsȱ

ȱ ȱ

Inȱ examinationȱ ofȱ theȱ fileȬsizeȬperȬslideȱ quota’sȱ developmentȱ overȱ aȱ peȬ riodȱ fromȱ 1998ȱ toȱ 2004,ȱ theȱ resultsȱ validatedȱ thatȱ theȱ quotaȱ isȱ graduallyȱ increasingȱinȱrecentȱyearsȱ(fromȱanȱaverageȱofȱ30ȱkilobyteȱtoȱmoreȱthanȱ50ȱ kilobyteȱperȱslide;ȱseeȱfigureȱ4).50ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱamountȱofȱwordsȱ perȱ slideȱ remainedȱ constantȱ inȱ aȱ rangeȱ betweenȱ 90ȱ andȱ 100ȱ wordsȱ perȱ slideȱduringȱtheȱsameȱperiod.51ȱWithȱthis,ȱtheȱwordȱquotaȱofȱtheȱanalyzedȱ 50ȱȱ Inȱ figureȱ 4,ȱ onlyȱ projectȱ documentsȱ withȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ slidesȱ greaterȱ thanȱ oneȱ wereȱ included.ȱ Documentsȱ withȱ onlyȱ oneȱ singleȱ slideȱ followedȱ aȱ certainȱ standardizedȱ formȱ (cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1.2)ȱwhichȱwouldȱhaveȱhadȱaȱdeviatingȱinfluenceȱonȱtheȱcomparison.ȱ 51ȱȱ Theȱyearȱ1997ȱwasȱexceptionalȱwithȱanȱaverageȱquotaȱofȱ200ȱwordsȱperȱslide;ȱtheȱusageȱ ofȱtheȱolderȱpresentationȱsoftwareȱLotusȱFreelanceȱmayȱexplainȱthisȱdeviation;ȱhowever,ȱ theȱyearȱwasȱexcludedȱfromȱfigureȱ4ȱdueȱtoȱaȱtooȱsmallȱnumberȱofȱdocumentsȱ(n=7).ȱ

128

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

documentsȱ isȱ moreȱ thanȱ twiceȱ asȱ highȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ averageȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ reportedȱ byȱ Tufteȱ (40ȱ wordsȱ perȱ slide;ȱ Tufte,ȱ 2003).ȱ Tufte,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ hadȱ generatedȱ hisȱ figuresȱ byȱ helpȱ ofȱ aȱ GoogleȬbasedȱ Webȱ search.52ȱȱ Thisȱstudy’sȱresultsȱshowȱthatȱtheȱassumedȱtendencyȱofȱaȱdiminishȬ ingȱtextualȱcontentȱquotaȱoverȱtheȱpastȱyearsȱcannotȱbeȱconfirmed.ȱOnlyȱ inȱ crossȬmediaȱ comparisonȱ itȱ becomesȱ evidentȱ thatȱ PowerPoint’sȱ wordȬ perȬslideȱquotaȱisȱaboutȱoneȱthirdȱofȱcomparableȱprojectȱreportsȱinȱWordȱ formatȱ(withȱanȱaverageȱofȱ300ȱwordsȱperȱpage).ȱTheȱonlyȱindicationȱforȱaȱ tendencyȱtoȱfavorȱaȱgraphicalȱvisualizationȱoverȱaȱtextualȱdocumentationȱ ofȱ projectȱ processesȱ isȱ theȱ increasingȱ fileȬsizeȬperȬslideȱ quotaȱ overȱ theȱ years.ȱ Theseȱ resultsȱ indicateȱ aȱ strongerȱ emphasisȱ ofȱ theȱ presentationȱ functionȱ inȱ comparisonȱ toȱ theȱ documentationȱ functionȱ inȱ theȱ analyzedȱ PowerPointȱfiles.ȱ Theȱ applicabilityȱ ofȱ fileȱ sizeȱ asȱ anȱ indicator,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ limitedȱ byȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ preȬdefinedȱ vectorȱ graphicsȱ inȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ (whichȱmayȱdecreaseȱfileȱsize)ȱasȱwellȱasȱbyȱanȱautomaticȱstorageȱofȱmetaȱ dataȱ inȱ caseȱ ofȱ aȱ collaborativeȱ creationȱ (whichȱ mayȱ increaseȱ fileȱ size).ȱ Moreover,ȱtheȱfigureȱdoesȱnotȱtakeȱintoȱaccountȱthatȱdifferentȱversionsȱofȱ PowerPointȱ wereȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ sampleȱ whichȱ mayȱ causeȱ additionalȱ variȬ anceȱ inȱ fileȱ size.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ consideringȱ aȱ comparablyȱ lowȱ degreeȱ ofȱ standardizationȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱinȱtheȱsampleȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1.2),ȱ atȱ leastȱ theȱ effectȱ ofȱ vectorȱ graphicsȱ andȱ metaȱ dataȱ storageȱ canȱ beȱ asȬ sumedȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ systematic.ȱ Theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ anȱ increasingȱ fileȱ sizeȱ perȱ slideȱ mayȱ beȱ causedȱ byȱ aȱ generalȱ trendȱ toȱ includeȱ moreȱ graphicalȱ elementsȱisȱcrossȬconfirmedȱinȱtheȱqualitativeȱanalysesȱofȱtheȱdocuments.ȱ Whileȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ yearsȱ (1995ȱ toȱ 1999),ȱ simplisticȱ stylesȱ ofȱ visualizationȱ prevail,ȱe.g.,ȱblackȱtextȱonȱwhiteȱbackground,ȱinȱlaterȱyearsȱ(2000ȱtoȱ2004)ȱ theȱ usageȱ ofȱ graphicalȱ elementsȱ becomeȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ sophisticated.ȱ Thisȱ deviationȱ inȱ earlierȱ yearsȱ mayȱ beȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ inȱ singularȱ casesȱanȱolderȱpresentationȱsoftwareȱ(LotusȱFreelance)ȱhadȱbeenȱapplied.ȱȱ

52ȱȱ However,ȱtheȱresultsȱindeedȱlieȱinȱtheȱrangeȱofȱNASA’sȱPowerPointȬbasedȱreportȱonȱtheȱ Columbiaȱtragedyȱ(97ȱwordsȱperȱslide;ȱTufte,ȱ2003:ȱ12).ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

129ȱ

TheȱgeneralȱpredominanceȱofȱPowerPointȱasȱaȱmediumȱandȱgenreȱofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ isȱ crossȬconfirmedȱ inȱ theȱ qualitativeȱ interviews.ȱ TheȱconsultantsȱemphasizedȱthatȱdueȱtoȱincreasinglyȱtoughȱprojectȱpresȬ suresȱitȱhasȱbecomeȱseldomȱtoȱcreateȱdocumentsȱspecificallyȱforȱsubmisȬ sionȱtoȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱandȱinȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱonesȱwhichȱwereȱcreatedȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ processȱ anyway.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ consultantsȱ differedȱinȱtheirȱevaluationȱofȱPowerPoint’sȱusefulness.ȱWhileȱsomeȱconȬ sultantsȱhighlightedȱtheȱgeneralȱadvantagesȱofȱtheȱpresentationȱsoftware,ȱ otherȱintervieweesȱtookȱaȱcriticalȱstanceȱregardingȱtheȱvastnessȱofȱPowerȬ Point’sȱusageȱinȱprojectȱcommunication.ȱȱ Theȱ advantageousȱ sideȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentations,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ oneȱinterviewee,ȱisȱthatȱtheyȱareȱmostȱlikelyȱtoȱgainȱconsultants’ȱattentionȱ inȱ theȱ continuousȱ competitionȱ forȱ theirȱ “mindshare”.ȱ Asȱ anotherȱ interȬ vieweeȱ affirmed,ȱ theȱ consultants’ȱ generalȱ affinityȱ towardsȱ PowerPointȱ couldȱ beȱ explainedȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ softwareȱ hasȱ beenȱ widelyȱ estabȬ lishedȱ asȱ theȱ “allȬinȬoneȱ weapon”ȱ ofȱ consultants’ȱ workȱ andȱ “simplyȱ theȱ bestȱ means”ȱ toȱ presentȱ informationȱ inȱ aȱ highlyȱ condensedȱ formȱ –ȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ clientsȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ colleagues.ȱ Onȱ theȱ sideȱ ofȱ disadvantages,ȱ oneȱ consultantȱ pointedȱ toȱ clients’ȱ expectationsȱasȱ theȱ mainȱ sourceȱ ofȱPowerȬ Point’sȱ increasingȱ successȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ organization:ȱ „It’sȱ aȱ shameȱ Ȭȱ theȱ problemȱ isȱ thatȱ becauseȱ clientsȱ simplyȱ don’tȱ readȱ documents,ȱ weȱ onlyȱ presentȱourȱrecommendationsȱfaceȬtoȬface“.ȱTheȱpressureȱtoȱpresentȱproȬ jectȱresultsȱinȱaȱcondensedȱform,ȱsheȱwentȱonȱtoȱexplain,ȱwasȱcausingȱtheȱ challengeȱtoȱworkȱwithȱPowerPointȱatȱallȱtimes,ȱgivenȱtheȱfactȱthatȱelaboȬ rateȱ andȱ detailedȱ projectȱ reportsȱ wereȱ usuallyȱ notȱ readȱ byȱ clientsȱ atȱ all.ȱ Sheȱ concluded:ȱ „Thereȱ isȱ almostȱ noȱ communicationȱ amongȱ consultantsȱ withoutȱPowerPoint“.ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ theirȱ evaluationsȱ differed,ȱ theȱ intervieweesȱ consistentlyȱ reȬ portedȱ thatȱ PowerPointȱ wasȱ usedȱ thatȱ frequentlyȱ becauseȱ itȱ wasȱ preȬ sumedȱ toȱ beȱ demandedȱ byȱ bothȱ clientsȱ andȱ colleagues.ȱ Thisȱ dominantȱ roleȱwasȱcontrastedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthat,ȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱempiricalȱinvestigaȬ tions,ȱ theȱ companyȱ hadȱ notȱ establishedȱ aȱ standardizationȱ ofȱ templatesȱ andȱ layoutsȱ forȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ –ȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ comȬ monlyȱtheȱcaseȱinȱotherȱconsultingȱfirmsȱofȱaȱcomparableȱsize.ȱThisȱcanȱbeȱ

130

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

partlyȱ explainedȱ byȱ incompleteȱ integrationȱ processesȱ afterȱ mergersȱ andȱ acquisitionsȱ inȱ theȱ company’sȱ recentȱ historyȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 4.2).ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ companyȱ maintainedȱ aȱ smallȱ “visualȱ services”ȱ unitȱ whichȱ employedȱspecializedȱstaffȱwhoȱsupportedȱtheȱconsultantsȱinȱtheȱcreationȱ andȱgraphicalȱoptimizationȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentations,ȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱ thisȱ unitȱ wasȱ unknownȱ toȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ interviewees,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ onesȱ whoȱhadȱjoinedȱtheȱcompanyȱduringȱrecentȱmergersȱandȱacquisitions.ȱ Theȱ combinationȱ ofȱ theȱ documentȱ analysisȱ withȱ qualitativeȱ interȬ viewsȱ confirmedȱ theȱ dominatingȱ roleȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ asȱ aȱ mediumȱandȱgenreȱofȱprojectȱdocumentation.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱinterviewees’ȱ estimationȱofȱPowerPointȱasȱanȱ“allȬinȬoneȱtool”ȱdidȱnotȱtellȱusȱanythingȱ aboutȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱthisȱsoftwareȱforȱaȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱconȬ tingencyȱ thusȱ far.ȱ Toȱ approachȱ thisȱ issue,ȱ anotherȱ distinction,ȱ namelyȱ betweenȱ variousȱ subȬtypesȱ ofȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ genre,ȱ isȱ introduced.ȱ Theȱ subȬtypologyȱallowsȱforȱaȱmoreȱdetailedȱanalysisȱofȱPowerPoint’sȱroleȱinȱ theȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱandȱisȱdevelopedȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ empiricalȱmaterialȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱsubȬchapter.ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1.2 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱPowerPointȱSubȬGenresȱ ȱ SubȬTypologyȱofȱtheȱPowerPointȱPresentationȱGenreȱ TheȱdominanceȱofȱPowerPointȱasȱaȱgenreȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱinȱtheȱ caseȱcompanyȱallowsȱusȱtoȱenterȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱmoreȱdeeplyȱbyȱidenȬ tifyingȱ variousȱ subȬgenres.ȱ Thisȱ viewȱ linksȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ distinctionȱ beȬ tweenȱ mediaȱ andȱ genresȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ (Yatesȱ &ȱ OrȬ likowski,ȱ 1992;ȱ forthcoming)ȱ byȱ generatingȱ anȱ idealȬtypicalȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ communicativeȱ practicesȱ inȱ useȱ atȱ theȱ caseȱ company.ȱ Withȱ this,ȱ theȱ studyȱ proceedsȱ anotherȱ importantȱ stepȱ onȱ theȱ wayȱ toȱ exploreȱ whereȱ toȱ findȱ tracesȱ ofȱ DCVȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ company’sȱ projectȱ documentationȱ pracȬ tices.ȱ TheȱfirstȱandȱmostȱfrequentȱsubȬgenreȱ(62ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱPowerPointȱ documents;ȱ n=304)ȱ isȱ constitutedȱ byȱ oneȬpageȱ citationȱ documents.ȱ Theseȱ

131ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

documentsȱtypicallyȱconsistȱofȱonlyȱoneȱsingleȱslideȱwhichȱprovidesȱsomeȱ basicȱ informationȱ ofȱ whatȱ aȱ projectȱ wasȱ about,ȱ suchȱ asȱ clientȱ typeȱ andȱ industry,ȱ theȱ problemȱ theȱ clientȱ wasȱ facing,ȱ theȱ solutionȱ developed,ȱ asȱ wellȱasȱmainȱimprovementsȱtheȱprojectȱhasȱgenerated.ȱAsȱtheȱinterviewsȱ confirmed,ȱtheȱ“oneȬpageȱcitation”ȱdocumentsȱservedȱtheȱprimaryȱgoalȱtoȱ beȱ usedȱ asȱ readymadeȱ “copyȱ andȱ paste”ȱ slidesȱ whichȱ couldȱ thenȱ beȱ inȬ cludedȱinȱproposalsȱforȱtheȱacquisitionȱofȱnewȱclients.ȱInȱtheirȱclearȱfocusȱ onȱoutliningȱtheȱpositiveȱaspectsȱofȱaȱproject,ȱtheseȱdocumentsȱapparentlyȱ representȱmaterializationsȱofȱpureȱfrontstageȱcommunicationȱandȱgenerȬ allyȱdidȱnotȱinvolveȱanyȱcriticalȱprojectȱreflectionȱorȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱ contingencyȱwhichȱwouldȱbeȱcounterproductiveȱtoȱtheirȱpurpose.ȱ ȱ ȱ

BIS provides Collaborative Product Commerce solution resulting in operational benefits including an estimated US$31 million in savings CPC Solution implementation - The focus of CPC is on product design activities and product life cycle management ƒ As an outcome of an earlier engagement, in which BIS developed a technical roadmap for the What issues did company, Stratos Lightwave determined to move forward with the selection and implementation of a the customer face? Collaborative Product Commerce (CPC) Application to reduce time-to-market, increase product life cycle capacity, lower development costs, improve relations with suppliers and reduce costs of supplies.

What solution did IBM provide?

ƒ Stratos contracted BIS to select and implement the CPC as one solution engagement. ƒ BIS evaluated numerous application packages available in the marketplace and recommended PTC Windchill as the best CPC solution.

What were the results?

ƒ Stratos was very pleased with the BIS selection and implementation process, and expects to realize up to US$31 million in cost reduction benefits over the first three to five years of the product life.

ȱ Figureȱ5:

Exampleȱofȱtheȱ“OneȬPageȱCitation”ȱSubȬGenreȱ

132

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

Figureȱ 5ȱ showsȱ aȱ typicalȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ “oneȬpageȱ citation”ȱ genre.ȱ Theȱ documentsȱ ofȱ thisȱ typeȱ wereȱ structuredȱ inȱ aȱ standardizedȱ format.ȱ Theȱ standardȱ formatȱ involvedȱ aȱ setȱ ofȱ questionsȱ whichȱ wereȱ answeredȱ inȱ formȱofȱbulletȱpointȱlists,ȱe.g.,ȱ“whatȱissuesȱdidȱtheȱcustomerȱface”,ȱ“whatȱ solutionȱ didȱ [theȱ caseȱ company]ȱ provide”,ȱ orȱ “whatȱ wereȱ theȱ results”.ȱ Theȱ setȱ ofȱ questionsȱ usedȱ forȱ thisȱ purpose,ȱ however,ȱ variedȱ throughoutȱ theȱsampleȱbutȱgenerallyȱsharedȱaȱfocusȱonȱresultsȱratherȱthanȱprocesses.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱ genreȱ confirmsȱ Nass’sȱ assertionȱ thatȱ “PowerPointȱ givesȱyouȱtheȱoutcome,ȱbutȱitȱremovesȱtheȱprocess”ȱ(citedȱbyȱParker,ȱ2001:ȱ 76;ȱcf.ȱchapterȱ3.2.3).ȱȱ Itsȱbrevityȱandȱitsȱclearȱfocusȱonȱtheȱpositiveȱsideȱofȱtheȱproject’sȱoutȬ comesȱ constituteȱ theȱ genre’sȱ reȬusabilityȱ inȱ projectȱ proposalsȱ forȱ theȱ acȬ quisitionsȱ ofȱ newȱ projects,ȱ asȱ confirmedȱ byȱ theȱ interviewees.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ largeȱ diffusionȱ ofȱ theȱ “oneȬpageȱ citation”ȱ genreȱ isȱ surprisingȱ givenȱ theȱfactȱthatȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱwereȱprimarilyȱsetȱupȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱaȱ sharingȱofȱprojectȱexperiencesȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1.1).ȱNevertheless,ȱtheȱgenre’sȱ applicationȱshowsȱthatȱtheȱdatabaseȱseemedȱtoȱbeȱinterpretedȱbyȱtheȱconȬ sultantsȱasȱaȱtoolȱforȱprimarilyȱexchangingȱbriefȱmarketingȬstyleȱdescripȬ tionsȱofȱprojectsȱandȱtheirȱachievements.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱgenreȱremindsȱ ofȱtheȱinterviewees’ȱassertionȱthatȱitȱisȱcommonȱpracticeȱtoȱconcentrateȱonȱ “flashes”ȱ orȱ shortȱ summariesȱ ofȱ “bestȱ practiceȱ projects”ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ useȱ themȱforȱexternalȱmarketingȱandȱprojectȱacquisitionȱpurposesȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ 5.1.1).ȱ Theȱ secondȱ subȬgenreȱ isȱ constitutedȱ byȱ finalȱ clientȱ presentationsȱ (35ȱ percentȱ ofȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ documents;ȱ n=172).ȱ Theȱ documentsȱ ofȱ thisȱ genreȱcontainȱ38ȱslidesȱonȱaverageȱbutȱstronglyȱvaryȱinȱaȱrangeȱbetweenȱ5ȱ anȱ 266ȱ slides,ȱ withȱ aȱ standardȱ deviationȱ ofȱ 35ȱ slides.ȱ Asȱ theȱ interviewsȱ confirm,ȱfinalȱclientȱpresentationsȱareȱcreatedȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmainȱproductsȱ ofȱtheȱconsultingȱproject.ȱAccordingly,ȱtheyȱwereȱdesignedȱforȱcommuniȬ cationȱtoȱtheȱclientȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace.ȱOnlyȱinȱrareȱcases,ȱaȱcriticalȱprojectȱ reflectionȱisȱincludedȱinȱtheseȱdocumentsȱonȱadditionalȱslides.ȱThisȱfindȬ ingȱ wasȱ underlinedȱ byȱ intervieweesȱ statingȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ givenȱ timeȱ pressures,ȱitȱhasȱbeenȱaȱcommonȱpracticeȱtoȱsubmitȱtheȱfinalȱclientȱpresenȬ tationȱ toȱ theȱ projectȱ databaseȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ ostensiblyȱ commitȱ toȱ formalȱ

133ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

demandsȱ ofȱ theȱ CPLȱ procedures.ȱ Asȱ theȱ intervieweesȱ remark,ȱ onlyȱ inȱ projectȬinternalȱ databasesȱyouȱ wouldȱ findȱ interimȱ documents,ȱ whileȱ theȱ companyȬwideȱdatabasesȱusuallyȱonlyȱcontainedȱfinalȱdocuments.ȱȱ ItȱisȱtypicalȱforȱthisȱsubȬgenreȱthatȱtheȱdocumentsȱwereȱinitiallyȱgenȬ eratedȱtoȱsupportȱaȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱpresentationȱ(orȱpartsȱofȱit)ȱinȱclientȱmeetȬ ings.ȱThisȱisȱindicated,ȱforȱexample,ȱbyȱanȱexplicitȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱpresenȬ tation’sȱ dateȱ andȱ locationȱ onȱ theȱ firstȱ slide,ȱ theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ animationȱ effectsȱwhichȱonlyȱbecomeȱvisibleȱinȱtheȱsoftware’sȱpresentationȱmode,ȱorȱ theȱexistenceȱofȱlectureȱnotesȱforȱverbalȱpresentations.ȱAȱfurtherȱfrequentȱ featureȱofȱthisȱdocumentȱtypeȱisȱanȱagendaȱslideȱwhichȱgivesȱanȱoutlookȱ onȱ theȱ presentation’sȱ structure,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ soȬcalledȱ “actionȱ titles”ȱonȱeachȱslide.ȱMostȱtypically,ȱtheseȱtitlesȱwereȱphrasedȱinȱformȱofȱ imperativesȱwithȱexplicitȱrecommendationsȱforȱfutureȱactions.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

The train is on track 2001

2005 and beyond

Alliance standardisation train Implement all relevant projects in Germany first – in order to prepare for the joint-venture with DEA

Growing train including Scandinavia ‘Truly pan-European standardisation train’ including JDE-countries

ȱȱ

Figureȱ6:

Exampleȱofȱtheȱ“FinalȱClientȱPresentation”ȱSubȬGenreȱ

134

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

Figureȱ 6ȱ exemplifiesȱ aȱ documentȱ ofȱ theȱ “finalȱ clientȱ presentation”ȱ subȬ genre.ȱTheȱslideȱshownȱhereȱrepresentsȱtheȱprojectȱdocument’sȱ“executiveȱ summary”ȱslideȱwhichȱmeansȱthatȱitȱaimsȱtoȱcondenseȱtheȱproject’sȱoutȬ comesȱinȱbriefȱform,ȱeasyȱtoȱdigestȱforȱexecutivesȱwhichȱsufferȱfromȱaȱlackȱ ofȱtime.ȱInȱitsȱfocusȱonȱaȱvisualizationȱratherȱthanȱaȱtextualizationȱofȱtheȱ project’sȱoutcomes,ȱitȱrepresentsȱaȱsomewhatȱextremeȱexampleȱofȱexecuȬ tiveȱsummaryȱslidesȱinȱtheȱfinalȱclientȱpresentationȱsubȬgenre.ȱHowever,ȱ itsȱlayoutȱexposesȱtheȱdilemmaȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱifȱappliedȱforȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Theȱ visualizationȱ ofȱ theȱ project’sȱ resultsȱbyȱhelpȱofȱcatchyȱgraphicalȱelementsȱ(trains,ȱcustomers,ȱandȱtimeȬ line)ȱallowȱforȱsupportingȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱpresentationȱtoȱtheȱclientȱinȱaȱconȬ ciseȱ way.ȱ However,ȱ andȱ similarlyȱ toȱ theȱ “oneȬpageȱ citation”ȱ genre,ȱ theȱ slideȱcomesȱshortȱonȱanyȱinformationȱonȱtheȱprojectȱprocessesȱthatȱhaveȱ ledȱtoȱtheȱfinalȱprojectȱoutcome.ȱFinalȱclientȱpresentationsȱlargelyȱconsistȱ ofȱ analysesȱ ofȱ theȱ client’sȱ operationsȱasȱ wellȱ asȱ recommendationsȱ toȱ theȱ clientȱ howȱ toȱ improveȱ them.ȱ Inȱ otherȱwords,ȱ theirȱcontentȱ remainsȱ onȱaȱ firstȱ orderȱ observationȱ levelȱ (observationȱ ofȱ theȱ client)ȱ insteadȱ onȱ aȱ secȬ ondȱ orderȱ observationȱ levelȱ (observationȱ ofȱ thisȱ observation;ȱ cf.ȱ chapterȱ 4.3.2).ȱ Asȱ theȱ exampleȱ shows,ȱ itȱ willȱ becomeȱ importantȱ forȱ theȱ furtherȱ analysisȱwhatȱisȱmissingȱratherȱthanȱwhatȱisȱactuallyȱvisibilizedȱinȱprojectȱ documentsȱofȱthisȱkind.ȱ Inȱ rareȱ cases,ȱ contentȱ wasȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ finalȱ clientȱ presentationsȱ whichȱ significantlyȱ deviatedȱ fromȱ document’sȱ mainȱ narrative.ȱ Oneȱ exȬ ampleȱ forȱ suchȱ aȱ deviationȱ areȱ soȬcalledȱ “lessonsȱ learned”ȱ slidesȱ whichȱ includeȱaȱreflectionȱonȱhowȱtheȱprojectȱwasȱconductedȱandȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱ learnedȱ fromȱ thisȱ process.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ cases,ȱ suchȱ informationȱ wasȱ usuallyȱ addedȱtoȱtheȱfinalȱclientȱpresentationȱinȱtheȱ“appendix”ȱorȱ“backup”ȱsecȬ tion.ȱInȱotherȱcases,ȱlessonsȱlearnedȱslidesȱwereȱstoredȱinȱaȱseparateȱpresȬ entationȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱaȱseparateȱsubȬgenre.ȱ Accordingly,ȱtheȱthirdȱsubȬgenreȱisȱconstitutedȱbyȱstandȬaloneȱlessonsȱ learnedȱ documents.ȱ Theyȱ representȱ theȱ smallestȱ groupȱ ofȱ documentsȱ (3ȱ percentȱofȱtheȱPowerPointȱdocuments;ȱn=16).ȱThisȱsubȬgenreȱdiffersȱfromȱ theȱ “finalȱ clientȱ presentations”ȱ inȱ thatȱ theseȱ documentsȱ wereȱ primarilyȱ createdȱ forȱ theȱ communicationȱ toȱ colleaguesȱ insteadȱ ofȱ clients.ȱ Theȱȱ

135ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

documentsȱofȱthisȱsubȬgenreȱtypicallyȱconsistȱofȱtwoȱtoȱthreeȱslidesȱwithȱ bulletȱpointȱlistsȱwhichȱmentionȱaspectsȱtoȱconsiderȱinȱfutureȱprojects.ȱȱ ȱ

ȱ SupplyOnAIR Lessons Learned - Summary & Recommendations

Team “Project Organization” (1/5)

Team Structure / Language

Hot Spots / Areas of Improvement (and: - = Strengths)

Learnings / Recommendations

„ English as project language caused sometimes misunderstandings -: No complaint about cultural mix; international team perceived as one of the main benefits

1. 2.

3.

Team Structure „ Lack of “common language” (technical terms; business context) due to varying / Heterogenuous professional and organizational Backgrounds

1. 2.

Establish culture where people ask when they do not understand Write down content of meetings, important decisions (documentation, meeting minutes) Translate important things Common project glossary explaining technical terms and acronyms Establish team “info sharing meetings”

backgrounds

Team Structure / Staff Turnover

„ High staff rotation on project team

„

Make project more attractive for (internal and external) team members (personal targets, career scheme …)

Team Structure / Staff Involvement

„ Low or no assignment / involvement of “relevant” client staff / process partners (Durach) by HQ

„

Create pull-effect at the partners side by demonstrating them their personal benefit

ȱȱ

Figureȱ7:

Exampleȱofȱtheȱ“LessonsȱLearned”ȱSubȬGenreȱ

ȱ ȱ

Figureȱ 7ȱ representsȱ aȱ comparablyȱ elaborateȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ “lessonsȱ learned”ȱsubȬgenre.ȱTheȱdocumentsȱofȱthisȱsubȬgenreȱwereȱusuallyȱbasedȱ onȱaȱretrospectiveȱprojectȱreflectionȱandȱevaluation.ȱInȱtheirȱreflectiveȱfoȬ cusȱ onȱ pastȱ projects,ȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ documentsȱ commonlyȱ containȱ inȬ formationȱ onȱ aȱ secondȬorderȱ observationȱ levelȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 4.3.3).ȱ Asȱ theȱ intervieweesȱpointedȱout,ȱtheirȱcontentȱisȱeitherȱcommonlyȱgeneratedȱinȱaȱ postȬprojectȱ reviewȱ workshopȱ orȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ singleȱ initiativeȱ byȱ theȱ documentȱcreator(s).ȱHowever,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱthat,ȱevenȱifȱcreatedȱ forȱ colleaguesȱ asȱ theȱ targetȱ audience,ȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ documentsȱ lackȱ anȱȱ

136

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

explicitlyȱcriticalȱorȱnegativeȱformȱorȱprojectȱreflection.ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱindiȬ catedȱbyȱaȱgeneralȱtendencyȱtoȱpackageȱcriticalȱissuesȱbyȱframingȱthemȱasȱ positivelyȱ phrasedȱ learningȱ effects.ȱ Aȱ moreȱ detailedȱ analysisȱ ofȱ selectedȱ lessonsȬlearnedȱ documentsȱ inȱ theȱ sampleȱ showedȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ mostlyȱ redundantȱandȱtautologicalȱinsightsȱsummarizedȱinȱtheseȱdocumentsȱ(cf.ȱ chapterȱ5.1.3).ȱ Figureȱ8ȱprovidesȱanȱoverviewȱofȱtheȱthreeȱsubȬgenresȱofȱPowerPointȱ presentationsȱasȱidentifiedȱinȱtheȱanalysis:ȱ ȱ ȱ

Final Client Presentations

35% (n=172) One-Page Citations

62% (n=304)

Lessons Learned Documents

3% (n=16) ȱ

Figureȱ8:

ȱ

SubȬTypologyȱofȱPowerPointȱPresentationsȱinȱProjectȱDocumentationȱ

ȱ ȱ

Whileȱ theȱ oneȬpageȱ citationsȱ constituteȱ theȱ mostȱ frequentȱ subȬtypeȱ (62ȱ percent;ȱn=304),ȱfinalȱclientȱpresentationsȱandȱlessonsȱlearnedȱdocumentsȱ togetherȱ accountȱ forȱ onlyȱ 38ȱ percentȱ (n=188)ȱ ofȱ theȱ overallȱ PowerPointȱ sampleȱ(n=492),ȱasȱshownȱinȱfigureȱ8.53ȱȱ

53ȱȱ Inȱrareȱcases,ȱPowerPointȱdocumentsȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱsortedȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheȱthreeȱsubȬgenres;ȱ however,ȱ theseȱ examplesȱ didȱ notȱ representȱ primaryȱ documents,ȱ asȱ definedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 4.3.2,ȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱwereȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱPowerPointȱsampleȱ(n=492).ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

137ȱ

Toȱconclude,ȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ genreȱapproachȱ(Yatesȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱ1992;ȱforthcoming)ȱhasȱshownȱthatȱ thereȱareȱrecurrentȱpatternsȱforȱtheȱusageȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱifȱ appliedȱ inȱ theȱ unfamiliarȱ domainȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Theseȱ patȬ ternsȱcanȱbeȱcondensedȱtoȱthreeȱsubȬgenresȱwhichȱdifferȱinȱtheȱwayȱtheyȱ relateȱtoȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱaȱproject’sȱdecisionȱprocesses.ȱTheȱfirstȱsubȬ genre,ȱ theȱ “oneȬpageȱ citations”,ȱ isȱ drivenȱ byȱ theȱ selectionȱ ofȱ aspectsȱ whichȱareȱfunctionalȱtoȱtheȱpersuasionȱofȱclients.ȱAccordingly,ȱtheseȱdoȬ cumentsȱareȱfocusedȱprimarilyȱonȱpositiveȱachievementsȱofȱaȱprojectȱdeȬ ployment.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ subȬgenre,ȱ theȱ “finalȱ clientȱ presentations”,ȱ repreȬ sentsȱ theȱ mainȱ workȱ productȱ ofȱ aȱ consultingȱ project.ȱ Beingȱ mainlyȱ deȬ signedȱ forȱ theȱ verbalȱ presentationȱ ofȱ projectȱ resultsȱ toȱ theȱ client,ȱ theȱ inȬ creasingȱusageȱofȱgraphicalȱelementsȱandȱtheȱlackȱofȱcontextualȱinformaȬ tion,ȱhowever,ȱcausesȱaȱproblemȱforȱtheirȱreȬusabilityȱbyȱcolleaguesȱofȱtheȱ sameȱfirmȱinȱsimilarȱprojectsȱonȱaȱstandȬaloneȱbasis.ȱTheȱthirdȱsubȬgenre,ȱ theȱ“lessonsȱlearned”ȱdocuments,ȱisȱtheȱonlyȱoneȱofȱtheȱthreeȱwhichȱapȬ pearsȱtoȱfocusȱexplicitlyȱonȱcolleaguesȱinsteadȱofȱclientsȱasȱtheȱtargetȱauȬ dience.ȱTheȱcontextualȱdisembeddedness,ȱinȱturn,ȱdiminishesȱtheirȱvalueȱ toȱleverageȱCPLȱonȱaȱstandȬaloneȱbasis.ȱ ȱ ȱ DifferencesȱBetweenȱSubȬGenresȱinȱtheȱVisibilizationȱofȱDecisionȱ Contingencyȱ Theȱ analyticalȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ threeȱ subȬgenresȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ inȱ projectȱ documentationȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ closerȱ lookȱ onȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ decisionsȱ andȱ theirȱ alternativesȱ becomeȱ visibleȱ inȱ theseȱ documentsȱandȱcanȱcontributeȱtoȱtheȱautopoieticȱreproductionȱofȱtheȱproȬ jectȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ communicativeȱ system.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ analyticȱ purpose,ȱ theȱ investigationȱ needsȱ toȱ leaveȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ formalȱ genreȱ characteristicsȱ andȱinsteadȱenterȱtheȱcontentȱlevelȱofȱtheȱdocumentsȱunderȱinvestigation.ȱ Thisȱexpeditionȱisȱguidedȱbyȱtheȱquestionȱwhetherȱtheȱspecificȱdocumentȱ containsȱ anyȱ informationȱ allowingȱ toȱ drawȱ inferencesȱ onȱ howȱ aȱ projectȱ

138

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

processȱ wasȱ conducted,ȱ whatȱ decisionȱ dilemmasȱ theȱ projectȱ teamȱ wasȱ facing,ȱandȱwhatȱalternativesȱwereȱconsideredȱinȱtheȱdecisionȱprocess.ȱȱ Inȱtermsȱofȱmethodology,ȱtheȱanalysisȱrequiredȱtoȱpresumeȱtheȱhypoȬ theticalȱ roleȱ ofȱ anȱ expertiseȬseekingȱ noviceȱ onȱ theȱ researcher’sȱ sideȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ evaluateȱ ifȱ theȱ speechȱ actsȱ containedȱ inȱ aȱ documentȱ representȱ someȱformȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱvisibilizationȱorȱnot.ȱTheȱcodingȱproȬ cessȱ wasȱ guidedȱ byȱ theȱ threeȱ levelsȱ ofȱ DCV,ȱ asȱ summarizedȱ inȱ chapterȱ 4.3.3:ȱ (1)ȱ aȱ secondȱ orderȱ observationȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ process,ȱ (2)ȱ aȱ criticalȱ reflectionȱonȱtheȱprojectȱprocess,ȱandȱ(3)ȱtheȱexplicitȱmentioningȱofȱalterȬ nativesȱtoȱdecisions.ȱ TheȱfirstȱlevelȱofȱDCVȱrequiresȱaȱsecondȱorderȱobservationȱofȱtheȱdeȬ cisionȱ processesȱ underlyingȱ theȱ project.ȱ Thisȱ levelȱ wasȱ onlyȱ reachedȱ byȱ theȱ“lessonsȱlearnedȱdocuments”ȱandȱbyȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ“finalȱclientȱpresenȬ tations”ȱ inȱ caseȱ theyȱincludedȱanyȱslidesȱ withȱ reflectiveȱaccountsȱonȱ theȱ projectȱ process.ȱ Theȱ “oneȬpageȱ citation”ȱ documents,ȱ inȱ contrast,ȱ conȬ stantlyȱremainedȱonȱaȱfirstȱorderȱobservationȱlevelȱbyȱbeingȱconsistentlyȱ heldȱinȱaȱ clientȬorientedȱ narrative.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theseȱ documentsȱ didȱ notȱcontainȱanyȱinformationȱbasedȱonȱtakingȱaȱstepȱbackȱfromȱtheȱprojectȱ processȱ inȱ describingȱ howȱ thisȱ processȱ hasȱ actuallyȱ beenȱ rolledȱ out.ȱ InȬ stead,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ project’sȱ resultsȱ wereȱ presentedȱ here,ȱ mostȱ typicallyȱ framedȱ asȱ anȱ impressiveȱ achievement.ȱ Theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ firstȱ andȱ secondȱ orderȱ observationȱ levelȱ heavilyȱ reducedȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ documentsȱwhereȱaȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱofȱmoreȱelaboȬ rateȱlevelsȱcanȱbeȱreasonablyȱexpectedȱ(cf.ȱfigureȱ10;ȱcolumnȱ1).ȱ Onȱ theȱ secondȱ levelȱ ofȱ DCV,ȱ theȱ documentsȱ wereȱ analyzedȱ withȱ reȬ spectȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱtoȱwhatȱdegreeȱanȱexplicitlyȱcriticalȱreflectionȱofȱtheȱ projectȱprocessȱcouldȱbeȱfound.ȱTheȱanalysisȱshowsȱthatȱevenȱinȱtheȱlimȬ itedȱsetȱofȱdocumentsȱ(onlyȱtheȱonesȱwhichȱcouldȱpotentiallyȱcontainȱsecȬ ondȱorderȱobservations,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱfinalȱclientȱpresentationȱandȱtheȱlessonsȱ learnedȱgenres),ȱtheȱquotaȱofȱcriticalȱprojectȱreflectionȱremainsȱratherȱlowȱ (cf.ȱfigureȱ9).ȱȱ ȱ

139ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ Critical Project Reflection Quota in Project Documents (in Percent)

No. of Articles on Knowledge Management in EBSCO Database

70%

700

60%

600

50%

500

40%

400

30%

300

20%

200

10%

100

Average: 22%

2001

2002

n=12

n=10

n=11

n=26

2004

2000

n=9

2003

1999

No. of Project Documents in Each Year (Total N=187)

0 1998

0%

n=44

n=75 ȱȱ

Figureȱ9:

DevelopmentȱofȱtheȱCriticalȱReflectionȱQuotaȱinȱProjectȱDocumentsȱ

ȱ ȱ

Asȱshownȱinȱfigureȱ9,ȱanȱaverageȱofȱ22ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱreducedȱnumberȱofȱ documentsȱincludedȱatȱleastȱsomeȱformȱofȱexplicationȱofȱchallengesȱfacedȱ andȱmistakesȱmade.ȱTheȱquotaȱrisesȱtoȱaȱpeakȱinȱ2001ȱandȱdeclinesȱagainȱ inȱtheȱfollowingȱyears.ȱGivenȱtheȱfactȱthatȱonlyȱtheȱsecondȱdegreeȱobserȬ vationȱlevelȱprojectȱdocumentsȱwereȱfinallyȱincludedȱinȱthisȱanalysis,ȱi.e.,ȱ onȱdocumentsȱofȱtheȱ“finalȱclientȱpresentation”ȱandȱtheȱ“lessonsȱlearned”ȱ genre,ȱtheȱquotaȱofȱdocumentsȱwithȱanȱexplicitȱconsiderationȱofȱalternaȬ tivesȱ representsȱ onlyȱ 8ȱ percentȱ ifȱ setȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ wholeȱ sampleȱ ofȱ 492ȱPowerPointȱdocumentsȱ(cf.ȱfigureȱ10;ȱcolumnȱ2).ȱȱ Theseȱ resultsȱ canȱ beȱ comparedȱ toȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ asȱ aȱ topicȱ inȱ academiaȱ andȱ practice.ȱ Inȱ figureȱ 9,ȱ theȱ upperȱ lineȱrepresentsȱtheȱnumberȱofȱacademicȱarticlesȱwhichȱcontainedȱtheȱtermȱ

140

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

“knowledgeȱmanagement”ȱ inȱ theirȱ title,ȱ abstract,ȱ orȱ keywords.ȱ Inȱ aȱ meȬ thodologyȱwhichȱresemblesȱanȱearlierȱstudyȱbyȱPonziȱandȱKoenigȱ(2002),ȱ theȱ articlesȱ wereȱ countedȱ byȱ aȱ searchȱ routineȱ inȱ theȱ EBSCOȱ Businessȱ SourceȱPremierȱdatabase,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱcommonȱacademicȱdatabasesȱinȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ economicsȱ andȱ business.54ȱ Withinȱ theȱ database,ȱ onlyȱ peerȬ reviewedȱsourcesȱwereȱtakenȱintoȱaccount.ȱTheȱanalysisȱwasȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ aȱ riseȱ andȱ declineȱ ofȱ criticalȱ projectȱ evaluationsȱ potenȬ tiallyȱ correlatesȱ withȱ aȱ riseȱ andȱ declineȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ asȱ aȱ managementȱ fashionȱ orȱ fadȱ (cf.ȱ Abrahamsonȱ &ȱ Fairchild,ȱ 1999;ȱ ScarȬ boroughȱ &ȱ Swan,ȱ 2001).55ȱ However,ȱ theȱ resultsȱ showedȱ thatȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱasȱanȱacademicȱfieldȱwasȱstillȱgrowing,ȱwhileȱcriticalȱprojectȱ evaluationsȱ wereȱ onȱ aȱ declineȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ organization.ȱ Theȱ declineȱ ofȱ criticalȱprojectȱreflectionȱmayȱbeȱdueȱtoȱincreasedȱmarketȱpressuresȱsinceȱ theȱfallȱofȱtheȱNewȱEconomyȱinȱ2000ȱorȱdueȱtoȱchangesȱinȱtheȱfirmsȱsinceȱ aȱ comparablyȱ bigȱ mergerȱ inȱ 2002ȱ whenȱ previousȱ projectȱ documentationȱ practicesȱfromȱaȱcompanyȱwhichȱhadȱbeenȱtakenȱoverȱcameȱtoȱanȱend.ȱ Theȱ lowȱquotaȱ ofȱ documentsȱ whichȱ containedȱ criticalȱ reflectionsȱonȱ projectsȱcanȱbeȱpartlyȱexplainedȱbyȱdrawingȱonȱstatementsȱgatheredȱfromȱ theȱqualitativeȱinterviews.ȱAsȱitȱhasȱbeenȱpointedȱoutȱhere,ȱevenȱifȱaȱgenȬ eralȱwillingnessȱtoȱinvestȱtimeȱinȱaȱcriticalȱprojectȱreflectionȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱ futureȱ projectsȱ exists,ȱ theȱ lackȱ (orȱ loss)ȱ ofȱ aȱ standardizedȱ projectȱ docuȬ mentationȱ procedureȱ withinȱ theȱ companyȱ createdȱ aȱ generalȱ uncertaintyȱ whatȱ wasȱ allowedȱ toȱ beȱ includedȱ inȱ documentsȱ andȱ whatȱ not.ȱ Whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ howȱ criticalȱ orȱ proceduralȱ projectȱ informationȱ isȱ sharedȱ acrossȱ theȱ company,ȱ theȱ consultantsȱ emphasizedȱ thatȱ theyȱ avoiȬ dedȱtoȱsubmitȱinterimȱdocumentsȱtoȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱbecauseȱtheyȱweȬ reȱusuallyȱseenȱasȱbeingȱqualitativelyȱinferiorȱtoȱfinalȱdocuments.ȱAccordȬ ingȱtoȱtheȱinterviewees,ȱconfidentialityȱissuesȱalsoȱbecameȱrelevantȱinȱthisȱ 54ȱȱ Thisȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱaȱgeneralȱincreaseȱinȱtheȱnumberȱofȱarticlesȱinȱtheȱ EBSCOȱdatabaseȱdidȱnotȱsystematicallyȱaffectȱaȱgeneralȱtendencyȱofȱtheȱtopic’sȱgrowth;ȱ however,ȱtimeȱlagsȱforȱacademicȱpublicationsȱofȱtwoȱtoȱthreeȱyearsȱbetweenȱtheȱcreationȱ andȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱanȱarticleȱneedȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱintoȱaccount,ȱasȱwell.ȱ 55ȱȱ PonziȱandȱKoenig,ȱhowever,ȱarriveȱatȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱasȱaȱ topicȱ–ȱunlikeȱotherȱmanagementȱ“fads”ȱ–ȱwouldȱhaveȱtheȱpotentialȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱ“perȬ manentȱsignificantȱpartȱofȱmanagement’sȱtoolbox”ȱ(Ponziȱ&ȱKoenig,ȱ2002:ȱnoȱpage).ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

141ȱ

context.ȱTheȱnecessityȱtoȱtakeȱconfidentialityȱissuesȱintoȱaccountȱimpliedȱ toȱmodifyȱexistingȱdocumentsȱbyȱmeansȱofȱanȱanonymizationȱorȱpseudoȬ nymizationȱ ofȱ anyȱ nameȱ whichȱ wouldȱ allowȱ forȱ anȱ identificationȱ ofȱ cliȬ ents.ȱȱ Criticalȱ projectȱ reflectionȱ ofȱ courseȱ canȱ findȱ other,ȱ e.g.,ȱ nonȬmedialȱ ways,ȱtoȱbeȱsharedȱacrossȱtheȱorganization.ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱ“verbalȱcomȬ municationȱ isȱ communicationȱ channelȱ numberȱ one”,ȱ asȱ oneȱ consultantȱ highlighted.ȱ Otherȱ consultantsȱ pointedȱ outȱ thatȱ aȱ criticalȱ reflectionȱ onȱ mistakesȱ madeȱ wouldȱ indeedȱ takeȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ companyȱ butȱ elseȬ whereȱ thanȱ inȱ theȱ CPLȱ databases,ȱ e.g.,ȱ inȱ formalȱ evaluationȱ proceduresȱ ledȱbyȱseniorȱleadersȱorȱ“riskȱmanagers”.ȱHowever,ȱtheyȱalsoȱemphasizedȱ thatȱ suchȱ criticalȱ projectȱ communicationȱ isȱ notȱ sharedȱ “horizontally”ȱ acrossȱprojectsȱandȱwasȱnotȱledȱbyȱtheȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱsectionȱinȱ chargeȱofȱrunningȱandȱmaintainingȱtheȱCPLȱdatabases.ȱȱ Theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ thirdȱ levelȱ ofȱ DCVȱ concentratesȱ onȱ theȱ explicitȱ considerationȱofȱalternativesȱinȱtheȱprojectȱdocuments.ȱAnȱexplicitȱoutlineȱ ofȱdecisionȱprocessesȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱcouldȱonlyȱbeȱfoundȱinȱaȱtotalȱ numberȱofȱ7ȱdocumentsȱ–ȱrepresentingȱslightlyȱmoreȱthanȱ1ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱ wholeȱ sampleȱ (cf.ȱ figureȱ 10;ȱ columnȱ 3).ȱ Theȱ explicitȱ considerationȱ ofȱ alȬ ternativesȱ wasȱ markedȱ inȱ theseȱ documents,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ withȱ headlinesȱ likeȱ“optionsȱ consideredȱandȱ notȱ pursued”ȱ orȱ “whatȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ proȬ cessȱcould/shouldȱweȱdoȱdifferently”.ȱTheseȱdocumentsȱhaveȱinȱcommonȱ thatȱ theyȱ wereȱ consistentlyȱ generatedȱ forȱ colleaguesȱ asȱ theȱ targetȱ audiȬ ence.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theyȱ wereȱ createdȱ byȱ companyȱ membersȱ whoȱ origiȬ nallyȱbelongedȱtoȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱwhichȱhadȱbeenȱtakenȱoverȱ inȱtheȱcourseȱofȱanȱearlierȱmerger.ȱThisȱcorrelatedȱwithȱtheȱproblemȱthatȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ creatorsȱ ofȱ theseȱ documentsȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ leftȱ theȱ companyȱ what,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ madeȱ itȱ difficultȱ toȱ getȱ holdȱ ofȱ interviewȱ partnersȱ andȱ toȱ findȱoutȱmoreȱaboutȱtheȱcontextualȱcircumstancesȱofȱdocumentȱcreation.ȱ TheȱquantitativeȱdescriptionȱofȱPowerPointȬbasedȱprojectȱdocumentsȱ appliedȱinȱtheȱCPLȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱcanȱnowȱbeȱrelatedȱtoȱ theȱ subȬtypologyȱ ofȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ genreȱ inȱ itsȱ applicationȱ forȱ projectȱ documentationȱpurposesȱ(cf.ȱfigureȱ10).ȱ

142

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

Second Order Observation

100%

3%

Lessons Learned

80%

35%

Final Client Presentation

62%

One-Page Citations

Critical Project Reflection yes 38% (n=188)

Explicit Consideration of Alternatives 8% (n=39)

yes no

1% (n=7)

no

60%

40%

20%

0% (Total No. of Documents N = 492)

1st Level of Decision Contingency Visibility

2nd Level of Decision Contingency Visibility

ȱ

ȱȱ

Figureȱ10:

3rd Level of Decision Contingency Visibility

PowerPointȱSubȬGenresȱandȱtheȱThreeȱLevelsȱofȱDCVȱ

ȱ ȱ

Theȱoverviewȱinȱfigureȱ10ȱshowsȱthatȱaȱlargeȱnumberȱofȱdocuments,ȱparȬ ticularlyȱ theȱ onesȱ ofȱ theȱ “oneȬpageȱ citation”ȱ subȬgenre,ȱ doȱ notȱ includeȱ anyȱ explicitȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencies.ȱ Theȱ overallȱ pictureȱ becomesȱmoreȱdifferentiatedȱbyȱlookingȱatȱtheȱtwoȱotherȱsubȬgenres,ȱtheȱ “finalȱclientȱpresentations”ȱandȱ“lessonsȱlearnedȱdocuments”.ȱAlthoughȱaȱ largeȱ numberȱ ofȱ documentsȱ containedȱ informationȱ onȱ aȱ secondȱ orderȱ observationȱ level,ȱ onlyȱ aȱ minorityȱ ofȱ theseȱ documentsȱ (8ȱ percentȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱsample;ȱn=39)ȱprovidedȱanyȱcriticalȱestimationȱofȱtheȱprojectȱproȬ cess.ȱFinally,ȱaȱdiminishingȱnumberȱofȱdocumentsȱ(1ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱwholeȱ sample;ȱ n=7)ȱ explicitlyȱ outlinedȱ theȱ contingenciesȱ facedȱ inȱ projectȱ deciȬ sionȱprocesses.ȱ Theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ levelsȱ ofȱ DCVȱ hasȱ shownȱ thatȱ theȱ continȬ gencyȱofȱdecisionsȱfacedȱinȱprojectsȱisȱratherȱhiddenȱthanȱmadeȱvisibleȱinȱ theȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱ projectȱ documents.ȱ Theȱ subȬgenreȱ predeterminedȱ forȱ aȱ retrospectiveȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ projectȱ process,ȱ theȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ genre,ȱ containsȱ aȱ criticalȱ evaluationȱ ofȱprojectȱ decisionsȱ inȱaȱ minorityȱ ofȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

143ȱ

cases.ȱOnlyȱinȱaȱhandfulȱofȱdocumentsȱanȱexplicitȱmentioningȱofȱalternaȬ tivesȱ toȱ decisionsȱ wasȱ actuallyȱ attempted.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ twoȱ chaptersȱ aimȱ toȱ deepenȱ theseȱ findings.ȱ Chapterȱ 5.1.3ȱ investigatesȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ lesȬ sonsȱlearnedȱdocumentsȱinȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingency.ȱThisȱ isȱ doneȱ byȱ takingȱ aȱ closerȱ lookȱ onȱ theȱ rareȱ examplesȱ whereȱ theȱ explicitȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ indeedȱ hasȱ beenȱ attempted.ȱ Theirȱ rarityȱsuggestsȱtoȱfocusȱinȱnoticeableȱcharacteristicsȱandȱtheȱcreationȱconȬ textȱofȱtheseȱparticularȱdocuments.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 5.1.3 Theȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱinȱSelectedȱPowerPointȱȱ Presentationsȱ ȱ LessonsȱtoȱLearnȱFromȱtheȱLessonsȱLearnedȱSubȬGenreȱ Fromȱaȱtheoreticalȱstance,ȱtheȱlessonsȱlearnedȱgenreȱcanȱbeȱassumedȱtoȱbeȱ theȱmostȱlikelyȱoneȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱaȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingenȬ ciesȱ amongȱ theȱ threeȱ subȬgenresȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ identifiedȱ inȱ theȱsample.ȱAsȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱtheoryȱchapterȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ3.1.2),ȱtheȱlesȬ sonsȱlearnedȱideaȱstandsȱinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱandȱ CPLȱ(cf.ȱDavenport,ȱDeLongȱ&ȱBeers,ȱ1998).ȱItȱfollowsȱtheȱaimȱtoȱleverageȱ aȱ sharingȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ amongȱ companyȱ membersȱ inȱ aȱ documentedȱ form.ȱAsȱoutlinedȱinȱchapterȱ5.1.2,ȱtheȱlessonsȱlearnedȱdocumentsȱinȱtheȱ sampleȱareȱtypicallyȱheldȱinȱformȱofȱaȱbulletȱpointȱlistȱwhichȱsummarizeȱ keyȱaspectsȱtoȱlearnȱfromȱinȱbriefȱform.ȱȱ Theȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱlessonsȱlearnedȱgenre’sȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱvisibiȬ lizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ requiresȱ toȱ enterȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentsȱ andȱ theirȱ textualȱ content.ȱ Inȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ codingȱ recurrentȱ textualȱ elementsȱ inȱ theȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ documentsȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ groundedȱ theoryȱ frameworkȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 4.3.3),ȱ threeȱ idealȱ typesȱ haveȱ beenȱ identifiedȱ whichȱ exemplifyȱ theȱ wayȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ areȱ typicallyȱ phrased.ȱTheȱfirstȱidealȱtypeȱofȱtextualȱelementsȱareȱphrasedȱasȱtautologiesȱ andȱtruisms.ȱTheȱsecondȱgroupȱofȱtextualȱelementsȱareȱphrasedȱasȱrecomȬ mendationsȱ forȱ action;ȱ theȱ thirdȱ andȱ finalȱ groupȱ areȱ phrasedȱ asȱ successȱ

144

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

ȱfactors.ȱInȱtheȱfollowing,ȱexamplesȱareȱgivenȱforȱeachȱofȱtheseȱtypesȱandȱ theirȱ contributionȱ toȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ disȬ cussed.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ groupȱ ofȱ frequentȱ statementsȱ involvedȱ tautologiesȱ andȱ truȬ isms.ȱAȱtautologyȱisȱaȱredundant,ȱselfȬevidentȱstatement.ȱAȱtruismȱisȱsimiȬ larlyȱdefinedȱasȱanȱassertionȱwhichȱisȱsoȱobviousȱthatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱaddȱanyȱ information.ȱInȱtheȱlessonsȱlearnedȱdocuments,ȱtheȱsummaryȱofȱinsightsȱ inȱformȱofȱbulletȱpointȱlistsȱwereȱfrequentlyȱphrasedȱasȱtruisms.ȱToȱgiveȱ someȱexamples:ȱ“ownershipȱcanȱbeȱunclear”,ȱ“integrationȱtakesȱtime”,ȱorȱ “flexibilityȱneedsȱdiscipline”.ȱSentencesȱofȱthisȱkindȱattemptedȱtoȱsummaȬ rizeȱ importantȱ insightsȱ gatheredȱ inȱ aȱ specificȱ project,ȱ however,ȱ lackingȱ anyȱ additionalȱ contextȱ informationȱ onȱ theȱ project’sȱ circumstances,ȱ theseȱ sentencesȱ remainȱ hollow.ȱ Byȱ definition,ȱ aȱ tautologicalȱ wayȱ ofȱ phrasingȱ experiencesȱ eliminatesȱ anyȱ informationȱ onȱ possibleȱ contingencies.ȱ Ifȱ aȱ statementȱ isȱ selfȬevident,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ alternativityȱ inherentȱ toȱ it.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱtautologiesȱandȱtruismsȱcontributeȱtoȱanȱinvisibilizationȱratherȱthanȱ aȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingenciesȱinȱprojectȱdocumentation.ȱ Aȱ secondȱ groupȱ ofȱ frequentȱ textualȱ elementsȱ involvesȱ recommendaȬ tionsȱforȱaction.ȱTheseȱsentencesȱareȱtypicallyȱphrasedȱasȱimperativesȱhowȱ (presumably)ȱ toȱ actȱ bestȱ inȱ futureȱ projects.ȱ Thisȱ way,ȱ theȱ idealȱ typeȱ reȬ semblesȱ cookbookȬstyleȱ recipeȱ lists.ȱ Theyȱ createȱ theȱ impressionȱ thatȱ aȱ specificȱcombinationȱofȱactionsȱcanȱguaranteeȱaȱproject’sȱsuccess.ȱToȱgiveȱ someȱexamplesȱforȱtextualȱelementsȱofȱthisȱidealȱtype:ȱ“keepȱkeyȱprojectȱ membersȱwithinȱtheȱproject”,ȱ“retainȱcommitmentȱwhenȱitȱgetsȱdifficult”,ȱ “beȱ realisticȱ andȱ practical”,ȱ orȱ “communicateȱ developmentsȱ earlyȱ andȱ frequentlyȱtoȱensureȱinvolvement”.ȱImperativesȱofȱthisȱkindȱareȱbasedȱonȱ theȱ specificȱ projectȱ experiencesȱbutȱtellȱanȱexpertiseȬseekingȱnoviceȱlittleȱ aboutȱ theȱ transferabilityȱ ofȱ insightsȱ toȱ otherȱ projects.ȱ Thisȱ feature,ȱ comȬ binedȱ withȱ beingȱ selfȬevidentȱ toȱ largeȱ degree,ȱ diminishesȱ theirȱ learningȱ valueȱforȱanȱexpertiseȬseekingȱnovice.ȱ Theȱ thirdȱ groupȱ ofȱ frequentȱ textualȱ elementsȱ resemblesȱ theȱ successȱ factorȱapproachȱ(cf.ȱNicolaiȱ&ȱKieser,ȱ2002).ȱTheȱsuccessȱfactorȱperspectiveȱ impliesȱthatȱtheȱcomplexityȱofȱsuccessfulȱprojectȱworkȱcanȱbeȱreducedȱtoȱaȱ smallȱsetȱofȱkeyȱreferenceȱinsightsȱwhichȱcanȱthenȱbeȱtransferredȱtoȱfutureȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

145ȱ

projectsȱ largelyȱ independentȱ fromȱ situationalȱ circumstances.ȱ AccordȬ ingly,ȱ inȱ thisȱ groupȱ ofȱ textualȱ elements,ȱ successȱ factorsȱ areȱ phrasedȱ asȱ headwordsȱwhichȱtryȱtoȱsummarizeȱkeyȱaspectsȱassumedȱtoȱbeȱcausalȱforȱ aȱproject’sȱachievements.ȱToȱgiveȱsomeȱexamplesȱforȱtextualȱelementsȱofȱ thisȱ type:ȱ “strictȱ managementȱ ofȱ scope”,ȱ “championshipȱ fromȱ theȱ top”,ȱ “trueȱ acceptanceȱ ofȱ newȱ waysȱ ofȱ working”,ȱ “involvementȱ ofȱ multipleȱ parties”,ȱ “positiveȱ workingȱ culture”,ȱ “easyȱ internalȱ communication”,ȱ orȱ “goodȱ atmosphere”.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ expertiseȬseekingȱ novȬ ice,ȱ andȱ followingȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ DCV,ȱ headwordsȱ ofȱ thisȱ typeȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ evaluatedȱ asȱ deficitary.ȱ Theyȱ hardlyȱ containȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ speȬ cificȱ project,ȱ theyȱ oftenȱ representȱ targetsȱ ratherȱ thanȱ measurementsȱ toȱ achieveȱtheseȱtargets,ȱand,ȱonceȱagain,ȱtheyȱsufferȱfromȱbeingȱselfȬevidentȱ toȱaȱlargeȱdegree.ȱ Theȱanalysisȱofȱtypicalȱtextualȱelementsȱandȱrecurrentȱpatternsȱinȱtheȱ lessonsȱlearnedȱgenreȱisȱaccompaniedȱbyȱstatementsȱfromȱtheȱqualitativeȱ interviews.ȱTheȱlessonsȱlearnedȱsubȬgenreȱisȱcriticallyȱestimatedȱbyȱmostȱ ofȱtheȱintervieweesȱbasedȱonȱtheirȱownȱexperiencesȱinȱmakingȱuseȱofȱsuchȱ documents.ȱ Theȱ learningȱ valueȱ fromȱ textualȱ elementsȱ presentedȱ hereȱ sufferȱ fromȱ eitherȱ beingȱ selfȬevidentȱ orȱ fromȱ theirȱ deȬcontextualizationȱ whichȱ diminishesȱ theȱ transferabilityȱ ofȱ insightsȱ toȱ similarȱ projectȱ situaȬ tionsȱinȱtheȱfuture.ȱThisȱreductionȱofȱcontextualȱinformation,ȱhowever,ȱisȱ defendedȱ byȱ theȱ intervieweesȱ asȱ beingȱ understandableȱ toȱ someȱ degree.ȱ Givenȱ timeȱ pressuresȱ andȱ additionalȱ obstaclesȱ wouldȱ hinderȱ themȱ fromȱ undertakingȱ moreȱ extensiveȱ reviewsȱ asȱ aȱ projectȱ teamȱ afterȱ theȱ compleȬ tionȱofȱaȱproject.ȱȱ Amongȱtheseȱobstacles,ȱaȱfirstȱsetȱofȱproblemsȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱfinalizaȬ tionȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ processȱ itself.ȱ Althoughȱ itȱ usedȱ toȱ beȱ commonȱ inȱ theȱ companyȱtoȱproceedȱ“lessonsȱlearnedȱworkshops”ȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱaȱprojectȱ (atȱ leastȱ inȱ caseȱ ofȱ biggerȱ projects),ȱ thisȱ traditionȱ hasȱ stoppedȱ inȱ recentȱ yearsȱdueȱtoȱincreasedȱmarketȱpressuresȱandȱtighterȱprojectȱbudgets,ȱacȬ cordingȱtoȱtheȱinterviewees.ȱInȱgeneral,ȱsomeȱintervieweesȱhypothesizedȱ thatȱtheȱfirmȱwhichȱwasȱtakenȱoverȱinȱaȱbigȱmergerȱinȱ2002ȱhadȱaȱstrongerȱ emphasisȱonȱknowledgeȱsharingȱ–ȱaȱcultureȱestimatedȱbyȱoneȱintervieweeȱ toȱbeȱonȱaȱdeclineȱsinceȱthen.ȱTheȱintervieweesȱconsistentlyȱreportedȱofȱaȱ

146

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

certainȱ “restlessness”ȱ inȱ theirȱ dailyȱ workȱ inȱ recentȱ years.ȱ Shorterȱ gapsȱ betweenȱprojectsȱappearedȱtoȱinhibitȱopportunitiesȱforȱaȱcriticalȱreflectionȱ afterȱaȱproject’sȱcompletion.ȱȱ Otherȱ obstaclesȱ wereȱ assumedȱ toȱ originateȱ inȱ theȱ “careerȱ model”ȱ prevailingȱ inȱ theȱ organization.ȱ Aȱ recurringȱ estimationȱ wasȱ summarizedȱ byȱoneȱconsultant:ȱ“Theȱonlyȱincentiveȱthatȱdrivesȱaȱconsultantȱisȱprojectȱ utilization”.ȱ Aȱ criticalȱ retrospectiveȱ reflectionȱ ofȱ aȱ projectȱ insteadȱ isȱ notȱ rewardedȱbyȱtheȱcompany:ȱ“toȱsumȱupȱsomeȱ‘lessonsȱlearned’ȱisȱnotȱbillȬ ableȱ forȱ usȱ asȱ consultants”.ȱ Consequently,ȱ activitiesȱ likeȱ anȱ extensiveȱ projectȱdocumentationȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱaȱprojectȱisȱseenȱasȱ“wastedȱtime”ȱinȱ comparisonȱtoȱanȱinvestmentȱinȱtheȱacquisitionȱofȱnewȱprojectsȱandȱgivenȱ thatȱ“inȱanȱidealȱcase,ȱweȱareȱsupposedȱtoȱbeȱatȱtheȱclient’sȱsiteȱfiveȱdaysȱaȱ week”.ȱȱ Theȱ rarityȱ ofȱ criticallyȱ phrasedȱ contentȱ inȱ theseȱ documentsȱ isȱ deȬ fendedȱ byȱ oneȱ consultantȱ whoȱ assertedȱ thatȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ summariesȱ areȱcommonlyȱphrasedȱinȱaȱpositiveȱway.ȱForȱtheȱexperiencedȱreader,ȱthisȱ wouldȱallowȱtoȱ getȱ toȱ knowȱ aȱ criticalȱ viewȱ onȱaȱ projectȱ byȱ “readingȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱlines”.ȱForȱtheȱexpertiseȬseekingȱnovice,ȱhowever,ȱthisȱinformaȬ tionȱmayȱnotȱalwaysȱbeȱsufficientȱbecauseȱexactlyȱthisȱcontextualȱinformaȬ tionȱisȱmissing.ȱTheȱtautologicalȱwayȱlessonsȱlearnedȱareȱcommonlyȱphraȬ sedȱ insteadȱ isȱ notȱ problematizedȱ byȱ theȱ interviewees.ȱ Farȱ fromȱ it,ȱ oneȱ intervieweeȱassured,ȱ“banalitiesȱoftenȱcontainȱtheȱdeepestȱwisdom”.ȱ Inȱ conclusion,ȱ theȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ subȬgenre,ȱ initiallyȱ presumedȱ toȱ representȱ aȱ culminationȱ pointȱ forȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ contingenciesȱ toȱ decisions,ȱinsteadȱappearsȱtoȱconstituteȱaȱlanguageȱgameȱinȱwhichȱtheȱwayȱ learnedȱaspectsȱareȱphrasedȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱinvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱ contingencyȱratherȱthanȱtoȱitsȱvisibilization.ȱOnceȱmore,ȱtheȱstudyȱshowsȱ thatȱaȱprocessȱsetȱinȱplaceȱtoȱmakeȱproceduralȱlearningȱvisibleȱisȱunderȬ minedȱ byȱ establishedȱ communicativeȱ practices.ȱ Thisȱ aspectȱ isȱ deepenedȱ inȱaȱnextȱanalyticalȱstepȱwhenȱtheȱsmallȱsetȱofȱexamplesȱisȱexploredȱwhichȱ indeedȱattemptȱanȱexplicitȱvisibilizationȱofȱalternativesȱtoȱdecisions.ȱ ȱ ȱ

147ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

ExplicitȱExamplesȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱVisibilizationȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ archaeologicalȱ searchȱ forȱ theȱ rareȱ speciesȱ ofȱ contingencyȬ visibilizingȱ projectȱ documents,ȱ onlyȱ aȱ handfulȱ ofȱ suchȱ documentsȱ haveȱ beenȱfoundȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1.2).ȱInȱaȱfinalȱanalyticalȱstep,ȱtheseȱrareȱexamȬ plesȱofȱPowerPointȬbasedȱdocumentsȱwhichȱactuallyȱattemptȱsomeȱformȱ ofȱDCVȱareȱanalyzedȱinȱmoreȱdetail.ȱThisȱanalysisȱcanȱserveȱasȱaȱbasisȱtoȱ discussȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ aȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingenciesȱ canȱ possiblyȱ beȱ accomplishedȱ inȱ textualȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ ȱ

What aspects of process could/should we do differently? Inefficient: Data extraction

Person 1

It would have been better to do QA after each 3 or 4 variables had been extracted rather than doing it on the whole ADM.

! Data validation

!

Person 2

Error correction Derived variables

Person 3

!

1.5 weeks

1.5 weeks

1.5 weeks

The validation process either found errors or resulted in changes to the specifications for these data extracts. This had a knock on affect on several other variables extracted or subsequently derived.

For internal use only Client confidential data

Figureȱ11: ȱ

FirstȱExampleȱofȱExplicitȱDecisionȱContingencyȱVisibilizationȱ

148

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

Theȱ exampleȱ shownȱ aboveȱ (figureȱ 11)ȱ representsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ rareȱ docuȬ mentsȱ inȱ whichȱ detailedȱ informationȱ isȱ givenȱ aboutȱ theȱ basicȱ setȱ ofȱ apȬ proachesȱ consideredȱ inȱ theȱ projectȱ andȱ theȱ approachȱ finallyȱ selected.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ documentȱ includesȱ aȱ criticalȱ reflectionȱ inȱ retrospectȱ withȱ regardsȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱ„whatȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱprocessȱcould/shouldȱweȱdoȱ differently“.ȱ Theseȱ considerationsȱ areȱ supportedȱ byȱ aȱ visualizationȱ ofȱ flowȬchartsȱ whichȱ provideȱ anȱ overviewȱ ofȱ theȱ reconstructedȱ decisionȱ processesȱofȱthisȱproject.ȱApartȱfromȱthisȱvariationȱinȱitsȱcontentȱinȱcomȬ parisonȱtoȱtheȱotherȱprojectȱdocumentsȱinȱtheȱsample,ȱtheȱdocumentȱdoesȱ notȱsignificantlyȱdifferȱfromȱthemȱinȱsharingȱmainȱlayoutȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱ “finalȱclientȱpresentation”ȱorȱ“lessonsȱlearned”ȱsubȬgenre.ȱTheȱdocumentȱ hadȱbeenȱcreatedȱinȱaȱstandardizedȱlayoutȱinȱuseȱbyȱtheȱcompanyȱatȱthatȱ time.ȱȱ Theȱquestionȱremainsȱwhyȱandȱhowȱthisȱexceptionalȱdocumentȱwasȱ created.ȱ Additionalȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ document’sȱ backgroundȱ wasȱ gatheredȱ inȱ anȱ interviewȱ withȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ managersȱ basedȱ inȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Kingdom.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ interviewee,ȱ theȱ documentȱ hadȱ itsȱ originsȱ inȱ aȱ pioneerȱ projectȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ customerȱ segmentation,ȱ conȬ ductedȱbyȱaȱmixedȱprojectȱteamȱofȱconsultantsȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱKingdomȱ andȱGermany.ȱTheȱintervieweeȱassuredȱthatȱtheȱdocumentȱhasȱbeenȱusedȱ frequentlyȱ(“aboutȱ30ȱtimes”)ȱtoȱsendȱitȱotherȱconsultantsȱofȱthatȱpracticeȱ wheneverȱ aȱ newȱ customerȱ segmentationȱ projectȱ wasȱ setȱ up.ȱ Theȱ docuȬ mentȱ basicallyȱ summarizedȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ aȱ workshopȱ conductedȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ pioneerȱ projectȱ andȱ wasȱ documentedȱ byȱ aȱ juniorȱ consultant.ȱ Theȱintervieweeȱcharacterizedȱthisȱearlyȱstageȱofȱaȱprojectȱtype’sȱlifeȱcycleȱ asȱ beingȱ „definitelyȱ aȱ goodȱ timeȱ forȱ knowledgeȱ sharing“.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ documentȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ exceptionalȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ intentionallyȱ createdȱ toȱ leverageȱ learningȱ effectsȱ inȱ aȱ newȱ fieldȱ whereȱ theȱ companyȱ assumedȱ toȱ expandȱ inȱ futureȱ years.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ itȱ heavilyȱ deviatedȱ fromȱ theȱ usualȱ contentȱ inȱ documentsȱ ofȱ theȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ genre,ȱ parȬ ticularlyȱ withȱ regardsȱ toȱ goȱ theȱ “extraȱ mile”ȱ andȱ transcendȱ theȱ usualȱ summaryȱ ofȱ tautologies,ȱ imperativesȱ orȱ successȱ factorsȱ inȱ bulletȱ pointȱ listsȱ(seeȱabove).ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

149ȱ

EmpiricalȱResultsȱ

Options considered and not pursued 2nd hand turbine drivers – Engaged various parties in discussion » ExxonMobil asset recovery » GasGenie (online used equipment) » Equipment manufacturers (RR/GE)

– One suitable RR RB211 driver available however CAPEX difference between new and fully refurbished too small • Lease vs buy – Quotes of interest rates of between 12-14% compared to the 10% cost of capital for Marathon – No real advantage when looking at Joint Operating Agreement, Government share or tax implications

• Residual value of equipment – Assumption changed to machines being ‘moth balled’ or used to inject 3rd party gas

• Lease clubs – Based on RR quote buying spare engine seems more advantageous

• Operation of machines – Operations of machines is independent of make/model.

1

ȱȱ

Figureȱ12:

SecondȱExampleȱofȱExplicitȱDecisionȱContingencyȱVisibilizationȱ

ȱ ȱ

Anotherȱexampleȱforȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱmakeȱalternativesȱtoȱdecisionsȱvisibleȱ inȱprojectȱdocumentationȱisȱshownȱinȱfigureȱ12.ȱAgain,ȱtheȱslideȱwasȱexȬ tractedȱ fromȱ aȱ PowerPointȱ presentationȱ storedȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ company’sȱ CPLȱ databases.ȱ Thisȱ PowerPointȱ presentationȱ canȱ beȱ subsumedȱ toȱ theȱ lessonsȱlearnedȱsubȬgenreȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.1.1).ȱTheȱdocumentȱreferredȱtoȱaȱ projectȱinȱtheȱoilȱindustry,ȱconductedȱbyȱaȱprojectȱteamȱfromȱtheȱNetherȬ lands.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ noȱ significantȱ genreȬspecificȱ differencesȱ toȱ otherȱ docuȬ mentsȱ inȱ theȱ sampleȱ –ȱ exceptȱ fromȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ documentȱ hasȱ beenȱ createdȱinȱtheȱclient’sȱmasterȱlayout.ȱTheȱexceptionalityȱofȱtheȱdocumentȱ liesȱinȱaȱfocusȱonȱtheȱdecisionȱprocessȱandȱanȱexplicitȱoutlineȱofȱ“optionsȱ consideredȱandȱnotȱpursued”.ȱInȱitsȱexplicityȱofȱmakingȱtheȱprojectȱproȬ cess’sȱcontingencyȱvisible,ȱtheȱdocumentȱturnedȱoutȱtoȱbeȱaȱuniqueȱexamȬ ple.ȱ Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ remainingȱ documents,ȱ thisȱ documentȱ highlightsȱ

150

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

thatȱtheȱprocessȱchosenȱinȱtheȱprojectȱisȱnotȱpreȬgivenȱbutȱwasȱsubjectȱtoȱ considerationȱ ofȱ severalȱ alternatives.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theseȱ alternatives,ȱ indeȬ pendentȱ fromȱ ifȱ theyȱ wereȱ factuallyȱ consideredȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ itselfȱ orȱ reconstructedȱ inȱ retrospect,ȱ wereȱ summarizedȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ bulletȱ pointȱ list.ȱ FromȱaȱCPLȱperspective,ȱwhichȱisȱinterestedȱnotȱonlyȱinȱsuccessȱstoȬ riesȱ andȱ bestȱ practicesȱ butȱ alsoȱ inȱ aȱ learningȱ fromȱ mistakesȱ madeȱ andȱ alternativesȱ considered,ȱ itȱ isȱ remarkableȱ thatȱ thisȱ documentȱ attemptsȱ toȱ exhibitȱdecisionȱprocessesȱinsteadȱofȱaȱmereȱpresentationȱofȱresults.ȱThisȱ contingencyȬorientedȱmodeȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱexactlyȱshowsȱwhatȱ hasȱbeenȱmaskedȱinȱmostȱofȱtheȱotherȱdocuments.ȱUnfortunately,ȱitȱwasȱ impossibleȱ toȱ getȱ holdȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ teamȱ membersȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ gatherȱ additionalȱ contextȱ informationȱ aboutȱ thisȱ specificȱ project.ȱ Theȱ projectȱ teamȱ membersȱ belongedȱ toȱ aȱ branchȱ ofȱ theȱ companyȱ whichȱ wasȱ inteȬ gratedȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ mergerȱ activities.ȱ Theseȱ individualsȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ leftȱtheȱcompany.ȱButȱevenȱwithoutȱgettingȱinȱdirectȱtouchȱwithȱtheȱmemȬ bersȱofȱtheȱproject,ȱtheȱdocumentȱprovidedȱanȱexpertiseȬseekingȱnoviceȱatȱ leastȱsomeȱunderstandingȱofȱwhichȱalternativeȱideasȱhaveȱbeenȱgeneratedȱ inȱ theȱ projectȱ processȱ andȱ whichȱ couldȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ beingȱ valuableȱ forȱaȱfurtherȱinvestigationȱinȱaȱfollowȬupȱprojectȱofȱaȱsimilarȱtype.ȱȱ Thisȱfinalȱstepȱofȱtheȱarchaeologicalȱexpeditionȱhasȱshownȱthatȱthereȱ areȱinȱfactȱremainsȱofȱaȱrareȱspecies,ȱprojectȱdocumentsȱwhichȱattemptȱaȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ projectȬinherentȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ continȬ gency.ȱNevertheless,ȱitȱremainsȱunclearȱifȱthisȱvisibilizationȱactuallyȱconȬ tributesȱtoȱtheȱprojectȱorganization’sȱautopoiesisȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱLuhmannȱ (2000).ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ willȱ beȱ investigatedȱ byȱ linkingȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ theȱ empiricalȱanalysisȱbackȱtoȱearlierȱtheoreticalȱconsiderations.ȱThisȱsyntheȬ sisȱisȱoutlinedȱinȱchapterȱ5.2.ȱ ȱ ȱ

Discussionȱ

151ȱ

5.2 Discussion:ȱFunctionsȱandȱConsequencesȱofȱtheȱ(InȬ)Visibilityȱofȱ DecisionȱContingencyȱinȱtheȱPracticeȱofȱProjectȱDocumentationȱ ȱ Inȱ aȱ nextȱ stepȱ ofȱ theȱ analysis,ȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ theȱ empiricalȱ studyȱ areȱ disȬ cussedȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱtheoreticalȱframeworkȱofȱthisȱstudyȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ 3).ȱThisȱdiscussionȱisȱseparatedȱintoȱtwoȱpartsȱwhichȱmatchȱbothȱsidesȱofȱ theȱorganizationȬcommunicationȱduality:ȱoneȱofȱwhichȱlinksȱtheȱresultsȱtoȱ theȱtheoreticalȱconsiderationsȱofȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoinȱ(cf.ȱ chapterȱ 5.2.1),ȱ andȱ anotherȱ oneȱ whichȱ linksȱ theȱ resultsȱ toȱ theȱ organizaȬ tionalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoinȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.2.2).ȱThisȱsequenceȱisȱswitchedȱinȱtheȱ discussionȱsectionȱbyȱmovingȱbackwardsȱinȱlinkingȱtheȱempiricalȱresultsȱ toȱtheȱtheoreticalȱconsiderationsȱwhichȱwereȱintroducedȱinȱchapterȱ3.ȱTheȱ discussionȱisȱsynthesizedȱbyȱintegratingȱinsightsȱgainedȱfromȱtheȱempiriȬ calȱ studyȱ inȱ aȱ systemsȬtheoreticalȱ reȬdescriptionȱ ofȱ CPLȱ processesȱ withȱ respectȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ5.2.3).ȱ

5.2.1 TheȱCommunicationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDuality:ȱTheȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱ ContingencyȱinȱPowerPointȬBasedȱProjectȱDocumentationȱȱ ȱ Theȱcaseȱstudy’sȱresultsȱhaveȱshownȱthatȱinȱtheȱanalyzedȱCPLȱdatabasesȱ hardlyȱanyȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱcanȱbeȱfound.ȱTheȱexpliȬ cationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ alternativesȱ consideredȱ seemsȱ toȱ playȱ onlyȱaȱperipheralȱroleȱinȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentationȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱcaseȱ company.ȱ Theȱ theoreticallyȱ presumedȱ dilemmaȱ betweenȱ theȱ organizaȬ tionalȱnecessitiesȱtoȱvisibilizeȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱandȱtoȱinvisibilizeȱtheȱ fundamentalȱ paradoxȱ ofȱ theȱ undecidabilityȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ wasȱ evidentlyȱ resolvedȱbyȱaȱoneȬsidedȱaccentuationȱonȱtheȱinvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱconȬ tingency.ȱ Theseȱ empiricalȱ findingsȱ canȱ beȱ linkedȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ considerationsȱonȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱcoinȱbyȱaskingȱtoȱwhatȱ extentȱtheȱPowerPointȱpresentationȱgenreȱpromotesȱorȱinhibitsȱaȱvisibiliȬ zationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentationȱpracticesȱofȱ theȱcaseȱcompany.ȱ

152

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

Firstȱofȱall,ȱtheȱcrossȬgenreȱusageȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱinȱproȬ jectȱ documentationȱ asȱ describedȱ byȱ Yatesȱ andȱ Orlikowskiȱ (forthcoming)ȱ hasȱbeenȱconfirmed.ȱTheȱpredominanceȱofȱPowerPointȱasȱaȱmediumȱandȱ genreȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ isȱ constitutedȱ byȱ theȱ circumstancesȱ ofȱ projectȱdocumentationȱ–ȱtimeȱpressures,ȱclientȱexpectations,ȱandȱaȱgeneralȱ tendencyȱ byȱ consultantsȱ toȱ relyȱ onȱ PowerPointȱ asȱ theirȱ mainȱ workingȱ tool.ȱInȱthisȱevolutionaryȱprocess,ȱrecurrentȱpatternsȱofȱprojectȱdocumenȬ tationȱ haveȱ emergedȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ summarizedȱ byȱ theȱ subȬtypologyȱ ofȱ theȱPowerPointȱpresentationȱgenreȱgeneratedȱinȱthisȱempiricalȱpartȱofȱtheȱ studyȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 5.1.1).ȱ Theȱ intervieweesȱ highlightedȱ thatȱ mostȱ ofȱ allȱ pragmaticȱ reasonsȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ submissionȱ ofȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱ projectȱ documentsȱ toȱ theȱ CPLȱ databasesȱ –ȱ documentsȱ thatȱ wereȱ generatedȱ forȱ communicationȱtoȱtheȱclientȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱcentralȱproductsȱinȱtheȱprojectȱ processȱanyway.ȱAȱmodificationȱofȱtheseȱdocumentsȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱcolȬ leaguesȱ asȱ aȱ targetȱ audienceȱ appearedȱ toȱ beȱ costlyȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ timeȱandȱeffortȱbutȱalsoȱinȱtermsȱofȱshowingȱvulnerabilityȱacrossȱtheȱorgaȬ nization.ȱȱ Originallyȱ designedȱ forȱ frontstageȱ communicationȱ settingsȱ suchȱ asȱ faceȬtoȬfaceȱ presentations,ȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ genre’sȱ coreȱ characteristicsȱ remainedȱ stableȱ evenȱ ifȱ appliedȱ forȱ aȱ differingȱ purposeȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ doȬ cumentationȱ ofȱ projectȱ results.ȱ Evidently,ȱ aȱ “goalȱ translation”ȱ (Harris,ȱ 2005:ȱ 166)ȱ fromȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ genreȱ toȱ practicesȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentaȬ tionȱ seemsȱ toȱ prevailȱ –ȱ butȱ notȱ theȱ otherȱ wayȱ around.ȱ Theȱ PowerPointȱ documentsȱ analyzedȱ inȱ theȱ sampleȱ includedȱ onlyȱ veryȱ limitedȱ informaȬ tionȱaboutȱtheȱprojectȱprocessȱitself,ȱdecisionsȱfacedȱandȱdecisionsȱmadeȱ–ȱ exceptȱ fromȱ stronglyȱ condensedȱ andȱ deȬcontextualizedȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ bulletȱ pointsȱ whichȱ wereȱ addedȱ toȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ documents’ȱ appendices.ȱ Withoutȱ anyȱ profoundȱ contextualȱ knowledgeȱ aboutȱ aȱ project’sȱ backȬ groundȱ –ȱ asȱ problematizedȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ “expertiseȬ seekingȱ novice”ȱ (Markus,ȱ 2001)ȱ –ȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ documentȱ didȱ notȱ alȬ lowȱforȱanȱidentificationȱofȱprojectȱdecisionsȱasȱdecisions.ȱAsȱtheȱanalysisȱ revealed,ȱtheȱPowerPointȱdocumentsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱdatabasesȱhardlyȱgiveȱ anyȱ orientationȱ forȱ anȱ expertiseȬseekingȱ noviceȱ howȱ decisionȱ processesȱ

Discussionȱ

153ȱ

wereȱexecutedȱandȱhowȱaȱprojectȱteamȱcommunicativelyȱarrivedȱatȱmakȬ ingȱaȱdecision.ȱTheȱprojectȱprocessȱitselfȱremainsȱopaque.ȱ MuchȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱpredominanceȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentationsȱasȱaȱ mediumȱ andȱ genreȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ company,ȱ itȱ isȱ surprisingȱthatȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱtheseȱdocumentsȱconsistsȱofȱonlyȱoneȱslideȱ primarilyȱ createdȱ forȱ theȱ acquisitionȱ ofȱ newȱ projects.ȱ Theȱ preferenceȱ forȱ storingȱdocumentsȱofȱthisȱkindȱhasȱemergedȱinȱtheȱpracticalȱusageȱofȱtheȱ databaseȱwhichȱpartlyȱcontradictsȱitsȱpurposeȱbeingȱsetȱupȱforȱtheȱsharingȱ ofȱprojectȱexperiences.ȱTheȱ“oneȬpageȱcitation”ȱsubȬgenreȱofȱPowerPointȱ ratherȱappearedȱtoȱfulfillȱtheȱdemandsȱofȱaȱmarketingȱtoolȱinstead.ȱTheseȱ documentsȱ representedȱ readyȬmadeȱ contentȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ easilyȱ recomȬ binedȱforȱtheȱcreationȱofȱprojectȱproposalsȱinȱorderȱtoȱacquireȱnewȱclients.ȱ Surprisingly,ȱtheȱsameȱdocumentsȱinȱmostȱcasesȱhadȱtoȱbeȱcodedȱasȱpriȬ maryȱdocumentsȱwhichȱprovidedȱtheȱcomparablyȱmostȱdetailedȱinformaȬ tionȱaboutȱtheȱprojectȱ(inȱtheȱlackȱofȱalternativeȱinformationȱsources).ȱ Thisȱ estimationȱ canȱ beȱ linkedȱ toȱ Goffman’sȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ frontstageȱ andȱ backstageȱ settingsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (Goffman,ȱ 1959).ȱ Followingȱ theȱ aimȱ ofȱ promotingȱ theȱ sharingȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ acrossȱ proȬ jects,ȱ theȱ companyȬwideȱ databasesȱ appliedȱ forȱ thisȱ purposeȱ createdȱ aȱ publicȱ platformȱ withinȱ theȱ organization,ȱ aȱ frontstageȱ setting.ȱ Inȱ conseȬ quence,ȱ theȱ crossȬprojectȱ communicationȱ takingȱ placeȱ onȱ frontstageȱ beȬ comesȱaȱmatterȱofȱselfȬpresentationȱratherȱthanȱselfȬrevelation.ȱ Inȱ theȱ caseȱ company’sȱ projectȱ documentationȱ practices,ȱ impressionȱ managementȱ techniquesȱ areȱ appliedȱ alsoȱ inȱ internalȱ communicationȱ byȱ graspingȱ theȱ backstageȱ settingȱ ofȱ theȱ companyȬwideȱ knowledgeȱ manȬ agementȱ databaseȱ asȱ aȱ frontstageȱ settingȱ (cf.ȱ chapterȱ 3.1.3).ȱ Thisȱ resemȬ blesȱ theȱ façadeȬcreationȱ strategiesȱ asȱ describedȱ byȱ Starbuckȱ (1982:ȱ 9f.)ȱ asȱ wellȱasȱCunhaȱ(2006:ȱ213ff.).ȱInȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱcontrolȱimpressionsȱexterȬ nallyȱ inȱ communicationȱ toȱ theȱ clientȱ andȱ internallyȱ inȱ communicationȱ withȱcolleagues,ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱhardȱtoȱestablishȱaȱsharingȱofȱexperiencesȱ basedȱonȱmistakesȱmadeȱandȱalternativesȱconsidered.ȱInȱconsequence,ȱtheȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ canȱ beȱ presumedȱ toȱ relyȱ insteadȱ onȱ projectȱmembers’ȱmemoriesȱandȱtheirȱabilityȱtoȱbringȱinȱtheirȱexperiencesȱ fromȱ earlierȱ projectȱ situationsȱ intoȱ subsequentȱ projectsȱ –ȱ butȱ notȱ toȱ relyȱ

154

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

onȱ theȱ “stayingȱ capacity”ȱ ofȱ textualȱ documentsȱ (Coorenȱ &ȱ Fairhurst,ȱ forthcoming).ȱ Theȱ company’sȱ institutionalizedȱ formsȱ ofȱ crossȬprojectȱ learningȱ apȬ parentlyȱ didȱ notȱ balanceȱ outȱ aȱ dominationȱ ofȱ impressionȱ managementȱ necessitiesȱoverȱknowledgeȱmanagement.ȱInstead,ȱitȱappearedȱthatȱcomȬ municationȱtoȱtheȱclientȱwasȱcopiedȱorȱmirroredȱtoȱtheȱinsideȱofȱtheȱorganiȬ zationȱ inȱ communicationȱ toȱ colleagues.ȱ Toȱ someȱ degree,ȱ organizationalȱ strategiesȱ toȱ invisibilizeȱ theȱ contingencyȱ inherentȱ toȱ decisionsȱ inȱ docuȬ mentedȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱresembleȱmagicians’ȱtricksȱtoȱletȱobjectsȱ orȱ personsȱ disappear.ȱ Steinmeyerȱ (2003)ȱ explainsȱ thatȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ commonȱtricksȱbyȱmagiciansȱforȱtheȱcreationȱofȱinvisibilityȱillusionsȱisȱtoȱ makeȱ useȱ ofȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ principleȱ ofȱ physics:ȱ theȱ angleȱ ofȱ incidenceȱ equalsȱ theȱ angleȱ ofȱ reflection.ȱ Byȱ meansȱ ofȱ mirroringȱ techniques,ȱ aȱ magicianȱ canȱ easilyȱ createȱ theȱ illusionȱ thatȱ anȱ objectȱ hasȱ disappeared,ȱ e.g.,ȱ toȱ letȱ evenȱhugeȱobjectsȱlikeȱanȱelephantȱdisappear.ȱInsteadȱofȱtheȱelephant,ȱtheȱ audienceȱperceivesȱaȱmirroredȱimageȱwhichȱsubstitutesȱtheȱfactualȱobject.ȱ Imagineȱ aȱ largeȬscaleȱ projectȱ involvingȱ multiȬlayeredȱ decisionȱ proȬ cesses,ȱ crossroads,ȱ andȱ turnarounds.ȱ Asȱ theȱ empiricalȱ studyȱ hasȱ shown,ȱ theȱCPLȱdatabasesȱinȱmostȱcasesȱonlyȱcontainedȱaȱhighlyȱcondensedȱandȱ contextȬdisembeddedȱPowerPointȱdocumentȱwhichȱwasȱfreeȱofȱanyȱcritiȬ calȱ assessmentsȱ orȱ reflectionȱ onȱ contingenciesȱ inherentȱ toȱ theȱ projectȱ processȱ (mostȱ typically,ȱ aȱ documentȱ ofȱ theȱ “oneȬpageȱ citation”ȱ genre).ȱ Theȱdocument’sȱnarrativeȱwasȱfocusedȱonȱaȱconsistentȱratherȱthanȱaȱconȬ tingentȱ presentationȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ processȱ andȱ itsȱ results.ȱ Byȱ mirroringȱ theȱcommunicationȱtoȱexternalȱaudiencesȱ(e.g.,ȱtheȱclient)ȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱbackȬ stageȱsettingȱofȱ internalȱ organizationalȱcommunication,ȱ theȱ éléphantesqueȱ contingenciesȱinherentȱtoȱdecisionȱprocessesȱwereȱinvisibilized.ȱȱ Finally,ȱthisȱestimationȱcanȱbeȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱdiscussionȱinȱorganizaȬ tionalȱcommunicationȱstudiesȱonȱtheȱconstitutiveȱconditionsȱforȱtheȱemerȬ genceȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ outȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (2000;ȱ McPheeȱ &ȱ Zaug,ȱ 2000;ȱ Taylor,ȱ 2000a;ȱ Coorenȱ &ȱ Fairhurst,ȱ forthcoming).ȱ Strategiesȱ ofȱ inȬ visibilizationȱ(Ortmann,ȱ2004),ȱpracticesȱofȱdeparadoxificationȱ(Andersen,ȱ 2003),ȱandȱattemptsȱtoȱcloakȱtheȱbasicȱproblemȱofȱselfȬreferenceȱ(Nassehi,ȱ 2005),ȱ asȱ describedȱ byȱ recentȱ accountsȱ ofȱ theoristsȱ workingȱ withȱ socialȱ

Discussionȱ

155ȱ

systemsȱtheory,ȱandȱasȱpartlyȱconfirmedȱinȱtheȱempiricalȱstudy,ȱmayȱexȬ actlyȱ representȱ theȱ referenceȱ pointsȱ toȱ graspȱ empiricallyȱ whatȱ decisionȱ communicationȱenforcesȱtoȱbecomeȱorganizational.ȱTheȱcontinuousȱneedȱ toȱdecideȱsomehow,ȱevenȱonȱquestionsȱwhereȱtheȱdecisionȱisȱundecidableȱ dueȱ toȱ itsȱ contingency,ȱ isȱ whatȱ keepsȱ theȱ organizationȱ proceedingȱ fromȱ oneȱ decisionȱ toȱ theȱ next,ȱ similarȱ toȱ aȱ perpetuumȱ mobile.ȱ Consequently,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ appropriateȱ toȱ defineȱ theȱ deparadoxificationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ asȱ theȱ drivingȱ forceȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ (cf.ȱ Andersen,ȱ 2003;ȱ Nassehi,ȱ2005).ȱ ȱ ȱ 5.2.2 TheȱOrganizationalȱSideȱofȱtheȱDuality:ȱTheȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱ ContingencyȱandȱtheȱProjectȱOrganization’sȱAutopoiesisȱ ȱ Theȱempiricalȱcaseȱstudyȱhasȱyieldedȱthatȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱalternativesȱ toȱdecisionsȱandȱmistakesȱmadeȱplayedȱonlyȱaȱdiminishingȱroleȱinȱprojectȱ documentationȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱcaseȱorganization.ȱTheȱreflectionȱonȱproȬ jectsȱandȱitsȱarticulationȱinȱdocumentedȱformȱwasȱconstrainedȱbyȱvariousȱ aspectsȱofȱanȱorganizationalȱorȱtechnicalȱnature.ȱTheȱlackȱofȱreflectionȱonȱ projectȱ processesȱ linksȱ backȱ toȱ theoreticalȱ argumentsȱ whichȱ emphasizeȱ organizationalȱ members’ȱ generallyȱ limitedȱ attentionȱ toȱ decisionsȱ madeȱ (Simonȱ&ȱMarch,ȱ1958;ȱCohen,ȱMarchȱ&ȱOlsen,ȱ1972).ȱAccordingly,ȱdeciȬ sionsȱ canȱ beȱ eitherȱ incorporatedȱ implicitlyȱ inȱ workingȱ proceduresȱ orȱ workȱprocessesȱareȱretrospectivelyȱrationalizedȱasȱhavingȱbeenȱaȱdecisionȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 447).ȱ Moreover,ȱ projectȱ membersȱ directlyȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱdecisionȱmakingȱprocessȱwithinȱaȱprojectȱmayȱbeȱunawareȱofȱtheȱconȬ tingenciesȱ inherentȱ toȱ decisionsȱ (cf.ȱ Walsh,ȱ 1995).ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ anȱ awarenessȱ forȱtheȱcontingencyȱofȱaȱdecisionȱisȱgiven,ȱanȱindividualȱtradeȬoffȱbyȱtheȱ projectȱmembersȱbetweenȱeffortsȱandȱexpectedȱrewardsȱcanȱconstrainȱtheȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingency.ȱ Asȱ Zolloȱ andȱ Winterȱ (2002:ȱ 342)ȱ pointȱout,ȱtheȱcodificationȱprocessȱnecessaryȱforȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdeciȬ sionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ costlyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ timeȱ andȱ efforts.ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱ employeesȱ willȱ onlyȱ beȱ willingȱ toȱ investȱ theseȱ effortsȱ ifȱ theȱ benefitsȱ areȱ expectedȱtoȱexceedȱtheirȱcosts.ȱȱ

156

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

Theȱ groupȱ ofȱ consultantsȱ whoȱ areȱ supposedȱ toȱ submitȱ projectȱ exȬ periencesȱ toȱ theȱ databaseȱ indeedȱ seemedȱ toȱ keepȱ theirȱ effortȱ toȱ aȱ miniȬ mum,ȱinȱmostȱcasesȱbyȱsubmittingȱeitherȱoneȬpageȱdocumentȱorȱtheȱfinalȱ clientȱ presentation,ȱ whichȱ allowedȱ themȱ toȱ saveȱ faceȱ onȱ theȱ surfaceȱ levelȱ (cf.ȱOrtmann,ȱ2004).ȱTheȱostensibleȱcommitmentȱtoȱformalȱorganizationalȱ demandsȱ andȱ itsȱ contradictionȱ withȱ informalȱ practicesȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱsolvedȱhereȱbyȱaȱdecouplingȱofȱtalkȱandȱactionȱ(cf.ȱBrunsson,ȱ1989).ȱ Inȱ theȱ caseȱ company,ȱ theȱ evolutionȱ ofȱ communicativeȱ practicesȱ inȱ theȱ usageȱofȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱhaveȱevidentlyȱputȱforthȱtheȱtendencyȱtoȱpreȬ sentȱprojectsȱasȱ“successȱstories”ȱandȱ“bestȱpractices”ȱwhichȱsupportȱtheȱ impressionȱ ofȱ aȱ companyȱ havingȱ provenȱ toȱ beȱ capableȱ forȱ generatingȱ significantȱvalueȱforȱitsȱclients.ȱTheȱformalȱdemandȱofȱreflectingȱonȱdeciȬ sionȱprocessesȱinsteadȱwasȱavoidedȱtoȱaȱlargeȱextent.ȱEfficiencyȱthenȱwasȱ preservedȱbyȱstickingȱtoȱestablishedȱinformalȱcommunicativeȱpractices.ȱInȱ thisȱcontext,ȱaȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱapparentlyȱwasȱseenȱ asȱ beingȱ counterȬproductiveȱ byȱ theȱ consultants.ȱ Toȱ mentionȱ alternativesȱ considered,ȱ pathsȱ taken,ȱ andȱ potentialȱ mistakesȱ ofȱ aȱ project’sȱ decisionȱ processesȱ wouldȱ allowȱ forȱ lookingȱ intoȱ theȱ abyssȱ ofȱ theȱ consultingȱ busiȬ ness’sȱinherentȱambiguity.ȱ Ifȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱworkȱandȱdecisionȱprocessesȱisȱseenȱasȱsomethingȱ positiveȱandȱefficiencyȬenhancing,ȱ internalȱ communicationȱ toȱ colleaguesȱ isȱ estimatedȱ asȱ openingȱ upȱ opportunitiesȱ toȱ unfoldȱ theȱ ambiguityȱ andȱ contingencyȱ ofȱ projectȱ decisionȱ processesȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ leverageȱ CPLȱ asȱ emphasizedȱbyȱtheȱlearningȱfromȱfailureȱideaȱ(Argyris,ȱ1992;ȱEdmondson,ȱ 1996;ȱ Baumardȱ &ȱ Starbuck,ȱ 2005;ȱ Zhaoȱ &ȱ Olivera,ȱ 2006).ȱ Theȱ nonȬ existenceȱ ofȱ aȱ backstageȱ settingȱ inȱ projectȱ documentationȱ whereȱ thereȱ wouldȱinȱprincipleȱbeȱtheȱchanceȱforȱaȱtrustfulȱandȱcontingencyȬcenteredȱ communicationȱthenȱcanȱhaveȱsignificantȱimplicationsȱforȱorganizationalȱ capabilitiesȱinȱpractice.ȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱorganizationȱcanȱbeȱassumedȱnotȱ toȱ useȱ itsȱ fullȱ potentialȱ ofȱ learningȱ fromȱ itsȱ ownȱ historyȱ (cf.ȱ March,ȱ Sproullȱ&ȱTamuz,ȱ1991).ȱȱ Inȱthisȱcontext,ȱtheȱcompany’sȱfocusȱonȱ“bestȱpractices”ȱandȱ“successȱ stories”,ȱasȱmanifestedȱinȱtheȱ“oneȬpageȱcitation”ȱsubȬgenre,ȱratherȱseemȱ toȱindicateȱaȱblindȱspotȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱforȱmistakesȱmadeȱinȱprojects,ȱ

Discussionȱ

157ȱ

atȱleastȱinȱdocumentedȱformsȱofȱcrossȬprojectȱcommunication.ȱInȱlineȱwithȱ theȱ learningȬfromȬfailureȱ principle,ȱ thisȱ canȱ beȱ assumedȱ toȱ causeȱ ineffiȬ cienciesȱ inȱ theȱ longȱ run,ȱ becauseȱ currentȱ projectȱ cannotȱ profitȱ fromȱ exȬ periencesȱmadeȱbyȱearlierȱprojectsȱwhichȱhadȱfacedȱsimilarȱcontingencies.ȱ Consequently,ȱeffortsȱtoȱintroduceȱproceduresȱofȱCPLȱbasedȱonȱmistakesȱ madeȱandȱalternativesȱconsideredȱcanȱhardlyȱsustain.ȱ Givenȱ thatȱ theȱ realizationȱ ofȱ DCVȱ inȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ problematic,ȱ theȱ findingsȱ alsoȱ suggestȱ toȱ reconsiderȱ existingȱ theoriesȱ andȱ practiceȱ modelsȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ knowlȬ edgeȱ managementȱ andȱ CPL.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ movementȱ sinceȱ theȱ midȱ 1990sȱ hasȱ givenȱ riseȱ toȱ someȱ formȱ ofȱ criticalȱ projectȱ reflectionȱ andȱ itsȱ articulation,ȱ theȱ empiricalȱ dataȱ exposeȱ thatȱ inȱ practiceȱ suchȱ documentsȱ wereȱ notȱ createdȱ andȱ sharedȱ –ȱ evenȱ inȱ anȱ orȬ ganizationȱwhichȱprofessedȱtoȱdoȱso,ȱwithȱaȱdatabaseȱestablishedȱforȱthisȱ purposeȱ atȱ anȱ earlyȱ stageȱ ofȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ movement.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ organizationȱ wasȱ followingȱ theȱ illusionȱ ofȱ aȱ “cuttingȬedge”ȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ solutionȱ whichȱ reliesȱ onȱ documentedȱ formsȱ ofȱ crossȬprojectȱ communication,ȱ theȱ analysisȱ hasȱ shownȱ thatȱ PowerPointȱ documentsȱ wereȱ usedȱ bothȱ forȱ communicationȱ toȱ clientsȱ andȱ asȱ aȱ referȬ enceȱforȱwhatȱhasȱhappenedȱinȱaȱproject.ȱTheȱperformativeȱaspectȱofȱdeciȬ sionȱprocessesȱinsteadȱremainedȱinvisibleȱtoȱnonȬmembersȱofȱtheȱproject.ȱ HavingȱoutlinedȱorganizationalȱconstraintsȱtoȱDCV,ȱthisȱstudy’sȱemȬ piricalȱ resultsȱ requireȱ toȱ beȱ linkedȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ organizationsȱ areȱ constitutedȱ byȱ communicationȱ (Taylorȱ &ȱ vanȱ Every,ȱ2000;ȱLuhmann,ȱ2000).ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱTSSȱframework,ȱorganizaȬ tionsȱrelyȱonȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱinȱorderȱtoȱ sustainȱtheirȱautopoiesis.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱstudy’sȱfindingsȱconfirmȱthatȱthisȱ visibilityȱisȱhardlyȱachievedȱinȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentationȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱ caseȱorganization.ȱHowȱcanȱtheseȱfindingsȱbeȱintegratedȱwithȱLuhmann’sȱ claimȱthatȱtheȱobservabilityȱofȱdecisionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱisȱconstituȬ tiveȱforȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱcommunicativeȱentity?ȱOr,ȱ inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ howȱ doesȱ theȱ organizationȱ assureȱ itsȱ autopoiesisȱ ifȱ notȱ throughȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱprojectȱdocumentaȬ tion?ȱ

158

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

Theȱanswerȱtoȱthisȱquestionȱcanȱbeȱdifferentiatedȱintoȱtwoȱstreamsȱofȱ explanations:ȱ(1)ȱTheȱvisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱnecessaryȱforȱtheȱ organization’sȱ autopoiesisȱ isȱ achievedȱ notȱ inȱ projectȱ documentationȱ butȱ elsewhere,ȱ forȱ exampleȱ inȱ verbalȱ formsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ alongȱ organȬ izationalȱ hierarchies.ȱ (2)ȱ Whileȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ remainsȱ opaqueȱ inȱ documentedȱ formsȱ ofȱ crossȬprojectȱ communication,ȱ itȱ willȱ neverthelessȱ becomeȱvisibleȱwithinȱprojects.ȱInȱconsequence,ȱitȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱusefulȱtoȱ distinguishȱ betweenȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ andȱ theȱ specificȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱwithinȱaȱproject.ȱȱ ȱ(1)ȱInȱcaseȱLuhmann’sȱassumptionȱisȱappropriateȱthatȱtheȱcommuniȬ cationȱ aboutȱ decisionsȱ (andȱ theirȱ contingency)ȱisȱ rightȱ atȱ theȱ coreȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000),ȱatȱleastȱtheȱprojectȱdatabasesȱanalyzedȱinȱ thisȱ studyȱ doȱ notȱ seemȱ toȱ comeȱ evenȱ closeȱ toȱ thisȱ core.ȱ Theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ projectȱdocumentationȱpracticesȱatȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱsuggestsȱthatȱexistȬ ingȱcommunicationȱpracticesȱacrossȱprojects,ȱonȱaȱhorizontalȱlevel,ȱdoȱnotȱ contributeȱtoȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingency.ȱHowȬ ever,ȱ andȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ qualitativeȱ interviews,ȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ assumedȱ thatȱdecisionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱbecomeȱinsteadȱvisibleȱonȱaȱverticalȱ level,ȱe.g.,ȱinȱreviewsȱandȱevaluationsȱofȱprojectsȱbyȱsuperiors.ȱWhileȱthereȱ isȱhardlyȱanyȱcouplingȱbetweenȱtheȱdecisionȱprocessesȱoccurringȱinȱproȬ jects,ȱtheȱprojectȱorganizationȱatȱleastȱneedsȱtoȱaccomplishȱsomeȱformȱofȱ couplingȱ onȱ anȱ hierarchicalȱ level.ȱ Theȱ databasesȱ setȱ upȱ forȱ aȱ sharingȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ acrossȱ projectsȱ insteadȱ essentiallyȱ cloakȱ decisionsȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱcameȱintoȱexistenceȱnearlyȱcompletelyȱ(cf.ȱNassehi,ȱ2005:ȱ186).ȱȱ Inȱthisȱrespect,ȱtheȱfindingsȱofȱtheȱstudyȱimplyȱthatȱexistingȱeffortsȱtoȱ leverageȱ aȱ sharingȱ ofȱ expertiseȱ acrossȱ projectsȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ PowerPointȬ basedȱ projectȱ documentationȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ estimatedȱ asȱ illusionaryȱ toȱ aȱ largeȱdegree.ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱcrossȬconfirmedȱbyȱearlierȱempiricalȱstudiesȱonȱ socialȱandȱcommunicativeȱobstaclesȱtoȱtheȱimplementationȱofȱknowledgeȱ managementȱ processesȱ inȱ organizationalȱ practiceȱ (Ruggles,ȱ 1998;ȱ McDermott,ȱ1999;ȱMcDermottȱ&ȱO’Dell,ȱ2001;ȱHuber,ȱ2001;ȱZornȱ&ȱTayȬ lor,ȱ 2003;ȱ Currieȱ &ȱ Kerrin,ȱ 2004).ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ problemsȱ relatedȱ toȱ anyȱ attemptsȱ toȱ promoteȱ anȱ ITȬbasedȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ amongȱ colleaguesȱ mayȱ beȱ dueȱ toȱ aȱ misleadingȱ viewȱ onȱ knowledgeȱ asȱ aȱ reifiedȱ

Discussionȱ

159ȱ

commodityȱ(Heusinkveldȱ&ȱBenders,ȱ2005:ȱ285).ȱInȱconsequence,ȱexpectaȬ tionsȱ inȱ whatȱ canȱ beȱ accomplishedȱ byȱ ITȬbasedȱ processesȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ management,ȱasȱexemplifiedȱbyȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱinȱuseȱatȱtheȱcaseȱorȬ ganization,ȱshouldȱbeȱloweredȱaccordingly.ȱ (2)ȱ Givenȱ thatȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ achievedȱ withinȱprojectsȱbutȱnotȱacrossȱprojects,ȱprojectsȱcanȱbeȱtheorizedȱasȱrepreȬ sentingȱtemporaryȱsetsȱofȱcommunicativeȱdecisionsȱ(cf.ȱLundinȱ&ȱSöderȬ holm,ȱ1995)ȱwhichȱareȱonlyȱlooselyȱlinkedȱtoȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱwholeȱ (cf.ȱOrtonȱ&ȱWeick,ȱ1990).ȱSimilarlyȱtoȱorganizations,ȱprojectsȱthemselvesȱ reproduceȱ decisionsȱ outȱ ofȱ decisions.ȱ Byȱ meansȱ ofȱ this,ȱ projectsȱ areȱ eviȬ dentlyȱableȱtoȱestablishȱaȱsystemicȱborderȱwhichȱdistinguishesȱthemȱfromȱ theȱorganizationȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱThisȱborderȱcanȱbeȱimaginedȱasȱbeingȱconstiȬ tutedȱ byȱ repetitiveȱ actsȱ ofȱdecisionȱ communicationȱwhichȱ define,ȱ byȱ beȬ ingȱexecuted,ȱanȱinsideȱandȱanȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱproject.ȱȱ Whileȱ theȱ communicationȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ marksȱ theȱ systemȬinherentȱȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ operation,ȱ theȱ overarchingȱ organizationȱ theȱ projectȱ formallyȱ belongsȱ to,ȱ becomesȱ environmentalȱ toȱ theȱ project.ȱ Inȱ theȱ terminologyȱ ofȱ theȱ TSSȱ perspectiveȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1984;ȱ2000),ȱ projectsȱ canȱ beȱ theorizedȱ asȱ anȱinternalȱenvironmentȱwithinȱtheȱorganization,ȱestablishedȱforȱaȱlimitedȱ timeȱframeȱ(cf.ȱCzarniawskaȱ&ȱMazza,ȱ2003).ȱDueȱtoȱtheȱautopoieticȱnaȬ tureȱofȱsocialȱsystems,ȱtheȱprojectȱorganizationȱcanȱneitherȱdetermineȱfromȱ outsideȱwhatȱisȱbeenȱdecidedȱwithinȱtheȱprojectȱnorȱcanȱitȱseeȱhowȱprojectȱ decisionȱ processesȱ haveȱ occurred.ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱ theȱ projectȱ itselfȱ beȬ comesȱaȱblackȱboxȱtoȱtheȱoverarchingȱorganization.ȱȱ Whatȱdoȱallȱtheseȱconsiderationsȱimplyȱforȱtheȱorganization’sȱnecesȬ sityȱ toȱ visibilizeȱ itsȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ interconnectȱ deciȬ sionsȱand,ȱwithȱthis,ȱtoȱsustainȱitsȱautopoieticȱexistence?ȱTheȱnecessityȱofȱ DCVȱseemsȱtoȱapplyȱonlyȱwithinȱeachȱsocialȱsystem:ȱwithinȱeachȱprojectȱ asȱ aȱ ephemeralȱ socialȱ systemȱ andȱ withinȱ theȱ formalȱ organizationȱ whichȱ onlyȱ looselyȱ connectsȱ projectsȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ membership.ȱ Inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ theseȱ considerations,ȱ theȱ projectȱ organizationȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ evaluatedȱasȱaȱsuccessfulȱformȱofȱcopingȱwithȱtheȱorganizationalȱparadoxȱ ofȱ theȱ undecidabilityȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ andȱ canȱ beȱ predictedȱ toȱ sustainȱ thisȱ evolutionaryȱ advantageȱ inȱ theȱ future.ȱ Byȱ externalizingȱ decisionsȱ andȱ

160

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

theirȱ contingencyȱ toȱ projectsȱ ofȱ limitedȱ temporality,ȱ theȱ organizationȱ isȱ evidentlyȱ ableȱ toȱ imputeȱ thatȱ inȱ theȱ projectȱ decisionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ madeȱ somehowȱandȱcanȱtakeȱtheirȱcontingencyȱforȱgranted.ȱInȱeffect,ȱtheȱorganiȬ zationȱ doesȱ notȱ needȱ toȱ achieveȱ consistencyȱ ofȱ itsȱ decisionsȱ becauseȱ aȱ projectȱ canȱ alwaysȱ beȱ negativelyȱ markedȱ asȱ anȱ exceptionȱ orȱ anȱ extremeȱ situationȱinȱretrospect.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 5.2.3 Synthesis:ȱTheȱ(InȬ)VisibilityȱofȱDecisionȱContingencyȱandȱCrossȬProjectȱ Forgetfulnessȱ ȱ Thisȱ newȱ theorizationȱ ofȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ fromȱ aȱ TSSȱ perspectiveȱ alsoȱhasȱimplicationsȱforȱexistingȱtheoriesȱonȱorganizationalȱmemoryȱ(cf.ȱ Walshȱ&ȱUngson,ȱ1991;ȱOlivera,ȱ2000;ȱSeidl,ȱ2006b).ȱTheȱempiricalȱstudyȱ hasȱ yieldedȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ onȱ anȱ projectȬoverarchingȱ level,ȱ theȱ organizaȬ tionalȱmemoryȱisȱestablishedȱonlyȱinȱaȱveryȱlimitedȱform.ȱWithȱrespectȱtoȱ theȱorganization’sȱmostȱbasicȱoperation,ȱtheȱcommunicationȱofȱdecisionsȱ andȱtheirȱcontingency,ȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱestablishȱanȱorganizationalȱmemoryȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ manifestedȱ projectȱ documentationȱ insteadȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ evaluȬ atedȱ asȱ amnesiac.ȱ Theȱ projectȱ documentsȱ simplyȱ lackȱ anȱ elaborationȱ ofȱ howȱprojectȱdecisionsȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱandȱforȱwhatȱreasons.ȱInȱtheȱtermsȱ ofȱ Luhmann,ȱ “theȱ organizationȱ quasiȱ tendsȱ toȱ forgetȱ itself”ȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ147).ȱ Withȱ regardsȱ toȱ theȱ question,ȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ theȱ caseȱ organizationȱ canȱestablishȱanȱorganizationalȱmemoryȱwhichȱsurvivesȱitsȱownȱprojectsȱ (Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ273),ȱtheȱstudyȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱprojectȱorganization’sȱforȬ getfulnessȱ forȱ itsȱ ownȱ decisionȱ processes.ȱ Withȱ this,ȱ theȱ caseȱ companyȱ canȱ beȱ presumedȱ toȱ sufferȱ fromȱ whatȱ Schoenebornȱ andȱ Blaschkeȱ (2006)ȱ haveȱtermedȱasȱorganizationalȱinsomnia.ȱTheȱconceptȱofȱinsomniaȱrootsȱinȱaȱ longȱreachingȱtraditionȱofȱmetaphoricalȱaccountsȱinȱtheȱstudiesȱofȱorganiȬ zationsȱ (Morgan,ȱ 1980;ȱ 1986;ȱ Weick,ȱ 1989;ȱ Tsoukas,ȱ 1991;ȱ 1993;ȱ Spender,ȱ 1996;ȱCornelissen,ȱ2005).ȱAsȱtheȱintervieweesȱreport,ȱfacingȱtoughȱmarketȱ pressures,ȱ theȱ caseȱ organizationȱ isȱ rushingȱ fromȱ oneȱ projectȱ toȱ anotherȱ andȱdoesȱnotȱfindȱtheȱtimeȱforȱaȱsystematicȱandȱsharedȱreflectionȱonȱpastȱ

Discussionȱ

161ȱ

projectsȱandȱdecisionȱprocesses.ȱSimilarlyȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱmind,ȱtheȱeffectsȱ ofȱorganizationalȱinsomniaȱcanȱbeȱassumedȱtoȱprimarilyȱaffectȱprocessesȱ ofȱ learningȱandȱ memory.ȱIfȱ thereȱ areȱ noȱ temporalȱ phasesȱ ofȱsleepȱ orȱ reȬ treat,ȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱsocialȱsystemȱlacksȱtheȱconsolidationȱandȱreȬ consolidationȱofȱexperiences,ȱmanifestedȱinȱexperienceȬbasedȱchangesȱofȱ structures,ȱroutines,ȱandȱprocesses.ȱ Inȱsystemsȱtheoreticalȱterms,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱorganizationȱisȱsuccessfulȱ asȱlongȱasȱitȱisȱableȱtoȱmaintainȱitsȱsystemicȱexistenceȱinȱaȱcomplexȱenviȬ ronment.ȱ Thisȱ basicallyȱ requiresȱ thatȱ theȱ organizationȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ connectȱ oneȱdecisionȱtoȱanotherȱoverȱtimeȱandȱthatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱgetȱabsorbedȱbyȱitsȱ environmentȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 417).ȱ Inȱ turn,ȱ thisȱ studyȱ supportsȱ theȱ asȬ sumptionȱ thatȱ aȱ forgetfulnessȱ ofȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ isȱ essentialȱ forȱ theȱ longȬlastingȱ sustainmentȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ organizationȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 147).ȱ Withȱ this,ȱ theȱ projectȱ organizationȱ avoidsȱ toȱ beȬ comeȱparalyzedȱbyȱtheȱawarenessȱofȱitsȱownȱparadoxicalȱandȱcontingentȱ natureȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000:ȱ151).ȱȱ Keepingȱthisȱinȱmind,ȱtheȱattemptsȱputȱforthȱbyȱstreamsȱofȱorganizaȬ tionalȱ communicationȱ studiesȱ andȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ moveȬ mentȱ toȱ achieveȱ anȱ enhancedȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ workȱ andȱ decisionȱ processesȱ canȱbeȱestimatedȱasȱbeingȱpartlyȱcounterȬnaturalȱtoȱprojectȱorganizations.ȱ Projectȱ organizationsȱ insteadȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ constitutedȱ byȱ distinctiveȱ borȬ dersȱ betweenȱ projectsȱ asȱ temporalȱ organizationalȱ systemsȱ andȱ theȱ overȬ archingȱ organizations.ȱ Theȱ realizationȱ ofȱ anȱ enhancedȱ visibilizationȱ canȱ thereforeȱbeȱestimatedȱasȱnotȱveryȱlikelyȱandȱinsteadȱcanȱevenȱendangerȱ theȱorganization’sȱabilityȱtoȱcopeȱwithȱinconsistenciesȱcreatedȱbyȱcontraȬ dictingȱdecisionsȱinȱvariousȱprojects.ȱȱ Withȱthis,ȱtheȱorganizationȱmayȱbenefitȱfromȱforgettingȱbecauseȱothȬ erwiseȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ blockedȱ inȱ itsȱ capacitiesȱ –ȱ inȱ aȱ similarȱ wayȱ theȱ humanȱ mind’sȱ primaryȱ functionȱ isȱ forgettingȱ ratherȱ thanȱ memorizing,ȱ asȱ LuhȬ mannȱ (1996)ȱ pointsȱ out.ȱ Theȱ retrospectiveȱ senseȬmakingȱ (Weick,ȱ 1995)ȱ ofȱ whatȱhasȱbeenȱdoneȱinȱaȱprojectȱimpliesȱtoȱstriveȱforȱconsistentȱnarrativeȱ patterns.ȱContingentȱalternativesȱthenȱneedȱtoȱbeȱmaskedȱinȱorderȱtoȱreȬ mainȱ capableȱ forȱ action.ȱ Consequently,ȱ forgetfulnessȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000:ȱ 147)ȱ apparentlyȱ representsȱ aȱ constitutiveȱ conditionȱ forȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ

162

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

theȱorganizationȱasȱaȱcommunicativeȱsystem.ȱInȱtheȱevolutionȱofȱorganiȬ zationsȱasȱsocialȱsystems,ȱonlyȱtheȱonesȱsurvivedȱwhichȱwereȱableȱtoȱfreeȱ theirȱ memorizingȱ capacitiesȱ fromȱ theȱ burdenȱ ofȱ theirȱ pastȱ decisionȱ proȬ cessesȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ remainȱ openȱ enoughȱ toȱ achieveȱ aȱ connectivityȱ toȱ folȬ lowȬupȱdecisionsȱ(cf.ȱNassehi,ȱ2005;ȱKnudsen,ȱ2006).ȱAȱfullȬblownȱawareȬ nessȱofȱitsȱpastȱinsteadȱwouldȱcontinuouslyȱchallengeȱtheȱorganization’sȱ striveȱforȱaȱcoherentȱidentity.ȱInstead,ȱtheȱorganizationȱappearsȱtoȱavoidȱ theȱriskȱnotȱtoȱbeȱcaughtȱinȱtheȱparadoxȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱandȱnotȱ toȱbeȱableȱtoȱdecideȱatȱallȱ–ȱwhichȱwouldȱmeanȱtoȱstopȱexisting.ȱ AsȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱdocumentedȱformsȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicaȬ tionȱ hasȱ shown,ȱ theȱ connectionȱ ofȱ projectsȱ toȱ theȱ overarchingȱ organizaȬ tionȱisȱnotȱachievedȱinȱcommunicationȱbutȱonlyȱbyȱorganizationalȱmemȬ bership.ȱPsychicȱsystemsȱcanȱbeȱmembersȱofȱtheȱoverarchingȱorganizationȱ andȱ temporarilyȱ alsoȱ ofȱ aȱ project.ȱ Theȱ involvementȱ ofȱ psychicȱ systemsȱ allowsȱforȱanȱexternalizationȱofȱmemoryȱfromȱtheȱprojectȱasȱaȱsocialȱsystemȱ toȱ theȱ humanȱ mindȱ asȱ aȱ psychicȱ system.ȱ Organizationalȱ membersȱ canȱ rememberȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ and,ȱ therefore,ȱ canȱ stimulateȱandȱirritateȱfutureȱprojectȱcommunicationȱprocessesȱwithȱreferȬ enceȱtoȱtheirȱownȱmemoriesȱ(e.g.,ȱ“AsȱfarȱasȱIȱcanȱremember,ȱinȱtheȱlastȱ projectȱ Iȱ participatedȱ in,ȱ weȱ usedȱ toȱ handleȱ thisȱ differently”).ȱ Withȱ reȬ spectȱ toȱ Seidlȱ (2006b),ȱ suchȱ processesȱ ofȱ memoryȱ externalizationȱ canȱ beȱ assumedȱ toȱ beȱ mediatedȱ byȱ organizationalȱ interactions.ȱ Whileȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ becomeȱ invisibilizedȱ onȱ theȱ organizaȬ tionalȱlevel,ȱtheyȱbecomeȱparticularlyȱrelevantȱinȱpersonalȱencountersȱofȱ organizationalȱmembersȱand,ȱthisȱway,ȱbecomeȱaccessibleȱagainȱinȱfutureȱ situationsȱofȱaȱsimilarȱkind.ȱ Evidently,ȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ areȱ successfulȱ inȱ achievingȱ autoȬ poiesisȱfromȱoneȱprojectȱtoȱanotherȱbyȱhelpȱofȱestablishedȱdecisionȱstrucȬ turesȱ andȱ theȱ organizationalȱ members.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ remainsȱ howȱ looseȱ formsȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ (cf.ȱ Ortonȱ &ȱ Weick,ȱ 1990)ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ projectȱ orȬ ganizationȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ establishȱ anȱ organizationalȱ identityȱ andȱ aȱ sharedȱ communicativeȱmemory,ȱifȱatȱall.ȱGivenȱaȱhighȱfluctuationȱofȱemployeesȱ inȱconsultingȱfirms,ȱitȱisȱremarkableȱthatȱtheȱprojectȱorganization’sȱautoȬ poiesisȱisȱstrongȱenoughȱtoȱsustainȱanȱorganizationalȱidentityȱasȱaȱwholeȱ

Discussionȱ

163ȱ

andȱdoesȱnotȱfragmentȱinȱitsȱveryȱpieces,ȱinȱprojectsȱasȱtemporaryȱorganiȬ zations.ȱȱ Toȱconclude,ȱtheȱempiricalȱstudyȱputsȱforthȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱproȬ jectȱorganizationsȱasȱephemeralȱstreamsȱofȱdecisionȱcommunicationȱor,ȱtoȱ phraseȱ itȱ withȱ Weick,ȱ asȱ streamsȱ ofȱ “organizing”ȱ (Weick,ȱ 1979),ȱ whichȱ manageȱ toȱ sustainȱ anȱ autopoieticȱ closureȱ ofȱ theirȱ decisionȱ processesȱ inȱ distinctionȱ toȱ theȱ environmentȱ forȱ aȱ limitedȱ time.ȱ Similarlyȱ toȱ theȱ autoȬ poieticȱclosureȱofȱpsychicȱsystemsȱandȱtheȱinvisibilityȱofȱtheirȱmostȱbasicȱ operations,ȱtheȱreproductionȱofȱthoughts,ȱtheȱproject’sȱdecisionȱprocessesȱ remainȱopaqueȱtoȱoutsideȱobservers,ȱbeȱtheyȱnonȬmembersȱofȱtheȱprojectȱ orȱ theȱ overarchingȱ organization.ȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation,ȱinȱthisȱsense,ȱappearȱtoȱconstituteȱanȱartifactualȱrepresenȬ tationȱofȱtheȱChineseȱwallsȱinȱplaceȱatȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱtoȱpreventȱaȱvisibiȬ lizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱacrossȱprojects.ȱ Overall,ȱtheȱdiscussionȱhadȱtoȱrelyȱonȱtheoreticalȱinferencesȱtoȱinterȬ pretȱ theȱ caseȱ study’sȱ results.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ framework’sȱ consistencyȱ neededȱ toȱ serveȱ asȱ anȱ instanceȱ forȱ controllingȱ theȱ appropriȬ atenessȱofȱinterpretations.ȱByȱlinkingȱtheȱempiricalȱresultsȱtoȱearlierȱtheoȬ reticalȱ considerations,ȱ aȱ newȱ understandingȱ ofȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ asȱ autopoieticȱsocialȱsystemsȱhasȱbeenȱgenerated.ȱWithȱthis,ȱtheȱstudyȱaimsȱ toȱcontributeȱtoȱaȱfurtherȱdifferentiationȱofȱorganizationȱstudiesȱbasedȱonȱ theȱTSSȱandȱtheȱCCOȱframeworks.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱcombinedȱtheoreticalȱ andȱempiricalȱanalysisȱhasȱyieldedȱnewȱinsightsȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱbutȱ itȱhasȱalsoȱilluminatedȱsomeȱofȱtheȱlimitationsȱinherentȱtoȱstudiesȱonȱorȬ ganizationsȱ whichȱ areȱ groundedȱ onȱ theȱ abstractȱ notionȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ asȱ communications.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ assumptionȱ isȱ appropriateȱ thatȱ organizationsȱ relyȱ onȱ aȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ theirȱ decisions,ȱ atȱ leastȱ theseȱ decisionsȱ wereȱ notȱ revealedȱ inȱ PowerPointȬbasedȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation,ȱ asȱ theȱ caseȱstudyȱhasȱshown.ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱtheȱstudyȱwasȱconstrainedȱinȱrealizȬ ingȱ itsȱ aimȱ toȱ empiricallyȱ validateȱ phenomenaȱ which,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ becameȱ relevantȱparticularlyȱdueȱtoȱtheirȱnonȬexistence.ȱ

164

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

5.3 AȱReȬReadingȱofȱtheȱStudyȱfromȱaȱPractitioner’sȱStanceȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ thisȱ study’sȱ primaryȱ targetȱ toȱ contributeȱ toȱ theȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ organizaȬ tionalȱcommunicationȱandȱcrossȬprojectȱlearningȱonȱaȱtheoreticalȱlevelȱbyȱ developingȱtheȱconceptȱofȱDCVȱasȱaȱnewȱissueȱrelevantȱtoȱbothȱfields.ȱInȱ itsȱtheoreticalȱfocus,ȱtheȱstudyȱcorrespondsȱwithȱNicolai’sȱestimationȱthat,ȱ theȱsocialȱsciencesȱdoȱnotȱmakeȱfullȱuseȱofȱtheirȱanalyticȱpotentialȱbyȱfolȬ lowingȱ aȱ misleadingȱ appliedȱ scienceȱ fictionȱ (Nicolai,ȱ 2004).ȱ Scientificȱ inȬ sights,ȱinstead,ȱrequireȱexactlyȱtheȱdemarcationȱbetweenȱtheoryȱandȱpracȬ ticeȱinȱorderȱtoȱallowȱforȱobservationsȱwhichȱavoidȱaȱfallȬbackȱintoȱfamilȬ iarȱterminologiesȱandȱcognitiveȱschemes.ȱAccordingly,ȱaȱclearȱdistinctionȱ onȱaȱterminologicalȱlevelȱbetweenȱtheoryȱandȱpracticeȱbecomesȱaȱfundaȬ mentalȱpreconditionȱforȱbeingȱableȱtoȱobserveȱblindȱspotsȱhiddenȱtoȱpracȬ titionersȱthemselves.ȱȱ TheȱclaimȱforȱaȱtheoryȬdrivenȱsocialȱscience,ȱhowever,ȱdoesȱnotȱdenyȱ thatȱitȱisȱofȱcourseȱpossibleȱtoȱreȬreadȱtheȱfindingsȱofȱthisȱresearchȱstudyȱ fromȱaȱpractitioner’sȱstanceȱandȱtoȱinterpretȱthemȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱpractiȬ calȱ experiences.ȱ Therefore,ȱ thisȱ chapterȱ attemptsȱ toȱ transcendȱ theȱ mereȱ academicȱdescriptionȱandȱtoȱreflectȱonȱtheȱresultsȱfromȱaȱpracticalȱpointȱofȱ view.ȱAsȱaȱsourceȱofȱreferenceȱforȱthisȱinterpretation,ȱIȱdrawȱonȱinformalȱ talksȱ withȱ practitionersȱ inȱ monthlyȱ tablesȱ ofȱ theȱ Germanȱ Societyȱ ofȱ Knowledgeȱ Managementȱ (Gesellschaftȱ fürȱ Wissensmanagement;ȱ GfWM)ȱ asȱ wellȱasȱonȱownȱpracticalȱworkȱexperienceȱinȱconsultingȱfirms.ȱItȱisȱimporȬ tantȱtoȱkeepȱinȱmindȱthatȱthisȱdescriptionȱisȱoneȱofȱseveralȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱ contingentȱ waysȱ ofȱ howȱ thisȱ study’sȱ findingsȱ canȱ beȱ interpretedȱ byȱ aȱ practitionerȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱandȱCPL.ȱ TheȱrareȱexamplesȱidentifiedȱinȱtheȱstudyȱwhereȱtheȱPowerPointȱpreȬ sentations’ȱ typicalȱ narrativeȱ isȱ modifiedȱ andȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ madeȱvisibleȱallowsȱtoȱderiveȱsomeȱpracticalȱsuggestions:ȱInȱtheseȱdocuȬ ments,ȱtheȱlistingȱofȱalternativesȱinherentȱtoȱpastȱdecisionsȱwasȱguidedȱbyȱ questionsȱ likeȱ “optionsȱ consideredȱ andȱ notȱ pursued”,ȱ forȱ instance.ȱ AsȬ sumingȱ thatȱ theȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ isȱ usefulȱ fromȱ aȱ CPLȱperspectiveȱ(cf.ȱAyasȱ&ȱZeniuk,ȱ2001;ȱNewell,ȱ2004)ȱandȱthatȱitȱcanȱ contributeȱ toȱ enhanceȱ theȱ efficiencyȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱ

ȱReȬReadingȱfromȱaȱPractitioner’sȱStanceȱ

165ȱ

processes,ȱ theseȱ documentsȱ pointȱ toȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ valuableȱ toȱ inȬ corporateȱbackstageȱmodesȱofȱcommunicationȱintoȱPowerPoint.ȱȱ Technically,ȱ theseȱ possibilitiesȱ alreadyȱ exist,ȱ e.g.,ȱ theȱ PowerPointȬ inherentȱfunctionȱtoȱcreateȱaȱcommentedȱpresentationȱbyȱusageȱofȱ“postȬitȱ notes”ȱorȱbyȱaddingȱaudioȱcommentsȱtoȱtheȱpresentationȱdocument,ȱe.g.,ȱ byȱhelpȱofȱtheȱsoftwareȱAdobeȱAcrobatȱConnect.56ȱDrawingȱonȱownȱpracȬ ticalȱexperience,ȱitȱisȱknownȱtoȱmeȱthatȱotherȱconsultingȱfirmsȱofȱaȱcompaȬ rableȱ sizeȱ alreadyȱ workȱ withȱ aȱ secondȱ contentȱ layerȱ ofȱ thisȱ kindȱ inȱ theȱ creationȱofȱPowerPointȬbasedȱprojectȱdocuments.ȱForȱthisȱpurpose,ȱmacroȱ functionsȱareȱaddedȱtoȱtheȱsoftwareȱwhichȱallowsȱtoȱeasilyȱcreateȱdigitalȱ ‘postȬitȱstickers’.ȱTheseȱstickersȱusuallyȱcontainȱremarksȱbyȱtheȱdocumentȱ creatorsȱ whichȱ areȱ directedȱ eitherȱ towardsȱ theirȱ colleaguesȱ withinȱ theȱ projectȱorȱtoȱtheȱdesignȱstaffȱwhoȱsupportsȱthemȱinȱtheȱcreationȱofȱpresenȬ tationsȱ–ȱandȱareȱheldȱinȱtwoȱdifferentȱcolors,ȱaccordingly.ȱAȱsecondȱconȬ tentȱ layerȱ likeȱ thisȱ canȱ beȱ interpretedȱ asȱ representingȱ whatȱ Robichaud,ȱ Girouxȱ andȱ Taylorȱ callȱ theȱ metanarrativeȱ (Robichaud,ȱ Girouxȱ &ȱ Taylor,ȱ 2004)ȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communication.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ secondȱ contentȱ layerȱincorporatesȱaȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentationȱitselfȱwhichȱ isȱonlyȱvisibleȱtoȱcolleaguesȱbutȱnotȱtoȱtheȱclient.ȱHowever,ȱaȱgenreȱofȱthisȱ kindȱ hasȱ notȱ beenȱ establishedȱ inȱ theȱ projectȱ documentationȱ practicesȱ ofȱ theȱcaseȱcompanyȱthusȱfar.ȱȱ Anȱ additionalȱ practicalȱ ideaȱ canȱ beȱ derivedȱ fromȱ thisȱ study’sȱ findȬ ingsȱbyȱmakingȱuseȱofȱsingleȱprojectȱdatabasesȱinsteadȱofȱcompanyȬwideȱ CPLȱdatabases.ȱThisȱideaȱinvolvesȱtoȱrejectȱanyȱadditionalȱeffortsȱofȱproȬ jectȱ documentationȱ butȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ project’sȱ communicationȱ processesȱ electronicallyȱ accessibleȱ acrossȱ theȱ companyȱ afterȱ theȱ projectȱ hasȱ beenȱ finalized.ȱAȱrealizationȱofȱthisȱideaȱrequiresȱtoȱestablishȱanȱelectronicȱplatȬ formȱ suitableȱ forȱ thisȱ purpose,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ byȱ drawingȱ onȱ theȱ Wikiȱ technology.ȱWikisȱareȱanȱincreasinglyȱpopularȱWebȱapplication,ȱasȱexemȬ plifiedȱbyȱtheȱWikipediaȱWebȱEncyclopedia.ȱAmongȱitsȱmainȱfeatures,ȱtheȱ softwareȱenablesȱitsȱusersȱtoȱeditȱeachȱentryȱtoȱtheȱdatabase.ȱTheȱhistoryȱ ofȱ changesȱ isȱ savedȱ inȱ aȱ separateȱ historyȱ fileȱ whichȱ furthermoreȱ allowsȱ 56ȱȱ TheȱsoftwareȱwasȱformerlyȱknownȱasȱMacromediaȱBreeze.ȱAdobeȱAcrobatȱConnect®ȱisȱ aȱregisteredȱtrademarkȱofȱAdobeȱSystems,ȱInc.,ȱSanȱJose/CA.ȱȱ

166

EmpiricalȱAnalysisȱ

ȱ

forȱaȱvisibilityȱofȱanȱentry’sȱdevelopmentȱprocessȱoverȱtimeȱ(cf.ȱCunningȬ hamȱ &ȱ Leuf,ȱ 2001;ȱ Neus,ȱ 2001)ȱ and,ȱ hence,ȱ createȱ specialȱ conditionsȱ forȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ outȱ ofȱ communication.ȱ Inȱ theȱ aftermathȱ ofȱprojects,ȱaȱplatformȱlikeȱthisȱallowsȱforȱfullȱtextȱsearchesȱsoȱthatȱdeciȬ sionȱprocessesȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱbecomeȱatȱleastȱpartlyȱobservableȱinȱ retrospect.ȱȱ However,ȱifȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱexistingȱcaseȱstudy,ȱaȱWikiȬbasedȱCPLȱsoȬ lutionȱ wouldȱ implyȱ moreȱ effortsȱ thanȱ theȱ costȬsavingȱ practiceȱ toȱ reȬuseȱ PowerPointȱpresentationsȱwhichȱhadȱbeenȱcreatedȱinȱtheȱprojectȱprocessȱ anyway.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ aȱ solutionȱ ofȱ thisȱ kindȱ wouldȱ createȱ higherȱ deȬ mandsȱ forȱ anȱ openȱ andȱ trustfulȱ organizationalȱ cultureȱ whichȱ couldȱ beȱ hardȱ toȱ establishȱ inȱ aȱ frontstageȱ worldȱ likeȱ theȱ consultingȱ business.ȱ Anȱ increasedȱlikelihoodȱtoȱachieveȱthisȱformȱofȱcommunicativeȱcultureȱcanȱbeȱ groundedȱ onȱ theȱ practicalȱ experienceȱ thatȱ frontstageȱ featuresȱ canȱ beȱ diȬ minishedȱinȱaȱcommunicativeȱsettingȱwhichȱstartsȱfromȱscratchȱwithȱopenȱ andȱtransparentȱexchangeȱpracticesȱandȱwhereȱnewȱorganizationalȱmemȬ bersȱ canȱ adaptȱ toȱ theseȱ existingȱ practicesȱ (Schoeneborn,ȱ 2004:ȱ 152).ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱeffortsȱareȱpresumedȱtoȱbeȱoutweighedȱbyȱefficiencyȱgainsȱ fromȱanȱenhancedȱawarenessȱofȱpastȱprojectȱprocesses.ȱ Inȱaȱratherȱpessimisticȱinterpretation,ȱtheȱfindingsȱthatȱdecisionȱconȬ tingencyȱremainsȱlargelyȱinvisibleȱinȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentationȱpracticesȱ ofȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱputȱintoȱquestionȱwhetherȱtheȱeffortsȱspentȱforȱestabȬ lishingȱandȱmaintainingȱtheȱCPLȱdatabasesȱcanȱbeȱoutweighedȱbyȱitsȱoutȬ comesȱ atȱ all.ȱ Ifȱ onlyȱ projectȱ documentsȱ areȱ submittedȱ toȱ theȱ databasesȱ whichȱ invisibilizeȱ decisionȱ processesȱ andȱ theȱ knowledgeableȱ aspectsȱ inȬ herentȱtoȱthem,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱdoubtedȱthatȱITȱsolutionsȱdesignedȱasȱdocumentȱ repositoriesȱareȱtheȱappropriateȱmeansȱtoȱleverageȱlearningȱeffectsȱacrossȱ projects.ȱ Instead,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ fruitfulȱ toȱ strengthenȱ verbalȱ modesȱ ofȱ knowledgeȬorientedȱ communicationȱ withinȱ theȱ companyȱ byȱ promotingȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ practicesȱ whichȱ transcendȱ existingȱ personalȱ networks.ȱTheȱcommunitiesȬofȬpracticeȱconceptȱ(Brownȱ&ȱDuguid,ȱ1991;ȱ Wengerȱ&ȱLave,ȱ1991)ȱsuggestsȱtoȱfosterȱthatȱorganizationalȱmembersȱgetȱ inȱdirectȱtouchȱwithȱregardsȱtoȱtopicsȱtheyȱareȱinterestedȱinȱbutȱindependȬ entȱ fromȱ divisionalȱ affiliationsȱ orȱ existingȱ personalȱ networks.ȱ Thisȱ way,ȱ

ȱReȬReadingȱfromȱaȱPractitioner’sȱStanceȱ

167ȱ

theȱ communitiesȬofȬpracticeȱ approachȱ aimsȱ toȱ facilitateȱ knowledgeȬ orientedȱinteractions,ȱeitherȱelectronicallyȱ(e.g.,ȱbyȱestablishingȱforumsȱorȱ mailingȱlistsȱinȱtheȱcorporateȱIntranet)ȱorȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱ(e.g.,ȱbyȱorganizingȱ regularȱ gatheringsȱ inȱ person).ȱ However,ȱ communicativeȱ restrictionsȱ toȱ organizationalȱmembers’ȱengagementȱinȱknowledgeȱexchangeȱagainȱneedȱ toȱ beȱ consideredȱ andȱ additionalȱ costsȱ createdȱ byȱ theseȱ solutionsȱ (espeȬ ciallyȱtheȱnonȬelectronicȱones)ȱneedȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱintoȱaccount.ȱ Inȱconclusion,ȱtheȱstudyȱcanȱbeȱinterpretedȱbyȱpractitionersȱasȱaȱsugȬ gestionȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ communicativeȱ aspectsȱ (cf.ȱ Borgattiȱ &ȱ Foster,ȱ 2003)ȱofȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱandȱCPLȱinȱorganizations.ȱThisȱfavoraȬ blyȱcomparesȱtoȱexistingȱstudiesȱwhichȱpostulateȱanȱintegratedȱknowledgeȱ communicationȱmanagementȱ(e.g.,ȱReinhardtȱ&ȱEppler,ȱ2004;ȱSchoeneborn,ȱ 2006).ȱ Theirȱ sharedȱ objectiveȱ isȱ toȱ overcomeȱ barriersȱ toȱ knowledgeȬ orientedȱ communicationȱ processesȱ inȱ organizations.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ theȱ invisibilityȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱcanȱbeȱinterpretedȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱ fundamentalȱ obstaclesȱ toȱ CPLȱ processesȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ learningȬfromȬ failureȱ idea.ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱ expectationsȱ regardingȱ theȱ potentialȱ achievementsȱ byȱ implementingȱ processesȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ andȱCPLȱinȱorganizationsȱareȱsuggestedȱtoȱbeȱloweredȱaccordingly.ȱ

6 ConclusionȱandȱOutlookȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 6.1 ConcludingȱRemarksȱ ȱ Thisȱ studyȱ hasȱ investigatedȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ theȱ projectȱdocumentationȱpracticesȱofȱaȱmultiȬnationalȱconsultingȱfirm.ȱTheȱ theoreticalȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ hasȱ beenȱnewlyȱdevelopedȱinȱthisȱstudy.ȱTheȱissue’sȱrelevanceȱisȱtwofold:ȱInȱ theoreticalȱterms,ȱrecentȱadvancementsȱinȱbothȱorganizationalȱcommuniȬ cationȱstudiesȱ(Taylorȱ&ȱvanȱEvery,ȱ2000;ȱMcPheeȱ&ȱZaug,ȱ2000;ȱCoorenȱ &ȱ Fairhurst,ȱ forthcoming)ȱ andȱ socialȱ systemsȱ theoryȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 2000;ȱ Nassehi,ȱ 2005;ȱ Seidl,ȱ 2006b)ȱ graspȱ organizationsȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ asȱ communicativeȱ phenomena.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ view,ȱ organizationsȱ reȬ produceȱthemselvesȱbyȱaȱcontinuousȱreproductionȱofȱdecisionȱcommuniȬ cation.ȱ Consequently,ȱ theȱ organization’sȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ itsȱ ownȱ decisionȱ processesȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱbecomesȱaȱbasicȱpreconditionȱforȱaccomȬ plishingȱ connectivityȱ betweenȱ communicativeȱ episodesȱ overȱ time.ȱ Inȱ practicalȱ terms,ȱ recentȱ advancementsȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ CPLȱ haveȱ putȱ forthȱ theȱ learningȱ valueȱ fromȱ failureȱ ratherȱ thanȱ successȱ (Edmondson,ȱ 1996;ȱ Starbuckȱ &ȱ Baumard,ȱ 2005;ȱ Zhaoȱ &ȱ Olivera,ȱ 2006).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ view,ȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ canȱ avoidȱ aȱ repetitiveȱ reȬinventionȱ ofȱ theȱ wheelȱinȱnewȱprojectsȱbyȱbecomingȱawareȱofȱmistakesȱmadeȱandȱalternaȬ tivesȱ consideredȱ inȱ theȱ past.ȱ Consequently,ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ contingencyȱ ofȱ pastȱ decisionȱprocesses,ȱdefinedȱasȱalternativesȱinherentȱtoȱdecisions,ȱwhichȱisȱ presumedȱ toȱ embedȱ theȱ highestȱ learningȱ value.ȱ Therefore,ȱ itsȱ visibilizaȬ tionȱbecomesȱaȱparticularȱchallengeȱforȱCPLȱprocessesȱinȱprojectȱorganiȬ zations.ȱ Inȱtheȱtheoreticalȱpartȱofȱtheȱanalysis,ȱtheȱissueȱofȱDCVȱhasȱbeenȱapȬ proachedȱinȱaȱtwofoldȱprocedureȱwhichȱleanedȱtowardsȱtheȱideaȱtoȱgraspȱ

170

ConclusionȱandȱOutlookȱ

ȱ

organizationsȱasȱcommunications.ȱByȱexaminingȱbothȱtheȱorganizationalȱ andȱ theȱ communicationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ DCV,ȱ theȱ analysisȱ proceededȱ fromȱ aȱ generalȱ toȱ aȱ moreȱ concreteȱ level.ȱ Onȱ theȱ organizationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ orȬ ganizationȬcommunicationȱ duality,ȱ theȱ researchȱ issueȱ wasȱ examinedȱ byȱ relatingȱitȱtoȱorganizationsȱinȱgeneralȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱprojectȱorganizationsȱ andȱtoȱconsultingȱfirms,ȱinȱparticular.ȱOnȱtheȱcommunicationalȱsideȱofȱtheȱ duality,ȱtheȱresearchȱissueȱwasȱexaminedȱbyȱrelatingȱitȱtoȱcommunicationȱ inȱ generalȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ toȱ textualȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ andȱ toȱ PowerPointȱ presentations,ȱ inȱ particular.ȱ Byȱ meansȱ ofȱ this,ȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ shownȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ twoȱ opposingȱ powersȱ inȱ projectȱ organizations:ȱ oneȱ powerȱ whichȱ enforcesȱ aȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ allowȱ forȱ aȱ connectivityȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ toȱ pastȱ decisions,ȱ andȱ anotherȱ oneȱ whichȱenforcesȱanȱinvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱorderȱtoȱassureȱ theȱorganization’sȱcapabilityȱforȱaction.ȱ Thisȱtheoreticalȱdistinctionȱhasȱbeenȱusedȱinȱtheȱempiricalȱanalysisȱofȱ projectȱdocumentationȱpracticesȱatȱtheȱcaseȱorganization,ȱaȱmultiȬnationalȱ businessȱconsultingȱfirm.ȱTheȱcaseȱstudyȱapproachȱwasȱrealizedȱinȱformȱ ofȱ aȱ triangulatedȱ researchȱ designȱ whichȱ combinedȱ aȱ documentȱ analysisȱ withȱ qualitativeȱ interviews.ȱ Theȱ empiricalȱ studyȱ yieldedȱ thatȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ–ȱexceptȱfromȱaȱsmallȱrangeȱofȱdocumentsȱ–ȱtendsȱtoȱremainȱ invisibleȱinȱtheȱtextualȱdocumentsȱinȱuseȱatȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱforȱtheȱpurȬ poseȱofȱCPL.ȱEvenȱinȱdocumentȱdatabasesȱestablishedȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱ sharingȱ experiencesȱ acrossȱ projects,ȱ andȱ evenȱ inȱ soȬcalledȱ “lessonsȱ learned”ȱ documents,ȱ aȱ criticalȱ reflectionȱ onȱ projectsȱ andȱ decisionȱ proȬ cessesȱinherentȱtoȱthemȱisȱhardlyȱeverȱrealized.ȱ Theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ appearedȱ toȱ playȱ aȱ symptomaticȱroleȱinȱthisȱcontext.ȱOriginallyȱdesignedȱforȱtheȱcreationȱofȱ presentationsȱtoȱbeȱheldȱinȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱsituations,ȱitsȱmainȱgenreȱcharacȬ teristicsȱ remainȱ stableȱ evenȱ ifȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ differingȱ purposeȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱTheȱempiricalȱanalysisȱhasȱshownȱthatȱmostȱPowerPointȱ presentationsȱ containȱ informationȱ onȱ theȱ project’sȱ mainȱ resultsȱ andȱ achievementsȱbutȱtheyȱusuallyȱdoȱnotȱcommitȱtoȱaȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱproȬ jectȱprocess,ȱmistakesȱmade,ȱorȱalternativesȱconsidered.ȱȱ

ȱConcludingȱRemarksȱ

171ȱ

Seenȱ fromȱ theȱ communicationalȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ coin,ȱ theȱ studyȱ contribȬ utesȱ toȱ recentȱ discussionsȱ onȱ theȱ genreȱ conflictȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ presentaȬ tionsȱ inȱ projectȱ documentationȱ (cf.ȱ Yatesȱ andȱ Orlikowski,ȱ forthcoming).ȱ TheȱstudyȱshedsȱnewȱlightȱonȱthisȱdiscussionȱinȱgroundingȱitsȱconsideraȬ tionsȱonȱtheȱconstitutiveȱroleȱofȱcommunicationȱforȱorganizationsȱandȱbyȱ relatingȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ PowerPointȱ inȱ projectȱ documentationȱ toȱ theȱ organizationalȱ consequencesȱ toȱ becomeȱ awareȱ ofȱ itsȱ ownȱ decisionȱ proȬ cesses.ȱ Givenȱ thatȱ inȱ mostȱ cases,ȱ theȱ sameȱ PowerPointȱ presentationsȱ whichȱwereȱusedȱinȱclientȱmeetings,ȱwereȱalsoȱsubmittedȱtoȱtheȱCPLȱdaȬ tabases,ȱitȱappearsȱthatȱexternalȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱhaveȱbeenȱmirȬ roredȱ alsoȱ toȱ theȱ insideȱ ofȱ theȱ organization.ȱ This,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ isȱ problemaȬ tizedȱfromȱaȱCPLȱperspectiveȱwhichȱappreciatesȱtheȱlearningȱvalueȱfromȱ failureȱ andȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ perilsȱ ofȱ aȱ mutualȱ (andȱ potentiallyȱ misleadȬ ing)ȱassuranceȱofȱexcellenceȱamongȱcompanyȱmembers.ȱ Seenȱ fromȱ theȱ organizationalȱsideȱ ofȱ theȱ coin,ȱ theȱ studyȱ contributesȱ toȱrecentȱdiscussionsȱonȱtheȱconstitutiveȱconditionsȱforȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱ organizationsȱ outȱ ofȱ communicationȱ (McPheeȱ &ȱ Zaug,ȱ 2000;ȱ Taylor,ȱ 2000a;ȱ Coorenȱ &ȱ Fairhurst,ȱ forthcoming).ȱ Inȱ groundingȱ theȱ studyȱ inȱ theȱ TSSȱframeworkȱ(Luhmann,ȱ1984;ȱ2000),ȱitȱisȱsuggestedȱtoȱgraspȱtheȱcomȬ municationȱofȱdecisionsȱasȱtheȱconstitutiveȱconditionȱforȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱ organizations.ȱ Theȱ studyȱ yieldsȱ thatȱ theȱ communicationȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ bringsȱforthȱaȱconflictȱbetweenȱtheȱneedȱtoȱvisibilizeȱdecisionȱcontingenȬ ciesȱinȱorderȱtoȱflagȱoutȱdecisionsȱasȱdecisionsȱandȱtheȱneedȱtoȱinvisibilizeȱ decisionȱcontingenciesȱinȱorderȱtoȱavoidȱaȱparalysisȱofȱtheȱorganizationȱbyȱ itsȱownȱpast.ȱHence,ȱaȱforgetfulnessȱofȱpastȱdecisionȱprocessesȱlowersȱtheȱ likelihoodȱthatȱtheȱorganizationȱbecomesȱblockedȱbyȱanȱawarenessȱofȱitsȱ ownȱinconsistencies.ȱ Theȱconsequencesȱofȱtheseȱfindingsȱareȱtwofold:ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱoneȱ couldȱargueȱthatȱanȱopaquenessȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱprojectȱdocuȬ mentationȱisȱnoȱsurpriseȱgivenȱtheȱreluctanceȱofȱemployeesȱtoȱrevealȱtheȱ ambiguityȱofȱtheirȱworkȱandȱtoȱshowȱanyȱvulnerabilityȱinȱtextualȱformsȱofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱ expectationsȱ inȱ textualȱ formsȱ ofȱ documentationȱasȱaȱmeansȱtoȱprovideȱvaluableȱinformationȱonȱpastȱproȬ jectsȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingencyȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ lowered.ȱ Moreover,ȱ itȱ

172

ConclusionȱandȱOutlookȱ

ȱ

canȱ beȱ derivedȱ thatȱ existingȱ effortsȱ ofȱ promotingȱ textualȱ formsȱ ofȱ CPLȱ shouldȱbeȱreducedȱandȱverbalȱformsȱofȱcommunicationȱamongȱorganizaȬ tionalȱmembersȱshouldȱbeȱfosteredȱinstead.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱoneȱcouldȱ argueȱthatȱaȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingenciesȱinȱprojectȱdocumentaȬ tionȱisȱpossibleȱinȱprincipleȱbutȱisȱconstrainedȱbyȱestablishedȱcommunicaȬ tiveȱ practices,ȱ asȱ exemplifiedȱ byȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ presentationȱ genre’sȱ usageȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentation.ȱ Inȱ consequence,ȱ pracȬ ticesȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱmodifiedȱwithȱaȱspecialȱ emphasisȱonȱeffortsȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱcontingencyȱinherentȱtoȱprojectȱprocessesȱ andȱtheirȱcontingencyȱvisible.ȱInȱaȱreȬreadingȱofȱthisȱstudyȱresultsȱfromȱaȱ practitioner’sȱ stance,ȱ someȱ ideasȱ haveȱ beenȱ generatedȱ howȱ suchȱ ideasȱ couldȱbeȱrealizedȱinȱpractice,ȱforȱexample,ȱbyȱintroducingȱaȱsecondȱconȬ tentȱlayerȱtoȱPowerPointȱ(e.g.,ȱbyȱusageȱofȱtheȱsoftware’sȱpostȬitȱfunction)ȱ inȱwhichȱdecisionȱcontingenciesȱareȱmadeȱvisibleȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱCPL.ȱ Takenȱ together,ȱ theȱ studyȱ allowsȱ toȱ shedȱ newȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ problemȱ situationȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱintroductionȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ1.1).ȱAsȱtheȱstudyȱhasȱ shown,ȱtheȱmostȱtypicalȱtextualȱdocumentȱforȱanȱexpertiseȬseekingȱnoviceȱ toȱ makeȱ senseȱ ofȱ pastȱ projectsȱ isȱ aȱ PowerPointȱ presentation.ȱ Inȱ theȱ caseȱ company,ȱtheseȱprojectȱdocuments,ȱstoredȱinȱCPLȱdatabases,ȱrepresentedȱ inȱ frequentȱ casesȱ theȱ onlyȱ communicativeȱ meansȱ toȱ getȱ anȱ ideaȱ ofȱ pastȱ projectȱ processesȱ andȱ theirȱ contingency.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ alsoȱ becauseȱ itȱ wasȱ imȬ possibleȱtoȱgetȱholdȱofȱcolleaguesȱanymoreȱwhoȱhadȱconductedȱaȱsimilarȱ projectȱinȱtheȱpastȱasȱtheyȱhadȱleftȱtheȱcompanyȱalready.ȱThus,ȱtheȱPowerȬ Pointȱ presentationsȱ hardlyȱ containedȱ anyȱ visibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ conȬ tingencies.ȱInstead,ȱtheȱmostȱcommonȱtypeȱofȱdocumentsȱwereȱ“oneȬpageȱ citation”ȱ documentsȱ whichȱ exclusivelyȱ concentratedȱ onȱ presentingȱ theȱ project’sȱ achievementsȱ andȱ maskedȱ allȱ potentialȱ ambiguities,ȱ doubts,ȱ orȱ sideȱpathsȱinherentȱtoȱtheȱprojectȱprocessȱinstead.ȱAlternativesȱthatȱwereȱ consideredȱinȱtheȱprojectȱprocessȱwereȱnotȱdisclosedȱinȱorderȱtoȱmaintainȱ theȱimpressionȱofȱaȱconsistentȱandȱrationalȱprojectȱprocess.ȱSeenȱfromȱtheȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ expertiseȬseekingȱ novice,ȱ theseȱ documentsȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ estimatedȱ asȱ deficitaryȱ forȱ someoneȱ whoȱ isȱ interestedȱ toȱ learnȱ notȱ onlyȱ fromȱ previousȱ successȱ storiesȱ butȱ alsoȱ fromȱ mistakesȱ madeȱ andȱalternaȬ tivesȱconsideredȱinȱtheȱpast.ȱ

OutlookȱtoȱFutureȱResearchȱ

173ȱ

6.2 OutlookȱtoȱFutureȱResearchȱ ȱ Theȱstudy’sȱfindingsȱcanȱserveȱasȱaȱstartingȱpointȱforȱfutureȱresearchȱbaȬ sedȱonȱtheȱnotionȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunications.ȱThisȱpresentationȱ ofȱsuggestionsȱforȱfollowȬupȱresearchȱisȱstructuredȱbyȱhighlightingȱpotenȬ tialȱpointsȱofȱvariationȱ–ȱsuchȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱstudyȱwhichȱallowȱforȱcomȬ parativeȱ orȱ contrastingȱ researchȱ studies.ȱ Theȱ outlineȱ ofȱ variationȱ pointsȱ leadsȱ overȱ toȱ aȱ secondȱ typeȱ ofȱ researchȱ suggestionsȱ onȱ howȱ theȱ study’sȱ resultsȱ canȱ shedȱ newȱ lightȱ onȱ existingȱ discussionsȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communicationȱstudies.ȱ TheȱstudyȱofȱDCVȱinȱprojectȱorganizationsȱcanȱbeȱexpanded,ȱforȱinȬ stance,ȱbyȱincorporatingȱadditionalȱcaseȱorganizationsȱinȱformȱofȱaȱcomȬ parativeȱanalysis.ȱAnȱexpansionȱlikeȱthisȱwouldȱallowȱforȱaȱreconsideraȬ tionȱofȱtheȱparticularȱcase’sȱsingularityȱinvestigatedȱinȱthisȱstudyȱandȱforȱ derivingȱ conclusionsȱ onȱ theȱ interrelationsȱ betweenȱ organizationalȱ conȬ textsȱandȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱpractice.ȱMoreover,ȱ extremeȱ casesȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ couldȱ beȱ chosenȱ forȱ anȱ analysisȱ whereȱ DCVȱ isȱ particularlyȱ atȱ stake,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ inȱ organizationsȱ ofȱ highȱ riskȱ industriesȱ(i.e.,ȱwhereȱanȱinvisibilizationȱofȱmistakesȱmadeȱcanȱhaveȱfatalȱ consequences),ȱorȱinȱorganizationsȱwithȱanȱespeciallyȱhighȱfluctuationȱofȱ employeesȱ(i.e.,ȱwhereȱtheȱorganizationȱcanȱhardlyȱrelyȱonȱtheȱexternaliȬ zationȱofȱitsȱmemoryȱtoȱindividuals).ȱȱ Anotherȱ potentiallyȱ fruitfulȱ pointȱ ofȱ variationȱ forȱ furtherȱ researchȱ couldȱbeȱtoȱswitchȱtheȱfocusȱfromȱaȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱ toȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ invisibilizationȱ inȱ placeȱ atȱ projectȱ organizations.ȱ Aȱ focusȱ likeȱthisȱwouldȱmeanȱtoȱstriveȱforȱuncoveringȱ“façadeȱcreationȱstrategies”ȱ (Starbuck,ȱ 1982:ȱ 9f.;ȱ Cunha,ȱ 2006:ȱ 213ff.)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ “avoidȬ ance,ȱ discretionȱ andȱ overlooking”ȱ (Meyerȱ &ȱ Rowan,ȱ 1977:ȱ358).ȱTheȱ miȬ cropoliticalȱsideȱofȱsuchȱstrategiesȱ(Ortmannȱ&ȱSalzman,ȱ2002),ȱhowever,ȱ wouldȱ demandȱ toȱ applyȱ participantȱ observationsȱ inȱ aȱ caseȱ organizationȱ forȱ aȱ longerȱ time,ȱ e.g.,ȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ quasiȬethnographicȱ fieldȱ study.ȱ FurȬ therȱresearchȱprojectsȱstartingȱfromȱthisȱpointȱcouldȱfocusȱonȱanȱinȬdepthȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ tradeȬoffȱ betweenȱ visibilizationȱandȱ invisibilizationȱ ofȱ decisionȱcontingencyȱinȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunication.ȱ

174

ConclusionȱandȱOutlookȱ

ȱ

TheȱempiricalȱfindingsȱthatȱtheȱPowerPointȱgenre’sȱmainȱcharacterisȬ ticsȱremainȱmostlyȱstableȱinȱitsȱfocusȱonȱaȱcontextȬreducedȱandȱconsistentȱ storyline,ȱevenȱifȱappliedȱforȱtheȱdifferingȱpurposeȱofȱprojectȱdocumentaȬ tion,ȱpointȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱwhetherȱgenresȱonlyȱemergeȱspontaneouslyȱinȱ theȱevolutionȱofȱcommunicativeȱpractices,ȱorȱifȱtheyȱcanȱbeȱcreatedȱintenȬ tionally.ȱAȱfurtherȱinvestigationȱofȱthisȱquestionȱwouldȱrequireȱtoȱexamȬ ineȱsituationsȱwhereȱnewȱgenresȱofȱprojectȱdocumentationȱareȱtriedȱtoȱbeȱ newlyȱ establishedȱ inȱ anȱ organization.ȱ Inȱ termsȱ ofȱ methodology,ȱ furtherȱ researchȱonȱthisȱissueȱcouldȱdrawȱonȱtheȱactionȱresearchȱapproachȱ(BaskerȬ villeȱ&ȱWoodȬHarper,ȱ1996).ȱ Onȱ aȱ practiceȱ level,ȱ theȱ studyȱ hasȱ yieldedȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ organizaȬ tionalȱandȱcommunicationalȱconstraintsȱcanȱinhibitȱattemptsȱtoȱintentionȬ allyȱ visibilizeȱ decisionȱ processes,ȱ alternativesȱ considered,ȱ andȱ mistakesȱ made.ȱ Aȱ contingencyȬcenteredȱ CPLȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ takeȱ theseȱ existingȱ tendenciesȱ toȱ establishȱ Chineseȱ wallsȱ ofȱ opaquenessȱ acrossȱ theȱ organizaȬ tionȱ intoȱ account.ȱ Thisȱ canȱ beȱ realized,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ byȱ diminishingȱ theȱ frontstageȱ characterȱ ofȱ companyȬwideȱ databasesȱ whereȱ theȱ sharingȱ ofȱ projectȱ experiencesȱ alsoȱ becomesȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ selfȬrevelationȱ andȱ vulnerȬ ability.ȱInȱaȱreȬreadingȱofȱtheȱresultsȱfromȱaȱpractitioner’sȱstance,ȱfurtherȱ suggestionsȱhaveȱ beenȱ developedȱ onȱ howȱ aȱ secondȱcontentȱ layerȱ addedȱ toȱtheȱmainȱnarrativeȱofȱPowerPointȱpresentation’sȱcouldȱindeedȱfacilitateȱ theȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingency.ȱ Inȱgeneral,ȱtheȱstudyȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱsuperiorityȱofȱverbalȱmodesȱoverȱ textualȱmodesȱofȱcommunicationȱespeciallyȱwhenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱforgetȬ tingȱ ofȱ pastȱ decisions,ȱ toȱ openȱ upȱ freeȱ capacitiesȱ forȱ futureȱ decisions,ȱ toȱ avoidȱ aȱ lockȬinȱ ofȱ subȬoptimalȱ practices,ȱ and,ȱ finally,ȱ toȱ considerȱ theseȱ insightsȱ inȱ futureȱ studiesȱ onȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ andȱ CPL.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱtheȱstudyȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱnecessityȱofȱanȱintegratedȱknowledgeȱcomȬ municationȱmanagementȱ(Reinhardtȱ&ȱEppler,ȱ2004;ȱSchoeneborn,ȱ2006)ȱtoȱ transcendȱ existingȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ approachesȱ whichȱ concenȬ trateȱonȱITȱdatabaseȱsolutionsȱandȱtextualȱdocumentsȱinȱtheȱaimȱtoȱ“capȬ ture”ȱandȱ“harvest”ȱknowledgeȱfromȱprojectsȱandȱwhichȱfailȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱ tacitȱandȱsystemȬboundȱcharacterȱknowledgeȱintoȱaccount.ȱȱ ȱ

SelfȬReflectionȱ

175ȱ

6.3 AȱSelfȬReflectionȱonȱtheȱLimitationsȱandȱContingenciesȱofȱThisȱ Studyȱ ȱ TheȱclaimȱforȱaȱvisibilizationȱofȱdecisionȱcontingencyȱinȱprojectȱdocumenȬ tationȱ wouldȱ beȱ inconsequentȱ ifȱ notȱ appliedȱ toȱ thisȱ studyȱ inȱ aȱ selfȬ referentialȱ way.ȱ Inȱ itsȱ universalisticȱ claim,ȱ theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ (Luhmann,ȱ 1984)ȱ representsȱ aȱ selfȬreferentialȱ theoreticalȱ framework.ȱ Therefore,ȱ theorizingȱ aboutȱ socialȱ systemsȱ achievedȱ inȱ communicationȱ canȱ itselfȱ becomeȱ subjectȱ toȱ investigationȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ socialȱ systemsȱ theory.ȱSimilarlyȱtoȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentsȱunderȱinvestigationȱinȱtheȱcaseȱ study,ȱthisȱdissertationȱdocumentȱhasȱtheȱfunctionȱtoȱprovideȱinformationȱ aboutȱ howȱ theȱ PhDȱ projectȱ wasȱ proceededȱ andȱ whatȱ wereȱ itsȱ mainȱ reȬ sults.ȱHowever,ȱasȱStarȱandȱStraussȱassert,ȱ“manyȱperformersȱ–ȱathletes,ȱ musicians,ȱactors,ȱandȱarguably,ȱscientistsȱ–ȱkeepȱtheȱarduousȱprocessȱofȱ preparationȱforȱpublicȱdisplayȱwellȱbehindȱtheȱscenes.ȱThus,ȱtheȱprocessȱ ofȱtrialȬandȬerrorȱinȱscienceȱisȱlessȱvisibleȱthanȱtheȱfinalȱpublishedȱresults”ȱ (Starȱ &ȱ Strauss,ȱ 1999:ȱ 21).ȱ Fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ anȱ expertiseȬseekingȱ noviceȱ(inȱthisȱcase,ȱcurrentȱorȱfutureȱPhDȱcandidates),ȱexactlyȱsuchȱproȬ cessesȱofȱtrialȬandȬerrorȱandȱtheȱcontingenciesȱfacedȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱ PhDȱ projectȱ canȱ beȱ presumedȱ toȱ beȱ particularlyȱ valuable.ȱ Itȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ keptȱinȱmindȱthatȱthisȱvisibilization,ȱlikeȱinȱtheȱprojectȱdocumentsȱofȱtheȱ caseȱstudy,ȱagainȱrepresentsȱaȱreconstructionȱofȱcontingencyȱandȱalternaȬ tivesȱinȱretrospect.ȱȱ However,ȱ thisȱ dissertationȱ documentȱ significantlyȱ differsȱ fromȱ theȱ projectȱdocumentsȱanalyzedȱinȱtheȱcaseȱstudyȱ–ȱinȱtwoȱaspects:ȱFirst,ȱwithȱ theȱ softwareȱ Microsoftȱ Word,ȱ aȱ differentȱ mediumȱ thanȱ PowerPointȱ isȱ chosenȱforȱtheȱcreationȱofȱtheȱresearchȱproject’sȱpresentation.ȱSecond,ȱtheȱ documentȱstandsȱinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱdissertationȱgenre.ȱTheȱevolutionȱ ofȱ communicativeȱ practicesȱ inȱ theȱ academicȱ sphereȱ hasȱ putȱ forthȱ ownȱ genresȱ whichȱ areȱ distinctȱ toȱ theȱ onesȱ establishedȱ inȱ projectȱ documentaȬ tionȱinȱbusinessȱorganizations.ȱInȱstrivingȱforȱinterȬsubjectivityȱandȱcomȬ prehensibility,ȱitȱisȱanȱinherentȱfeatureȱofȱtheȱacademicȱdissertationȱgenreȱ toȱmakeȱtheȱresearchȱprocessȱvisibleȱandȱunderstandableȱinȱitsȱmainȱdeciȬ sionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingencies.ȱȱ

176

ConclusionȱandȱOutlookȱ

ȱ

Thisȱchapterȱsummarizesȱtheȱcontingenciesȱfacedȱduringȱtheȱresearchȱ processȱandȱsortsȱthemȱaccordingȱtoȱmainȱstepsȱofȱthisȱprocess,ȱtheȱchoiceȱ ofȱtheȱresearchȱfocus,ȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱtheories,ȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱtheȱcaseȱorganiȬ zation,ȱ andȱ theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ methodology.ȱ Theȱ rareȱ examplesȱ identifiedȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ studyȱ whichȱ indeedȱ doȱ visibilizeȱ theȱ contingencyȱ ofȱ decisionsȱ inspireȱ theȱ wayȱ suchȱ contingenciesȱ areȱ presentedȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter.ȱ Theȱ guidingȱ questionȱ atȱ eachȱ pointȱ isȱ whichȱ optionsȱ wereȱ consideredȱ butȱ notȱ pursued.ȱ Withȱ this,ȱ itȱ isȱ aimedȱ toȱ makeȱ visibleȱ whichȱ sideȱ pathsȱ wereȱ openedȱupȱduringȱtheȱresearchȱprocessȱbutȱwhichȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱpursuedȱ evenȱ ifȱ theyȱ mayȱ representȱ valuableȱ connectionȱ pointsȱ forȱ futureȱ reȬ search.ȱ Theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ thisȱ researchȱ project’sȱ thematicȱ focusȱ followedȱ aȱ conȬ tingentȱthoughȱpathȱdependentȱprocess.ȱBasedȱonȱpreviousȱpersonalȱexȬ periencesȱinȱresearchȱandȱpractice,ȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱ(andȱIȱstillȱam)ȱfascinatedȱ byȱ theȱ ideaȱ toȱ graspȱ organizationsȱ asȱ communicativeȱ phenomena.ȱ Thisȱ viewȱonȱorganizationsȱputsȱintoȱquestionȱhowȱorganizationsȱasȱcommuȬ nicativeȱentitiesȱdevelopȱinȱphasesȱofȱgrowth.ȱOr,ȱtoȱputȱitȱdifferently,ȱtoȱ whatȱextentȱorganizationsȱareȱlimitedȱinȱtheirȱcapacitiesȱtoȱgrowȱbecauseȱ ofȱcommunicativeȱconstraints.ȱTheȱchallengeȱofȱorganizationalȱgrowthȱledȱ meȱtoȱtheȱideaȱtoȱinvestigateȱorganizationsȱwhichȱrecentlyȱwereȱfacingȱaȱ significantȱ phaseȱ ofȱ growth.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ limitedȱ timeȱ frameȱ forȱ thisȱ researchȱprojectȱrestrictedȱtheȱempiricalȱinvestigationȱofȱgrowthȱdevelopȬ mentsȱ inȱ organizations.ȱ Therefore,ȱ theȱ researchȱ focusȱ wasȱ switchedȱ toȱ investigateȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ whereȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ sizeȱ andȱ distribȬ utednessȱ ofȱ decisionȱ processesȱ isȱ inherentȱ toȱ theȱ particularȱ typeȱ ofȱ orȬ ganization.ȱ Byȱ meansȱ ofȱ this,ȱ theȱ researchȱ focusȱ couldȱ beȱ maintainedȱ inȱ principleȱ butȱ hadȱ toȱ beȱ adaptedȱ toȱ theȱ specialȱ caseȱ ofȱ projectȱ organizaȬ tionsȱ byȱ asking:ȱ Howȱ doȱ projectȱ organizationsȱ achieveȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ decisionsȱandȱtheirȱcontingencyȱacrossȱtheȱorganizationȱasȱaȱwhole?ȱ TheȱidentificationȱofȱparallelsȱbetweenȱtheȱCCOȱperspectiveȱ(Taylorȱ &ȱvanȱEvery,ȱ2000)ȱandȱtheȱTSSȱframeworkȱ(Luhmann,ȱ2000)ȱhasȱguidedȱ theȱ selectionȱ ofȱ takingȱ onlyȱ suchȱ theoriesȱ intoȱ considerationȱ whichȱ areȱ compatibleȱwithȱtheȱconceptȱofȱorganizationsȱasȱcommunications.ȱAtȱoneȱ pointȱ ofȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ researchȱ process,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ cameȱ upȱ toȱ includeȱ aȱ

SelfȬReflectionȱ

177ȱ

strongerȱ emphasisȱ onȱ organizationalȱ routinesȱ andȱ theȱ waysȱ theyȱ areȱ graspedȱ inȱ structurationȱ theoryȱ byȱ authorsȱ likeȱ Feldman,ȱ Pentland,ȱ andȱ othersȱ(Pentlandȱ&ȱRueter,ȱ1994;ȱPentland,ȱ1995;ȱFeldman,ȱ2000;ȱFeldmanȱ &ȱ Pentland,ȱ 2003;ȱ Pentland,ȱ 2003).ȱ However,ȱ thisȱ optionȱ wasȱ notȱ fullyȱ pursuedȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ ambiguityȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ projectȱ processesȱ inȱ consultingȱcanȱbeȱestimatedȱasȱbeingȱroutinesque.ȱAnotherȱoption,ȱcloselyȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ routines,ȱ involvedȱ toȱ investigateȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ DCVȱ byȱ drawingȱ onȱ insightsȱ fromȱ pathȱ dependenceȱ theoryȱ (Liebowitzȱ &ȱ Margolis,ȱ 1995;ȱ Garudȱ &ȱ Karnoe,ȱ 2001;ȱ Schreyöggȱ &ȱ Sydow,ȱ 2003).ȱ Theȱ investigationȱofȱpathsȱofȱdecisionȱprocessesȱwouldȱhaveȱrequiredȱaȱthorȬ oughȱ reconstructionȱ ofȱ specificȱ projectsȱ overȱ timeȱ andȱ toȱ rejectȱ theȱ perȬ spectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ organizationȱ asȱ aȱ whole.ȱ Bothȱ choicesȱ wouldȱ haveȱ hadȱ significantȱ implicationsȱ forȱ methodologicalȱ decisionsȱ inȱ theȱ researchȱ process.ȱAtȱaȱcomparablyȱlateȱpointȱinȱtheȱresearchȱprocess,ȱIȱrealizedȱtheȱ potentialȱusefulnessȱofȱactorȬnetworkȱtheoryȱ(Latour,ȱ1996;ȱLawȱ&ȱHassard,ȱ 1999;ȱ Harris,ȱ 2005;ȱ Noeȱ &ȱ Alroe,ȱ 2006)ȱ forȱ thisȱ study’sȱ researchȱ issue.ȱ Particularly,ȱtheȱpotentialȱvalueȱofȱcombiningȱactorȬnetworkȱtheoryȱwithȱ theȱTSSȱperspectiveȱliesȱinȱaȱsharedȱnotionȱofȱtheȱtermȱcontingencyȱ(Noeȱ &ȱ Alroe,ȱ 2006:ȱ 40).ȱ However,ȱ actorȬnetworkȱ theoryȱ turnedȱ outȱ toȱ beȱ inȬ commensurableȱ withȱ theȱ TSSȱ framework’sȱ basicȱ assumptionsȱ thatȱ orgaȬ nizationsȱ requireȱ toȱ establishȱ aȱ borderȱ whichȱ distinguishesȱ themȱ fromȱ theirȱ environment.ȱ Therefore,ȱ theȱ frameworkȱ wasȱ onlyȱ veryȱ selectivelyȱ includedȱatȱsomeȱpointsȱofȱtheȱanalysis.ȱ Inȱ parallelȱ toȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ analysis,ȱ Iȱ hadȱ toȱ initiateȱ theȱ researchȱ collaborationȱ withȱ anȱ actualȱ projectȱ organizationȱ forȱ theȱ empiricalȱ caseȱ study.ȱ Duringȱ thisȱ process,ȱ Iȱ contactedȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ –ȱ mostȱ ofȱ whichȱ didȱ notȱ agreeȱ onȱ aȱ coȬoperationȱ forȱ theȱ researchȱ study.ȱ Someȱofȱthemȱgaveȱasȱaȱreasonȱthatȱtheyȱwouldȱnotȱfeelȱcomfortableȱtoȱletȱ anȱexternalȱresearcherȱaccessingȱtheirȱknowledgeȱdatabases.ȱFromȱtoday’sȱ perspective,ȱitȱcanȱhardlyȱbeȱestimatedȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱaȱdifȬ ferentȱ caseȱ organizationȱ wouldȱ haveȱ yieldedȱ resultsȱ thatȱ wereȱ eitherȱ moreȱorȱlessȱrepresentativeȱforȱtheȱgeneralȱpopulationȱofȱprojectȱorganiȬ zations.ȱȱ ȱ

178

ConclusionȱandȱOutlookȱ

ȱ

Atȱoneȱpointȱinȱtheȱresearchȱprocess,ȱwhileȱcollectingȱempiricalȱdata,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ cameȱ upȱ toȱ includeȱ aȱ secondȱ organizationȱ inȱ theȱ studyȱ andȱ toȱ transformȱ itȱ intoȱ aȱ comparativeȱ caseȱ analysis.ȱ Throughȱ oneȱ ofȱ myȱ colȬ leaguesȱatȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱIȱgotȱinȱtouchȱwithȱaȱstudentȬownedȱconsultȬ ingȱfirmȱwhichȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱbiggestȱofȱitsȱkindȱinȱGermanyȱatȱthatȱtime.ȱ Toȱincludeȱthisȱorganizationȱinȱtheȱstudyȱwouldȱhaveȱhadȱtheȱadvantageȱ toȱcompareȱtheȱcaseȱcompanyȱtoȱaȱcompletelyȱdifferentȱtypeȱofȱorganizaȬ tionȱinȱtermsȱofȱsize,ȱage,ȱandȱprofessionalism.ȱGivenȱanȱextremelyȱhighȱ fluctuationȱ ofȱ itsȱ employees,ȱ theȱ organizationȱ wasȱ facingȱ toughȱ chalȬ lengesȱ toȱ establishȱ textualȱ formsȱ ofȱ projectȱ documentationȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ assureȱaȱlearningȱacrossȱgenerationsȱofȱemployees.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱpracticalȱ reasonsȱledȱtoȱaȱterminationȱofȱthisȱideaȱbecauseȱitȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱimȬ possibleȱtoȱincludeȱitȱinȱtheȱtightȱtimeȱframeȱofȱtheȱresearchȱproject.ȱNevȬ ertheless,ȱ theȱ investigationȱ ofȱ howȱ studentȬbasedȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ manȬ ageȱ aȱ sustainableȱ knowledgeȱ communicationȱ acrossȱ generationsȱ canȱ beȱ subjectȱtoȱaȱfruitfulȱfollowȬupȱstudy.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ methodologyȱ ofȱ theȱ researchȱ projectȱ wasȱ contingent,ȱ ofȱcourse.ȱAfterȱhavingȱchosenȱtoȱfocusȱonȱonlyȱoneȱorganizationȱinȱformȱ ofȱaȱcaseȱstudy,ȱtheȱcombinationȱofȱspecificȱmethodsȱwasȱsubjectȱtoȱsubȬ sequentȱchoices.ȱAsȱoutlinedȱinȱtheȱmethodologyȱsectionȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.1),ȱ theȱchoiceȱofȱmethodsȱwasȱguidedȱbyȱtheȱresearchȱquestionsȱderivedȱfromȱ theȱ theoreticalȱ analysis.ȱ However,ȱ atȱ oneȱ point,ȱ Iȱ experimentedȱ withȱ quantitativeȱ(thoughȱexplorative)ȱtechniquesȱtoȱidentifyȱstructuralȱsemanȬ ticȱpatternsȱinȱtheȱprojectȱ documentsȱIȱhadȱincludedȱinȱtheȱanalysis.ȱForȱ thisȱ purpose,ȱ Iȱ hadȱ toȱ transformȱ theȱ PowerPointȱ documentsȱ intoȱ plainȱ textȱ files.ȱ Thisȱ transformationȱ allowedȱ forȱ anȱanalysisȱ byȱ helpȱ ofȱ textualȱ analysisȱ softwareȱ applicationsȱ (e.g.,ȱ WordStat)ȱ –ȱ followingȱ theȱ aimȱ toȱ uncoverȱ contextualȱ patternsȱ underlyingȱ theȱ communicationȱ inȱ projectȱ documents.ȱThis,ȱunfortunately,ȱturnedȱoutȱnotȱtoȱbeȱfeasibleȱdueȱtoȱdifȬ ferentȱsemanticȱlevelsȱinȱtheȱsample.ȱAsȱarguedȱinȱtheȱoperationalizationȱ ofȱtheȱDCVȱvariableȱ(cf.ȱchapterȱ4.3.3),ȱsomeȱinformationȱincludedȱinȱtheȱ documentsȱ remainedȱ onȱ aȱ firstȱ orderȱ observationȱ level,ȱ othersȱ onȱ aȱ secȬ ondȱorderȱobservationȱlevel.ȱDependingȱonȱtheȱcontext,ȱaȱtermȱlikeȱ“critiȬ cal”ȱ sometimesȱ referredȱ toȱ issuesȱ onȱ theȱ clients’ȱ side,ȱ sometimesȱ onȱ theȱ

SelfȬReflectionȱ

179ȱ

consultingȱproject’sȱside.ȱTheȱautomatizedȱtools,ȱhowever,ȱcouldȱnotȱdifȬ ferentiateȱ betweenȱ theseȱ levels.ȱ This,ȱfinally,ȱ impededȱ theȱapplicationȱ ofȱ theseȱtoolsȱandȱsuggestedȱtoȱconcentrateȱonlyȱonȱtheȱcontextȬbasedȱcodȬ ingȱbyȱtheȱresearcher.ȱȱ Theȱ contingentȱ choiceȱ ofȱ aȱ caseȱ organizationȱ constrainedȱ theȱ generȬ alizabilityȱ ofȱ thisȱ study’sȱ results.ȱ Theȱ singularityȱ ofȱ theȱ caseȱ organizaȬ tion’sȱCPLȱpracticesȱbecameȱtangibleȱwhenȱtheȱauthorȱworkedȱasȱaȱvisitȬ ingȱassociateȱforȱanotherȱconsultingȱfirmȱduringȱtheȱfinalȱstageȱofȱtheȱPhDȱ project.ȱTheȱotherȱconsultingȱfirmȱalsoȱhadȱanȱelaborateȱdatabaseȱsystemȱ forȱ theȱ storageȱ ofȱ projectȱ documents.ȱ Inȱ aȱ similarȱ manner,ȱ almostȱ allȱ ofȱ theseȱdocumentsȱwereȱheldȱinȱPowerPoint.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱdatabase’sȱconȬ tentȱdifferedȱinȱthreeȱimportantȱaspectsȱfromȱtheȱdatabasesȱunderȱinvestiȬ gationȱinȱthisȱstudy:ȱFirst,ȱtheȱdocumentsȱsubmittedȱtoȱtheȱdatabaseȱwereȱ subjectȱtoȱaȱrestrictiveȱqualityȱassuranceȱprocedureȱwhichȱledȱtoȱaȱmuchȱ moreȱselectiveȱavailabilityȱofȱdocumentsȱthanȱinȱthisȱstudy’sȱcaseȱorganiȬ zation.ȱ Second,ȱ differentȱ levelsȱ ofȱ confidentialityȱ wereȱ appliedȱ toȱ theȱ documentsȱsoȱthatȱsomeȱofȱthemȱwereȱonlyȱaccessibleȱonȱspecialȱrequest.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ purpose,ȱ theȱ expertiseȬseekingȱ userȱ wouldȱ needȱ toȱ contactȱ theȱ managerȱinȱchargeȱofȱtheȱproject.ȱThird,ȱbecauseȱtheȱotherȱconsultingȱfirmȱ hadȱanȱelaborateȱresearchȱunitȱwhichȱsupportedȱtheȱconsultants,ȱtheȱdataȬ baseȱ includedȱ moreȱ documentsȱ intentionallyȱ createdȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ CPL.ȱInȱsum,ȱtheȱcomparisonȱshowsȱthatȱsomeȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱcaseȱorganiȬ zationȱareȱgeneralizableȱonlyȱtoȱsomeȱextentȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱtheȱinvisibiliȬ zationȱ ofȱ decisionȱ contingencyȱ doesȱ notȱ equallyȱ applyȱ toȱ theȱ consultingȱ industryȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ outlineȱ ofȱ contingenciesȱ ofȱ theȱ researchȱ projectȱ alsoȱ showsȱ thatȱ atȱ variousȱ occasionsȱ duringȱ theȱ researchȱ process,ȱ decisionsȱ eitherȱ heavilyȱ dependedȱ onȱ pastȱ decisionsȱ and,ȱ furthermore,ȱ notȱ inȱ allȱ casesȱtheȱfullȱrangeȱofȱcontingencyȱwasȱilluminatedȱalsoȱbecauseȱofȱaȱlimȬ itedȱawarenessȱonȱtheȱresearcher’sȱside.ȱNevertheless,ȱtheȱvisibilizationȱofȱ contingenciesȱturnsȱtheȱmainȱnarrativeȱofȱthisȱdissertation,ȱprimarilyȱstriȬ vingȱforȱaȱconsistentȱpresentationȱofȱtheȱresearchȱprocessȱandȱitsȱresults,ȱ intoȱaȱmoreȱvulnerableȱone.ȱFromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱexpertiseȬseekingȱ novice,ȱ disclosingȱ alternativesȱ thatȱ wereȱ consideredȱ inȱ theȱ researchȱ proȬ

180

ConclusionȱandȱOutlookȱ

ȱ

cessȱ mayȱ entailȱ aȱ highȱ learningȱ valueȱ asȱ itȱ containsȱ informationȱ onȱ theȱ performativeȱrealityȱofȱtheȱresearchȱprocessȱinȱitsȱvulnerability,ȱambiguȬ ity,ȱand,ȱlastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱcontingency.ȱ

Referencesȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Abrahamson,ȱ E.,ȱ&ȱFairchild,ȱG.ȱ (1999).ȱManagementȱfashion:ȱLifecycles,ȱ triggers,ȱandȱ colȬ lectiveȱlearningȱprocesses.ȱAdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ44(4),ȱ708Ȭ740.ȱ Alvesson,ȱM.ȱ(1993).ȱOrganizationsȱasȱrhetoric:ȱKnowledgeȬintensiveȱfirmsȱandȱtheȱstruggleȱ withȱambiguity.ȱJournalȱofȱManagementȱStudies,ȱ30(6),ȱ997Ȭ1015.ȱ Alvesson,ȱ M.ȱ (2000).ȱ Socialȱ identityȱ andȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ loyaltyȱ inȱ knowledgeȬintensiveȱ companies.ȱJournalȱofȱManagementȱStudies,ȱ37(8),ȱ1101Ȭ1123.ȱ Andersen,ȱN.ȱA.ȱ(2003).ȱTheȱundecidabilityȱofȱdecisions.ȱIn:ȱT.ȱBakken,ȱ&ȱT.ȱHernesȱ(Eds.).ȱ Autopoieticȱ organizationȱ theory:ȱ Drawingȱ onȱ Niklasȱ Luhmann’sȱ socialȱ systemsȱ perspective,ȱ (pp.ȱ235Ȭ258).ȱOslo:ȱCopenhagenȱBusinessȱSchoolȱPress.ȱ Argote,ȱ L.,ȱ McEvily,ȱ B.,ȱ &ȱ Reagans,ȱ R.ȱ (2003).ȱ Managingȱ knowledgeȱ inȱ organizations:ȱ Anȱ integrativeȱ frameworkȱ andȱ reviewȱ ofȱ emergingȱ themes.ȱ Managementȱ Science,ȱ 49(4),ȱ 571Ȭ582.ȱ Argyris,ȱC.ȱ(1976).ȱSingleȬloopȱandȱdoubleȬloopȱmodelsȱinȱresearchȱonȱdecisionȱmaking.ȱAdȬ ministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ21(3),ȱ363Ȭ377.ȱ Argyris,ȱC.ȱ(1992).ȱOnȱorganizationalȱlearning.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Argyris,ȱC.,ȱ&ȱSchön,ȱD.ȱA.ȱ(1978).ȱOrganizationalȱlearning:ȱAȱtheoryȱofȱactionȱperspective.ȱReadȬ ing,ȱMA:ȱAddisionȬWesley.ȱ Armbrüster,ȱT.ȱ(2004).ȱRationalityȱandȱitsȱsymbols:ȱSignallingȱeffectsȱandȱsubjectificationȱinȱ managementȱconsulting.ȱJournalȱofȱManagementȱStudies,ȱ41(8),ȱ1247Ȭ1269.ȱ Austin,ȱJ.ȱL.ȱ(1962).ȱHowȱtoȱdoȱthingsȱwithȱwords.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress.ȱ Ayas,ȱ K.,ȱ &ȱ Zeniuk,ȱ N.ȱ (2001).ȱ ProjectȬbasedȱ learning:ȱ Buildingȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ reflectiveȱ practitioners.ȱManagementȱLearning,ȱ32(1),ȱ61Ȭ76.ȱ Baecker,ȱD.ȱ(1993).ȱDieȱFormȱdesȱUnternehmens.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱSuhrkamp.ȱ Baecker,ȱD.ȱ(1999).ȱOrganisationȱalsȱSystem.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱSuhrkamp.ȱ Baecker,ȱD.ȱ(2003).ȱOrganisationȱundȱManagement.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱSuhrkamp.ȱ Bakken,ȱ T.,ȱ &ȱ Hernes,ȱ T.ȱ (Eds.).ȱ (2003).ȱ Autopoieticȱ organizationȱ theory:ȱ Drawingȱ onȱ Niklasȱ Luhmann’sȱsocialȱsystemsȱperspective.ȱOslo:ȱCopenhagenȱBusinessȱSchoolȱPress.ȱ Baskerville,ȱR.ȱL.,ȱ&ȱWoodȬHarper,ȱA.ȱT.ȱ(1996).ȱAȱcriticalȱperspectiveȱonȱactionȱresearchȱasȱ aȱ methodȱ forȱ informationȱ systemsȱ research.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Informationȱ Technology,ȱ 11(3),ȱ 235Ȭ246.ȱ Bauman,ȱZ.ȱ(1991).ȱModernityȱandȱambivalence.ȱCambridge:ȱPolityȱPress.ȱ Baumard,ȱ P.,ȱ &ȱ Starbuck,ȱ W.ȱ H.ȱ (2005).ȱ Learningȱ fromȱ failures:ȱ Whyȱ itȱ mayȱ notȱ happen.ȱ LongȱRangeȱPlanning,ȱ38(3),ȱ281Ȭ298.ȱ

182

Referencesȱ

ȱ

Berends,ȱ H.,ȱ Boersma,ȱ K.,ȱ &ȱ Weggeman,ȱ M.ȱ (2003).ȱ Theȱ structurationȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ learning.ȱHumanȱRelations,ȱ56(9),ȱ1035Ȭ1056.ȱ Berger,ȱP.ȱL.,ȱ&ȱLuckmann,ȱT.ȱ(1966).ȱTheȱsocialȱconstructionȱofȱreality.ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday.ȱ Beyes,ȱT.ȱ(2003).ȱKontingenzȱundȱManagement.ȱHamburg:ȱKovac.ȱ Blaschke,ȱ S.,ȱ &ȱ Schoeneborn,ȱ D.ȱ (2006).ȱ Theȱ forgottenȱ functionȱ ofȱ forgetting.ȱ Revisitingȱ explorationȱandȱexploitationȱinȱorganizationalȱlearning.ȱSozialeȱSysteme,ȱ12(1),ȱ99Ȭ119.ȱ Bloomfield,ȱB.ȱP.,ȱ&ȱVurdubakis,ȱT.ȱ(1994).ȱReȬpresentingȱtechnology:ȱITȱconsultancyȱreportsȱ asȱtextualȱrealityȱconstructions.ȱSociology,ȱ28(2),ȱ455Ȭ477.ȱ Blühdorn,ȱ I.ȱ (2000).ȱ Anȱ offerȱ oneȱ mightȱ preferȱ toȱ refuse.ȱ Theȱ systemsȱ theoreticalȱ legacyȱ ofȱ NiklasȱLuhmann.ȱEuropeanȱJournalȱofȱSocialȱTheory,ȱ3(3),ȱ339Ȭ354.ȱ Bogenrieder,ȱI.,ȱ&ȱNooteboom,ȱB.ȱ(2004).ȱLearningȱgroups:ȱWhatȱtypesȱareȱthere?ȱAȱtheoretiȬ calȱanalysisȱandȱanȱempiricalȱstudyȱinȱaȱconsultancyȱfirm.ȱOrganizationȱStudies,ȱ25(2),ȱ 287Ȭ313.ȱ Bohnsack,ȱ R.ȱ (1989).ȱ Rekonstruktiveȱ Sozialforschung.ȱ Einführungȱ inȱ Methodologieȱ undȱ Praxisȱ qualitativerȱForschung.ȱOpladen:ȱWestdeutscherȱVerlag.ȱ Borgatti,ȱ S.ȱ P.,ȱ &ȱ Foster,ȱ C.ȱ (2003).ȱ Theȱ networkȱ paradigmȱ inȱ organizationalȱ research.ȱ Aȱ reviewȱandȱtypology.ȱJournalȱofȱManagement,ȱ29(6),ȱ991Ȭ1013.ȱ Brown,ȱ J.ȱ S.,ȱ &ȱ Duguid,ȱ P.ȱ (1991).ȱ Organizationalȱ learningȱ andȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ practice:ȱ Towardȱaȱunifiedȱviewȱofȱworking,ȱlearning,ȱandȱinnovation.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ2(1),ȱ 40Ȭ57.ȱȱ Brunsson,ȱ N.ȱ (1989).ȱ Theȱ organizationȱ ofȱ hypocrisy.ȱ Talk,ȱ descisionsȱ andȱ actionȱ inȱ organizations.ȱ Chichester:ȱWiley.ȱ Burgleman,ȱR.ȱA.ȱ(2002).ȱStrategyȱasȱvectorȱandȱtheȱinertiaȱofȱcoevolutionaryȱlockȬin.ȱAdminȬ istrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ47(2),ȱ325Ȭ357.ȱ Cannon,ȱ M.ȱ D.,ȱ &ȱ Edmondson,ȱ A.ȱ C.ȱ (2005).ȱ Failingȱ toȱ learnȱ andȱ learningȱ toȱ failȱ (intelliȬ gently).ȱHowȱorganizationsȱputȱfailureȱtoȱworkȱtoȱinnovateȱandȱimprove.ȱLongȱRangeȱ Planning,ȱ38(3),ȱ299Ȭ319.ȱȱ Carley,ȱK.ȱM.ȱ(1992).ȱOrganizationalȱlearningȱandȱpersonnelȱturnover.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ 3(1),ȱ20Ȭ47.ȱ Castor,ȱT.ȱR.ȱ(2005).ȱConstructingȱsocialȱrealityȱinȱorganizationalȱdecisionȱmaking.ȱAccountȱ vocabulariesȱ inȱ aȱ diversityȱ discussion.ȱ Managementȱ Communicationȱ Quarterly,ȱ 18(4),ȱ 479Ȭ508.ȱ Cheney,ȱG.,ȱ&ȱChristensen,ȱL.ȱT.ȱ(2004).ȱOrganizationalȱidentity:ȱLinkagesȱbetweenȱinternalȱ andȱexternalȱcommunication.ȱIn:ȱM.ȱJ.ȱHatch,ȱ&ȱM.ȱSchultzȱ(Eds.).ȱOrganizationalȱidenȬ tity:ȱAȱreader.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Clair,ȱR.ȱ P.ȱ (1999).ȱStandingȱ stillȱinȱanȱancientȱfield.ȱ Aȱ contemporaryȱlookȱatȱtheȱorganizaȬ tionalȱcommunicationȱdiscipline.ȱManagementȱCommunicationȱQuarterly,ȱ13(2),ȱ283Ȭ293.ȱ Clark,ȱT.ȱ(1995).ȱManagingȱconsultants.ȱConsultancyȱasȱtheȱmanagementȱofȱimpressions.ȱBuckingȬ ham:ȱOpenȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Clark,ȱT.,ȱ&ȱFincham,ȱR.ȱ(Eds.).ȱ(2002).ȱCriticalȱconsulting:ȱNewȱperspectivesȱonȱtheȱmanagementȱ adviceȱindustry.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ

Referencesȱ

183ȱ

Clark,ȱT.,ȱ&ȱSalaman,ȱG.ȱ(1996).ȱTellingȱtales:ȱManagementȱconsultancyȱasȱtheȱartȱofȱstorytelȬ ling.ȱIn:ȱD.ȱGrant,ȱ&ȱC.ȱOswickȱ(Eds.).ȱMetaphorȱandȱorganizations,ȱ(pp.ȱ167Ȭ184).ȱLonȬ don:ȱSage.ȱ Clarke,ȱL.ȱ(1999).ȱMissionȱimprobable.ȱUsingȱfantasyȱdocumentsȱtoȱtameȱdisaster.ȱChicago:ȱUniȬ versityȱofȱChicagoȱPress.ȱ Clarke,ȱL.ȱ(2005).ȱWorstȱcases:ȱTerrorȱandȱcatastropheȱinȱtheȱpopularȱimagination.ȱChicago:ȱUniȬ versityȱofȱChicagoȱPress.ȱ Cohen,ȱ M.ȱ D.,ȱ March,ȱ J.ȱ G.,ȱ &ȱ Olsen,ȱ J.ȱ P.ȱ (1972).ȱ Aȱ garbageȱ canȱ modelȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ choice.ȱAdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ17(1),ȱ1Ȭ25.ȱ Collins,ȱ D.ȱ (2004).ȱ Whoȱ putȱ theȱ conȱ inȱ consultancy?ȱ Fads,ȱ recipesȱ andȱ ‘vodkaȱ margarine’.ȱ HumanȱRelations,ȱ57(5),ȱ553Ȭ572.ȱ Conrad,ȱ C.ȱ (1985).ȱ Strategicȱ organizationalȱ communication.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Holt,ȱ Rinehartȱ &ȱ Winston.ȱ Cooren,ȱF.ȱ(2000).ȱTheȱorganizingȱpropertyȱofȱcommunication.ȱAmsterdam:ȱJohnȱBenjamins.ȱ Cooren,ȱF.ȱ(2004).ȱTextualȱagency:ȱHowȱtextsȱdoȱthingsȱinȱorganizationalȱsettings.ȱOrganizaȬ tion,ȱ11(3),ȱ373Ȭ394.ȱ Cooren,ȱF.,ȱ&ȱFairhurst,ȱG.ȱT.ȱ(forthcoming).ȱDislocationȱandȱstabilization:ȱHowȱtoȱscaleȱupȱ fromȱinteractionsȱtoȱorganization.ȱIn:ȱL.ȱL.ȱPutnam,ȱ&ȱA.ȱM.ȱNicoteraȱ(Eds.).ȱTheȱcomȬ municativeȱconstitutionȱofȱorganization:ȱCenteringȱorganizationalȱcommunication.ȱMahwah,ȱ NJ:ȱLawrenceȱErlbaum.ȱ Cooren,ȱF.,ȱ&ȱTaylor,ȱJ.ȱR.ȱ(1997).ȱOrganizationȱasȱanȱeffectȱofȱmediation:ȱRedefiningȱtheȱlinkȱ betweenȱorganizationȱandȱcommunication.ȱCommunicationȱTheory,ȱ7(3),ȱ219Ȭ259.ȱ Corman,ȱS.ȱR.ȱ(2000).ȱTheȱneedȱforȱcommonȱground.ȱIn:ȱS.ȱR.ȱCorman,ȱ&ȱM.ȱS.ȱPooleȱ(Eds.).ȱ Perspectivesȱ onȱ organizationalȱ communication.ȱ Findingȱ commonȱ ground,ȱ (pp.ȱ 3Ȭ13).ȱ Newȱ York:ȱGuilfordȱPress.ȱ Cornelissen,ȱJ.ȱP.ȱ(2005).ȱBeyondȱcompare:ȱMetaphorȱinȱorganizationȱtheory.ȱTheȱAcademyȱofȱ ManagementȱReview,ȱ30(4),ȱ751Ȭ764.ȱ Cunha,ȱJ.ȱJ.ȱ(2006).ȱMakingȱtheȱnumbers:ȱAgencyȱinȱcomputerȬgeneratedȱformalȱrepresentationsȱofȱ saleswork.ȱDoctoralȱdissertationȱatȱtheȱMassachusettsȱInstituteȱofȱTechnology.ȱ[Online].ȱ Available:ȱhttp://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/34682/1/68906971.pdf.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ Cunningham,ȱ W.,ȱ &ȱ Leuf,ȱ B.ȱ (2001).ȱ Theȱ Wikiȱ Way.ȱ Quickȱ collaborationȱ onȱ theȱ Web.ȱ Boston:ȱ AddisonȱWesley.ȱ Currie,ȱG.,ȱ&ȱKerrin,ȱM.ȱ(2004).ȱTheȱlimitsȱofȱaȱtechnologicalȱfixȱtoȱknowledgeȱmanagement.ȱ Epistemological,ȱ politicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ issuesȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Intranetȱ implementation.ȱ ManagementȱLearning,ȱ35(1),ȱ9Ȭ29.ȱ Cyert,ȱ R.ȱ M.,ȱ &ȱ March,ȱ J.ȱ G.ȱ (1963).ȱ Aȱ behavioralȱ theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ firm.ȱ Englewoodȱ Cliffs,ȱ NJ:ȱ PrenticeȱHall.ȱ Czarniawska,ȱB.ȱ(2001).ȱHavingȱhopeȱinȱparalogy.ȱHumanȱRelations,ȱ54(1),ȱ13Ȭ21.ȱ Czarniawska,ȱB.,ȱ&ȱMazza,ȱC.ȱ(2003).ȱConsultingȱasȱaȱliminalȱspace.ȱHumanȱRelations,ȱ56(3),ȱ 267Ȭ290.ȱ Daftȱ R.ȱ L.,ȱ &ȱ Weick,ȱ K.ȱ E.ȱ (1984).ȱ Towardsȱ aȱ modelȱ ofȱ organizationsȱ asȱ interpretationȱ sysȬ tems.ȱTheȱAcademyȱofȱManagementȱReview,ȱ9(2),ȱ284Ȭ295.ȱȱ

184

Referencesȱ

ȱ

Davenport,ȱT.ȱH.,ȱ&ȱPrusak,ȱL.ȱ(1997).ȱWorkingȱknowledge.ȱBoston:ȱHarvardȱBusinessȱSchoolȱ Press.ȱ Davenport,ȱT.ȱH.,ȱDeLong,ȱD.ȱW.,ȱ&ȱBeers,ȱM.ȱC.ȱ(1998).ȱSuccessfulȱknowledgeȱmanagementȱ projects.ȱSloanȱManagementȱReview,ȱ39(2),ȱ43Ȭ57.ȱ deȱHolan,ȱP.ȱM.,ȱ&ȱPhillips,ȱN.ȱ(2004).ȱRemembranceȱofȱthingsȱpast?ȱTheȱdynamicsȱofȱorgaȬ nizationalȱforgetting.ȱManagementȱScience,ȱ50(11),ȱ1603Ȭ1613.ȱ Denzin,ȱN.ȱ(1970).ȱStrategiesȱofȱmultipleȱtriangulation.ȱIn:ȱN.ȱDenzinȱ(Ed.).ȱTheȱresearchȱact,ȱ (pp.ȱ297Ȭ331).ȱNewȱYork:ȱMcGrawȬHill.ȱ Derrida,ȱJ.ȱ(1988).ȱLimitedȱInc.ȱEvanston,ȱIL:ȱNorthwesternȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Derrida,ȱ J.ȱ (2002),ȱ Negotiations:ȱ interventionsȱ andȱ interviews,ȱ 1971–2001.ȱ Stanford,ȱ CA:ȱ StanȬ fordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ DeSanctis,ȱG.,ȱ&ȱPoole,ȱM.ȱS.ȱ(1994).ȱCapturingȱtheȱcomplexityȱinȱadvancedȱtechnologyȱuse:ȱ Adaptiveȱstructurationȱtheory.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ5(2),ȱ121Ȭ147.ȱ Donaldson,ȱA.,ȱLank,ȱE.,ȱ&ȱMaher,ȱJ.ȱ(2005).ȱMakingȱtheȱinvisibleȱvisible:ȱHowȱaȱvoluntaryȱ organizationȱisȱlearningȱfromȱitsȱworkȱwithȱgroupsȱandȱcommunities.ȱJournalȱofȱChangeȱ Management,ȱ5(2),ȱ191Ȭ206.ȱ Donaldson,ȱL.ȱ(2001).ȱTheȱcontingencyȱtheoryȱofȱorganizations.ȱNewȱYork:ȱSage.ȱ Edmondson,ȱA.ȱC.ȱ(1996).ȱLearningȱfromȱmistakesȱisȱeasierȱsaidȱthanȱdone:ȱgroupȱandȱorgaȬ nizationalȱinfluencesȱonȱtheȱdetectionȱandȱcorrectionȱofȱhumanȱerror.ȱJournalȱofȱAppliedȱ BehavioralȱScience,ȱ32(1),ȱ5Ȭ28.ȱ Eisenberg,ȱ E.ȱ M.,ȱ &ȱ Witten,ȱ M.ȱ G.ȱ (1987).ȱ Reconsideringȱ opennessȱ inȱ organizationalȱ comȬ munication.ȱTheȱAcademyȱofȱManagementȱReview,ȱ12(3),ȱ418Ȭ426.ȱ Eisenhardt,ȱ K.ȱ M.ȱ (1989).ȱ Buildingȱ theoriesȱ fromȱ caseȱ studyȱ research.ȱ Theȱ Academyȱ ofȱ ManȬ agementȱReview,ȱ14(4),ȱ532Ȭ550.ȱ Eisenhardt,ȱ K.ȱ M.ȱ &ȱ Schoonhoven,ȱ C.ȱ B.ȱ (1990).ȱ Organizationalȱ growth:ȱ Linkingȱ foundingȱ team,ȱ strategy,ȱ environment,ȱ andȱ growthȱ amongȱ U.S.ȱ semiconductorȱ venturesȱ 1978Ȭ 1988.ȱAdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ35(3),ȱ504Ȭ529.ȱ Elsbach,ȱ K.ȱ D.,ȱ &ȱ Sutton,ȱ R.ȱ I.ȱ (1992).ȱ Acquiringȱ organizationalȱ legitimacyȱ throughȱ illegitiȬ mateȱ actions:ȱ Aȱ marriageȱ ofȱ institutionalȱ andȱ impressionȱ managementȱ theories.ȱ Theȱ AcademyȱofȱManagementȱJournal,ȱ35(4),ȱ699Ȭ738.ȱ Esser,ȱ H.ȱ (2002).ȱ Woȱ stehtȱ dieȱ Soziologie?ȱ Soziologie.ȱ Forumȱ derȱ Deutschenȱ Gesellschaftȱ fürȱ Soziologie,ȱ4(1),ȱ20Ȭ32.ȱ Fairhurst,ȱ G.ȱ T.,ȱ &ȱ Putnam,ȱ L.ȱ L.ȱ (1999).ȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ theȱ organizationȬcommunicationȱ equivalencyȱquestion:ȱTheȱcontributionsȱofȱJamesȱTaylorȱandȱhisȱcolleagues.ȱCommuniȬ cationȱReview,ȱ3(1Ȭ2),ȱ1Ȭ19.ȱ Feldman,ȱM.ȱS.ȱ(2000).ȱOrganizationalȱroutinesȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱcontinuousȱchange.ȱOrganizaȬ tionȱScience,ȱ11(6),ȱ611Ȭ629.ȱ Feldman,ȱ M.ȱ S.,ȱ &ȱ March,ȱ J.ȱ G.ȱ (1981).ȱ Informationȱ inȱ organizationsȱ asȱ signalȱ andȱ symbol.ȱ AdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ26(1),ȱ171Ȭ186.ȱ Feldman,ȱ M.ȱ S.,ȱ &ȱ Pentland,ȱ B.ȱ T.ȱ (2003).ȱ Reconceptualizingȱ organizationalȱ routinesȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱofȱflexibilityȱandȱchange.ȱAdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ48(1),ȱ94Ȭ118.ȱ Flick,ȱU.ȱ(1992).ȱTriangulationȱrevisited:ȱStrategyȱofȱvalidationȱorȱalternative?ȱJournalȱforȱtheȱ TheoryȱofȱSocialȱBehavior,ȱ22(2),ȱ175Ȭ198.ȱ

Referencesȱ

185ȱ

Flusser,ȱV.ȱ(1996).ȱKommunikologie.ȱMannheim:ȱBollmann.ȱ Forster,ȱ N.ȱ (1994).ȱ Theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ companyȱ documentation.ȱ In:ȱ C.ȱ Cassell,ȱ &ȱ G.ȱ Symonȱ (Eds.).ȱQualitativeȱmethodsȱinȱorganizationalȱresearch,ȱ(pp.ȱ147Ȭ166).ȱLondon:ȱSage.ȱ Fortune,ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Peters,ȱ G.ȱ (1995).ȱ Learningȱ fromȱ mistakesȱ –ȱ theȱ systemsȱ approach.ȱ Chichester:ȱ Wiley.ȱ Friedrichs,ȱR.ȱW.ȱ(1970).ȱAȱsociologyȱofȱsociology.ȱNewȱYork:ȱFreeȱPress.ȱ Galliers,ȱR.,ȱMingers,ȱJ.,ȱ&ȱJackson,ȱM.ȱ(1997).ȱOrganizationȱtheoryȱandȱsystemsȱthinking:ȱtheȱ benefitsȱofȱpartnership.ȱOrganization,ȱ4(2),ȱ269Ȭ278.ȱ Gardner,ȱW.ȱL.,ȱ&ȱMartinko,ȱM.ȱJ.ȱ(1988).ȱImpressionȱmanagementȱinȱorganizations.ȱJournalȱ ofȱManagement,ȱ14(2),ȱ321Ȭ338.ȱȱ Garrick,ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Clegg,ȱ S.ȱ (2001).ȱ StressedȬoutȱ knowledgeȱ workersȱ inȱ performativeȱ times:ȱ Aȱ postmodernȱtakeȱonȱprojectȬbasedȱlearning.ȱManagementȱLearning,ȱ32(1),ȱ119Ȭ134.ȱ Garud,ȱR.,ȱ &ȱKarnoe,ȱP.ȱ (Eds.).ȱ(2001).ȱPathȱdependenceȱandȱcreation.ȱLondon:ȱ LawrenceȱErlȬ baum.ȱ Geser,ȱ H.ȱ (1982).ȱ Gesellschaftlicheȱ Folgeproblemeȱ undȱ Grenzenȱ desȱ Wachstumsȱ formalerȱ Organisationen.ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱSoziologie,ȱ11(2),ȱ113Ȭ132.ȱ Gherardi,ȱS.,ȱ&ȱTurner,ȱB.ȱ(2002).ȱRealȱmenȱdon’tȱcollectȱsoftȱdata.ȱIn:ȱA.ȱM.ȱHuberman,ȱ&ȱM.ȱ B.ȱMilesȱ(Eds.).ȱTheȱqualitativeȱresearcher’sȱcompanion.ȱThousandȱOaks,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱȱ Gibson,ȱB.,ȱGregory,ȱJ.,ȱ &ȱRobinson,ȱP.ȱG.ȱ(2005).ȱTheȱintersectionȱ betweenȱsystemsȱtheoryȱ andȱ groundedȱ theory:ȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theȱ groundedȱ systemsȱ observer.ȱ Qualitativeȱ SociologyȱReview,ȱ1(2).ȱ[Online].ȱAvailable:ȱhttp://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ȱ ENG/Volume2/QSR_1_2_Gibson_Gregory_Robinson.pdf.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ Giddens,ȱA.ȱ(1979).ȱCentralȱproblemsȱinȱsocialȱtheory.ȱLondon:ȱMacmillan.ȱ Giddens,ȱA.ȱ(1984).ȱTheȱconstitutionȱofȱsociety:ȱOutlineȱofȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱstructuration.ȱCambridge:ȱ PolityȱPress.ȱ Glaser,ȱB.ȱG.,ȱ&ȱStrauss,ȱA.ȱL.ȱ(1967).ȱTheȱdiscoveryȱofȱgroundedȱtheory:ȱStrategiesȱforȱqualitativeȱ research.ȱChicago:ȱAldine.ȱ Glückler,ȱJ.,ȱ&ȱArmbrüster,ȱT.ȱ(2003).ȱBridgingȱuncertaintyȱinȱmanagementȱconsulting:ȱTheȱ mechanismsȱofȱtrustȱandȱnetworkedȱreputation.ȱOrganizationȱStudies,ȱ24(2),ȱ269Ȭ297.ȱ Goffman,ȱE.ȱ(1959).ȱTheȱpresentationȱofȱselfȱinȱeverydayȱlife.ȱNewȱYork:ȱDoubleday.ȱ Habermas,ȱJ.ȱ(1987).ȱTheȱtheoryȱofȱcommunicativeȱaction,ȱ(2ȱvolumes).ȱBoston:ȱBeaconȱPress.ȱ Habscheid,ȱS.,ȱ&ȱWeik,ȱE.ȱ(2003).ȱTalkingȱstructure:ȱTheȱshapingȱofȱorganizationalȱrealityȱinȱ consultingȱconversations.ȱIn:ȱA.ȱKieser,ȱ&ȱA.ȱP.ȱMüllerȱ(Eds).ȱCommunicationȱinȱorganiȬ zations.ȱStructuresȱandȱpractices.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱLang.ȱȱ Hannan,ȱ M.ȱ T.,ȱ &ȱ Freeman,ȱ J.ȱ (1977).ȱ Theȱ populationȱ ecologyȱ ofȱ organizations.ȱ Americanȱ JournalȱofȱSociology,ȱ82(5),ȱ929Ȭ964.ȱ Hansen,ȱM.ȱT.,ȱNohria,ȱN.,ȱ&ȱTierney,ȱT.ȱ(1999).ȱWhatȇsȱyourȱstrategyȱforȱmanagingȱknowlȬ edge.ȱHarvardȱBusinessȱReview,ȱ77(2),ȱ106Ȭ116.ȱ Harris,ȱ J.ȱ (2005).ȱ Theȱ orderingȱ ofȱ things.ȱ Organizationȱ inȱ Brunoȱ Latour.ȱ In:ȱ C.ȱ Jones,ȱ &ȱ R.ȱ Munroȱ(Eds.).ȱContemporaryȱorganizationȱtheory,ȱ(pp.ȱ178Ȭ191).ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Harrison,ȱJ.ȱR.,ȱ&ȱMarch,ȱJ.ȱG.ȱ(1984).ȱDecisionȱmakingȱandȱpostdecisionȱsurprises.ȱAdminisȬ trativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ29(1),ȱ26Ȭ42.ȱ

186

Referencesȱ

ȱ

Hartley,ȱJ.ȱF.ȱ(1994).ȱCaseȱstudiesȱinȱorganizationalȱresearch.ȱIn:ȱC.ȱG.ȱCassell,ȱ&ȱG.ȱSymonȱ (Eds.).ȱQualitativeȱmethodsȱinȱorganizationalȱresearch.ȱAȱpracticalȱguide,ȱ(pp.ȱ208Ȭ299).ȱLonȬ don:ȱSage.ȱ Hatch,ȱM.ȱJ.ȱ(1997).ȱOrganizationȱtheory:ȱmodern,ȱsymbolicȱandȱpostmodernȱperspectives.ȱOxford:ȱ OxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Heaton,ȱL.,ȱ&ȱTaylor,ȱJ.ȱR.ȱ(2002).ȱKnowledgeȱmanagementȱandȱprofessionalȱwork:ȱAȱcomȬ municationȱperspectiveȱonȱtheȱknowledgeȬbasedȱorganization.ȱManagementȱCommuniȬ cationȱQuarterly,ȱ16(2),ȱ210Ȭ236.ȱ Hedberg,ȱ B.ȱ L.,ȱ Nystrom,ȱ P.ȱ C.,ȱ &ȱ Starbuck,ȱ W.ȱ H.ȱ (1976).ȱ Campingȱ onȱ seesaws:ȱ PrescripȬ tionsȱforȱaȱselfȬdesigningȱorganization.ȱAdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ21(1),ȱ41Ȭ65.ȱ Hendry,ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Seidl,ȱ D.ȱ (2003).ȱ Theȱ structureȱ andȱ significanceȱ ofȱ strategicȱ episodes:ȱ Socialȱ systemsȱ theoryȱ andȱ theȱ routineȱ practicesȱ ofȱ strategicȱ change.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Managementȱ Studies,ȱ40(1),ȱ175Ȭ196.ȱ Hernes,ȱ T.,ȱ &ȱ Bakken,ȱ T.ȱ (2003).ȱ Implicationsȱ ofȱ selfȬreference:ȱ Niklasȱ Luhmann’sȱ autopoiȬ esisȱandȱorganizationȱtheory.ȱOrganizationȱStudies,ȱ24(9),ȱ1511Ȭ1535.ȱ Heusinkveld,ȱS.,ȱ&ȱBenders,ȱ J.ȱ(2005).ȱContestedȱ commodification:ȱ Consultanciesȱandȱtheirȱ struggleȱwithȱnewȱconceptȱdevelopment.ȱHumanȱRelations,ȱ58(3),ȱ283Ȭ310.ȱ Hilse,ȱH.ȱ(2000).ȱKognitiveȱWendeȱinȱManagementȱundȱBeratung:ȱWissensmanagementȱausȱsozialȬ wissenschaftlicherȱPerspektive.ȱWiesbaden:ȱDUV.ȱ Hobday,ȱ M.ȱ (2000).ȱ Theȱ projectȬbasedȱ organisation:ȱ anȱ idealȱ formȱ forȱ managingȱ complexȱ productsȱandȱsystems?ȱResearchȱPolicy,ȱ29(7Ȭ8),ȱ871Ȭ893.ȱ Hirschauer,ȱS.,ȱ&ȱBergmann,ȱJ.ȱ(2002).ȱWillkommenȱimȱClub!ȱEineȱAnregungȱzuȱmehrȱKonȬ tingenzfreudigkeitȱ inȱ derȱ qualitativenȱ Sozialforschungȱ –ȱ Kommentarȱ zuȱ A.ȱ Nassehiȱ undȱI.ȱSaakeȱinȱZfSȱ1/2002.ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱSoziologie,ȱ31(4),ȱ332Ȭ336.ȱ Hofstede,ȱG.ȱ(1991).ȱCultureȱandȱorganizations:ȱSoftwareȱofȱtheȱmind.ȱLondon:ȱMcGrawȬHill.ȱ Huber,ȱ G.ȱ P.ȱ (2001).ȱ Transferȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ inȱ knowledgeȱ managementȱ systems:ȱ UnexȬ ploredȱissuesȱandȱsuggestedȱstudies.ȱEuropeanȱJournalȱofȱInformationȱSystems,ȱ10(2),ȱ72Ȭ 79.ȱ Husted,ȱ K.,ȱ &ȱ Michailova,ȱ S.ȱ (2002).ȱ Diagnosingȱ andȱ fightingȱ knowledgeȱ sharingȱ hostility.ȱ OrganizationalȱDynamics,ȱ31(1),ȱ60Ȭ73.ȱ Jones,ȱE.ȱE.,ȱ&ȱWortman,ȱC.ȱB.ȱ(1973).ȱIngratiation:ȱAnȱattributionalȱapproach.ȱMorristown,ȱNJ:ȱ GeneralȱLearningȱPress.ȱ Kaube,ȱ J.ȱ (2006,ȱ Julyȱ 9th).ȱ Derȱ Philosophȱ Fichteȱ überȱ PowerPoint.ȱ Keinȱ Vortragȱ mehrȱ ohneȱ eineȱ begleitendeȱ FolienȬȱ undȱ Bilderfolge.ȱ Verbesserteȱ Informationsübertragungȱ oderȱ technischerȱSelbstlauf?ȱFrankfurterȱAllgemeineȱSonntagszeitung,ȱNo.ȱ27,ȱp.ȱ70.ȱ Keegan,ȱ A.,ȱ &ȱ Turner,ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ (2001).ȱ Quantityȱ versusȱ qualityȱ inȱ projectȬbasedȱ learningȱ pracȬ tices.ȱManagementȱLearning,ȱ32(1),ȱ77Ȭ98.ȱ Keller,ȱJ.ȱ(2003,ȱJanuaryȱ5th).ȱKillingȱmeȱMicrosoftlyȱwithȱPowerPoint.ȱChicagoȱTribuneȱMagaȬ zine,ȱNo.ȱ1,ȱpp.ȱ28Ȭ29.ȱȱ Kieser,ȱA.ȱ(1997).ȱRhetoricȱandȱmythȱinȱmanagementȱfashion.ȱOrganization,ȱ4(1),ȱ49Ȭ74.ȱ Kieser,ȱ A.ȱ (1998).ȱ Überȱ dieȱ allmählicheȱ Verfertigungȱ derȱ Organisationȱ beimȱ Reden.ȱ InȬ dustrielleȱBeziehungen,ȱ5(1),ȱ45Ȭ75.ȱ

Referencesȱ

187ȱ

Kieser,ȱA.ȱ(1999).ȱHumanȱRelationsȬBewegungȱundȱOrganisationspsychologie.ȱIn:ȱA.ȱKieserȱ (Ed.).ȱOrganisationstheorien,ȱ(pp.ȱ101Ȭ132).ȱStuttgart:ȱKohlhammer.ȱ Kieser,ȱA.ȱ(2003).ȱManagersȱasȱmarionettes?ȱUsingȱfashionȱtheoriesȱtoȱexplainȱtheȱsuccessȱofȱ consultancies.ȱ In:ȱ A.ȱ Kipping,ȱ &ȱ L.ȱ Engwallȱ (Eds.).ȱ Managementȱ consulting:ȱ Emergenceȱ andȱdynamicsȱofȱaȱknowledgeȱindustry,ȱ(pp.ȱ167Ȭ183).ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱȱ Kieser,ȱA.,ȱ&ȱHegele,ȱC.ȱ(1998).ȱKommunikationȱimȱorganisatorischenȱWandel.ȱStuttgart:ȱSchäfȬ ferȬPoeschel.ȱ Kieser,ȱA.,ȱ&ȱKubicek,ȱH.ȱ(1977).ȱOrganisation.ȱBerlin:ȱDeȱGruyter.ȱ Kieser,ȱA.,ȱ&ȱMüller,ȱA.ȱP.ȱ(Eds).ȱ(2003).ȱCommunicationȱinȱorganizations:ȱStructuresȱandȱpracȬ tices.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱLang.ȱȱ Kieserling,ȱA.ȱ(1999).ȱKommunikationȱunterȱAnwesenden.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱSuhrkamp.ȱ King,ȱM.,ȱ&ȱThornhill,ȱC.ȱ(2003).ȱ‘WillȱtheȱrealȱNiklasȱLuhmannȱstandȱup,ȱplease’.ȱAȱreplyȱtoȱ JohnȱMingers.ȱSociologicalȱReview,ȱ51(2),ȱ276Ȭ285.ȱ King,ȱ N.ȱ (1994).ȱ Theȱ qualitativeȱ researchȱ interview.ȱ In:ȱ C.ȱ G.ȱ Cassell,ȱ &ȱ G.ȱ Symonȱ (Eds.).ȱ Qualitativeȱ methodsȱ inȱ organizationalȱ research.ȱ Aȱ practicalȱ guide,ȱ (pp.ȱ 118Ȭ134).ȱ London:ȱ Sage.ȱ Kipping,ȱA.ȱ(2002).ȱTrappedȱinȱtheirȱwave.ȱTheȱevolutionȱofȱmanagementȱconsultancies.ȱIn:ȱ T.ȱ Clark,ȱ &ȱ R.ȱ Finchamȱ (Eds.).ȱ Criticalȱ consulting:ȱ Newȱ perspectivesȱ onȱ theȱ managementȱ adviceȱindustry,ȱ(pp.ȱ28Ȭ49).ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Kipping,ȱ A.,ȱ &ȱ Engwall,ȱ L.ȱ (2003).ȱ Introduction:ȱ Managementȱ consultingȱ asȱ aȱ knowledgeȱ industry.ȱ In:ȱ A.ȱ Kipping,ȱ &ȱ L.ȱ Engwallȱ (Eds.).ȱ Managementȱ consulting:ȱ Emergenceȱ andȱ dynamicsȱofȱaȱknowledgeȱindustry,ȱ(pp.ȱ1Ȭ18).ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱȱ Kneer,ȱ G.,ȱ &ȱ Nassehi,ȱ A.ȱ (1997).ȱ Niklasȱ Luhmannsȱ Theorieȱ sozialerȱ Systeme:ȱ Eineȱ EinfühȬ rung,ȱ(3rdȱed.).ȱMünchen:ȱFink.ȱ Knodt,ȱ E.ȱ M.ȱ (1995).ȱ Foreword.ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ Luhmannȱ (Ed.).ȱ Socialȱ Systems,ȱ (pp.ȱ ixȬxxxvi).ȱ StanȬ ford,ȱCA:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Knudsen,ȱM.ȱ(2006).ȱDisplacingȱtheȱparadoxȱofȱdecisionȱmaking.ȱIn:ȱD.ȱSeidl,ȱ&ȱK.ȱH.ȱBeckerȱ (Eds.).ȱ Niklasȱ Luhmannȱ andȱ organizationȱ studies,ȱ (pp.ȱ 107Ȭ126).ȱ Copenhagen:ȱ CopenhaȬ genȱBusinessȱSchoolȱPress.ȱ Koch,ȱ C.,ȱ &ȱ Bendixen,ȱ M.ȱ (2005).ȱ Multipleȱ perspectivesȱ onȱ organizing:ȱ Projectsȱ betweenȱ tyrannyȱandȱperforation.ȱBuildingȱResearchȱ&ȱInformation,ȱ33(6),ȱ536Ȭ546.ȱ Krippendorff,ȱ K.ȱ (1980).ȱ Contentȱ analysis.ȱ Anȱ introductionȱ ofȱ itsȱ methodology.ȱ Beverlyȱ Hills,ȱ CA:ȱSage.ȱ Kromrey,ȱH.ȱ(1998).ȱEmpirischeȱSozialforschung,ȱ(8thȱed.).ȱOpladen:ȱLeskeȱ&ȱBudrich.ȱ Kron,ȱT.ȱ(Ed.).ȱ(2002).ȱLuhmannȱmodelliert:ȱSozionischeȱAnsätzeȱzurȱSimulationȱvonȱKommunikaȬ tionsmodellen.ȱWiesbaden:ȱVSȱVerlagȱfürȱSozialwissenschaften.ȱ Kühl,ȱ S.ȱ (2002).ȱ Jenseitsȱ derȱ FaceȬtoȬFaceȬOrganisation.ȱ Wachstumsprozesseȱ inȱ kapitalȬ marktorientiertenȱUnternehmen.ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱSoziologie,ȱ31(3),ȱ186Ȭ210.ȱ Kuhn,ȱT.ȱS.ȱ(1962).ȱTheȱstructureȱofȱscientificȱrevolutions.ȱChicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress.ȱ Kunkel,ȱB.ȱ(2006).ȱIndecision:ȱaȱnovel.ȱNewȱYork:ȱRandomȱHouse.ȱ Kvale,ȱS.ȱ(1983).ȱTheȱqualitativeȱresearchȱinterview:ȱAȱphenomenologicalȱandȱaȱhermeneutiȬ calȱmodeȱofȱunderstanding.ȱJournalȱofȱPhenomenologicalȱPsychology,ȱ14(2),ȱ171Ȭ196.ȱ Lamneck,ȱS.ȱ(1995).ȱQualitativeȱSozialforschung,ȱ(3rdȱed.).ȱWeinheim:ȱBeltz.ȱ

188

Referencesȱ

ȱ

Latour,ȱ B.ȱ (1986).ȱ Theȱ powersȱ ofȱ association.ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Lawȱ (Ed.).ȱ Power,ȱ actionȱ andȱ belief,ȱ (pp.ȱ 264Ȭ280).ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Latour,ȱB.ȱ(1996).ȱOnȱactorȬnetworkȱtheory.ȱAȱfewȱclarifications.ȱSozialeȱWelt,ȱ47(4),ȱ369Ȭ381.ȱ Latour,ȱ B.ȱ (1999).ȱ Pandora’sȱ hope:ȱ Anȱ essayȱ onȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ scienceȱ studies.ȱ Cambridge,ȱ MA:ȱ HarvardȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Latour,ȱB.ȱ(2000).ȱWhenȱthingsȱstrikeȱback:ȱAȱpossibleȱcontributionȱofȱ‘scienceȱstudies’ȱtoȱtheȱ socialȱsciences.ȱBritishȱJournalȱofȱSociology,ȱ51(1),ȱ107Ȭ123.ȱ Lave,ȱJ.,ȱ&ȱWenger,ȱE.ȱ(1991).ȱSituatedȱlearning.ȱLegitimateȱperipheralȱparticipation.ȱCambridge:ȱ UniversityȱofȱCambridgeȱPress.ȱ Law,ȱJ.,ȱ&ȱHassard,ȱJ.ȱ(Eds.).ȱ(1999).ȱActorȬnetworkȱtheoryȱandȱafter.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱȱ Lawrence,ȱP.ȱR.,ȱ&ȱLorsch,ȱJ.ȱW.ȱ(1967).ȱDifferentiationȱandȱintegrationȱinȱcomplexȱorganizaȬ tions.ȱAdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ12(1),ȱ1Ȭ30.ȱ Lee,ȱ A.ȱ S.,ȱ &ȱ Baskerville,ȱ R.ȱ (2003).ȱ Generalizingȱ generalizabilityȱ inȱ informationȱ systemsȱ research.ȱInformationȱSystemsȱResearch,ȱ14(3),ȱ221Ȭ243.ȱ Lee,ȱ D.ȱ B.ȱ (2000).ȱ Theȱ societyȱ ofȱ society:ȱ Theȱ grandȱ finaleȱ ofȱ Niklasȱ Luhmann.ȱ Sociologicalȱ Theory,ȱ18(2),ȱ320Ȭ330.ȱ Lee,ȱ R.ȱ A.,ȱ &ȱ Lawrence,ȱ P.ȱ A.ȱ (1985).ȱ Organizationalȱ behavior:ȱ Politicsȱ atȱ work.ȱ London:ȱ HutȬ chinson.ȱ Legge,ȱ K.ȱ (2002).ȱ Onȱ knowledge,ȱ consultantsȱ andȱ theȱ sellingȱ ofȱ TQM.ȱ In:ȱ T.ȱ Clark,ȱ &ȱ R.ȱ Finchamȱ (Eds.).ȱ Criticalȱ consulting:ȱ Newȱ perspectivesȱ onȱ theȱ managementȱ adviceȱ industry,ȱ (pp.ȱ74Ȭ90).ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Leseure,ȱ M.ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Brookes,ȱ N.ȱ J.ȱ (2004).ȱ Knowledgeȱ managementȱ benchmarksȱ forȱ projectȱ management.ȱJournalȱofȱKnowledgeȱManagement,ȱ8(1),ȱ103Ȭ116.ȱ Lesser,ȱE.ȱL.,ȱ&ȱStorck,ȱJ.ȱ(2001).ȱCommunitiesȱofȱpracticeȱandȱorganizationalȱperformance.ȱ IBMȱSystemsȱJournal,ȱ40(4),ȱ831Ȭ841.ȱ Liebowitz,ȱ S.ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Margolis,ȱ S.ȱ E.ȱ (1995).ȱ Pathȱ dependence,ȱ lockȬin,ȱ andȱ history.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Law,ȱEconomicsȱandȱOrganization,ȱ11(1),ȱ205Ȭ226.ȱ Linstead,ȱ S.ȱ (1999).ȱ Anȱ introductionȱ toȱ theȱ textualityȱ ofȱ organizations.ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Cultures,ȱ OrganizationsȱandȱSociety,ȱ5(1),ȱ1Ȭ10.ȱ Lünendonk,ȱT.ȱ(2006,ȱAugustȱ30th).ȱMitȱZuversichtȱinȱdieȱnächstenȱfünfȱJahre.ȱAnmerkungenȱ zurȱ Entwicklungȱ derȱ Managementberatungenȱ inȱ Deutschland.ȱ Frankfurterȱ Allgemeineȱ Zeitung,ȱNo.ȱ201,ȱp.ȱB1.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ N.ȱ (1964).ȱ Funktionenȱ undȱ Folgenȱ formalerȱ Organisation.ȱ Berlin:ȱ Dunckerȱ &ȱ HumȬ blot.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1981a).ȱTheȱimprobabilityȱofȱcommunication.ȱInternationalȱSocialȱScienceȱJourȬ nal,ȱ23(1),ȱ122Ȭ32.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ N.ȱ (1981b).ȱ Unverständlicheȱ Wissenschaft:ȱ Problemeȱ einerȱ theorieeigenenȱ SpraȬ che.ȱIn:ȱN.ȱLuhmannȱ(Ed.).ȱSoziologischeȱAufklärungȱ3ȱ–ȱSozialesȱSystem,ȱGesellschaft,ȱOrȬ ganisation,ȱ(pp.ȱ170Ȭ177).ȱOpladen:ȱWestdeutscherȱVerlag.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1981c).ȱOrganisationȱundȱ Entscheidung.ȱIn:ȱN.ȱLuhmannȱ (Ed.).ȱSoziologischeȱ Aufklärungȱ3ȱ–ȱSozialesȱSystem,ȱGesellschaft,ȱOrganisation,ȱ(pp.ȱ335Ȭ389).ȱOpladen:ȱWestȬ deutscherȱVerlag.ȱ

Referencesȱ

189ȱ

Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1984).ȱSozialeȱSysteme.ȱGrundrißȱeinerȱallgemeinenȱTheorie.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱ Suhrkamp.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ (1986).ȱTheȱautopoiesisȱofȱ socialȱsystems.ȱIn:ȱF.ȱGeyer,ȱ&ȱ J.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Zouwenȱ (Eds.).ȱSociocyberneticȱparadoxes:ȱObservation,ȱcontrolȱandȱevolutionȱofȱselfȬsteeringȱsystems,ȱ (pp.ȱ171Ȭ192).ȱLondon:ȱSage.ȱȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1988).ȱOrganisation.ȱIn:ȱW.ȱKüpper,ȱ&ȱG.ȱOrtmannȱ(Eds.).ȱMikropolitik.ȱRatioȬ nalität,ȱMachtȱundȱSpieleȱinȱOrganisationen,ȱ(pp.ȱ165Ȭ185).ȱOpladen:ȱWestdeutscherȱVerȬ lag.ȱ Luhmann,ȱ N.ȱ (1989).ȱ Lawȱ asȱ aȱ socialȱ system.ȱ Northwesternȱ Universityȱ Lawȱ Review,ȱ 83(1Ȭ2),ȱ 136Ȭ150.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1990).ȱDieȱWissenschaftȱderȱGesellschaft.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱSuhrkamp.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1992).ȱWhatȱisȱcommunication?ȱCommunicationȱTheory,ȱ2(3),ȱ251Ȭ259.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1993).ȱDieȱParadoxieȱdesȱEntscheidens.ȱVerwaltungsȬArchiv,ȱ84(3),ȱ287Ȭ299.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1995).ȱSocialȱsystems.ȱStanford,ȱCA:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(1998).ȱObservationsȱonȱmodernity.ȱStanford,ȱCA:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(2000).ȱOrganisationȱundȱEntscheidung.ȱOpladen:ȱWestdeutscherȱVerlag.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(2002).ȱHowȱcanȱtheȱmindȱparticipateȱinȱcommunication?ȱIn:ȱW.ȱRaschȱ(Ed.).ȱ Theoriesȱofȱdistinction,ȱ(pp.ȱ169Ȭ184).ȱStanford,ȱCA:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Luhmann,ȱN.ȱ(2003).ȱOrganization.ȱIn:ȱT.ȱBakken,ȱ&ȱT.ȱHernesȱ(Eds.).ȱAutopoieticȱorganizationȱ theory:ȱDrawingȱonȱNiklasȱLuhmann’sȱsocialȱsystemsȱperspective,ȱ(pp.ȱ31Ȭ52).ȱOslo:ȱCopenȬ hagenȱBusinessȱSchoolȱPress.ȱ Lundin,ȱ R.ȱ A.,ȱ &ȱ Söderholm,ȱ A.ȱ (1995).ȱ Aȱ theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ temporaryȱ organization.ȱ ScandinaȬ vianȱJournalȱofȱManagement,ȱ11(4),ȱ437Ȭ455.ȱ Lundin,ȱR.ȱA.,ȱ&ȱSöderholm,ȱA.ȱ(1998).ȱConceptualizingȱaȱprojectȱsocietyȱȬȱdiscussionȱofȱanȱ ecoȬinstitutionalȱapproachȱtoȱaȱtheoryȱonȱtemporaryȱorganizations.ȱIn:ȱR.ȱLundin,ȱ&ȱC.ȱ Midlerȱ(Eds.).ȱProjectsȱasȱarenasȱforȱrenewalȱandȱlearningȱprocesses,ȱ(pp.ȱ13Ȭ24).ȱDordrecht:ȱ Kluwer.ȱȱ March,ȱJ.ȱG.ȱ(1988).ȱTheȱtechnologyȱofȱfoolishness.ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱG.ȱMarchȱ(Ed.).ȱDecisionsȱandȱorganiȬ zations,ȱ(pp.ȱ253Ȭ265).ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱȱ March,ȱJ.ȱG.,ȱ&ȱOlsen,ȱJ.ȱP.ȱ(1976).ȱAmbiguityȱandȱchoiceȱinȱorganizations.ȱBergen:ȱUniversitetsȬ forlaget.ȱ March,ȱJ.ȱG.,ȱ&ȱSimon,ȱH.ȱA.ȱ(1958).ȱOrganizations.ȱNewȱYork:ȱWiley.ȱ March,ȱ J.ȱ G.,ȱ Sproull,ȱ L.ȱ S.,ȱ &ȱ Tamuz,ȱ M.ȱ (1991).ȱ Learningȱ fromȱ samplesȱ ofȱ oneȱ orȱ fewer.ȱ OrganizationȱScience,ȱ2(1),ȱ1Ȭ13.ȱ Markus,ȱ M.ȱ L.ȱ (2001).ȱ Towardȱ aȱ theoryȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ reuse:ȱ Typesȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ reuseȱ situationsȱ andȱ factorsȱ inȱ reuseȱ success.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Managementȱ Informationȱ Systems,ȱ 18(1),ȱ57Ȭ93.ȱ Maturana,ȱH.ȱR.,ȱ&ȱVarela,ȱF.ȱ(1975).ȱAutopoieticȱsystems.ȱUrbana,ȱIL:ȱUniversityȱofȱIllinois.ȱ Mayntz,ȱR.,ȱ&ȱSzyperski,ȱR.ȱ(1984).ȱDokumentationȱundȱOrganisation.ȱEineȱvergleichendeȱStudieȱ zuȱ PrimärȬȱ undȱ SekundärȬDokumentationenȱ inȱ Wirtschaft,ȱ Wissenschaftȱ undȱ öffentliȬ cherȱVerwaltung.ȱBergischȱGladbach:ȱEul.ȱ McCloskey,ȱ D.ȱ N.,ȱ &ȱ Klamer,ȱ A.ȱ (1995).ȱ Oneȱ quarterȱ ofȱ GDPȱ isȱ persuasion.ȱ Americanȱ EcoȬ nomicȱReview,ȱ85(2),ȱ191Ȭ195.ȱ

190

Referencesȱ

ȱ

McDermott,ȱR.ȱ(1999).ȱWhyȱinformationȱtechnologyȱinspiredȱbutȱcannotȱdeliverȱknowledgeȱ management.ȱCaliforniaȱManagementȱReview,ȱ41(4),ȱ103Ȭ117.ȱ McDermott,ȱ R.,ȱ &ȱ O’Dell,ȱ C.ȱ (2001).ȱ Overcomingȱ culturalȱ barriersȱ toȱ sharingȱ knowledge.ȱ JournalȱofȱKnowledgeȱManagement,ȱ5(1),ȱ76Ȭ85.ȱ McLuhan,ȱM.,ȱ&ȱFiore,ȱQ.ȱ(1967).ȱTheȱmediumȱisȱtheȱmassage.ȱAnȱinventoryȱofȱeffects.ȱNewȱYork:ȱ Bantam.ȱ McPhee,ȱ R.ȱ D.ȱ (2004).ȱ Text,ȱ agency,ȱ andȱ organizationȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ structurationȱ theory.ȱ Organization,ȱ11(3),ȱ355Ȭ371.ȱ McPhee,ȱR.ȱD.,ȱ&ȱPoole,ȱM.ȱS.ȱ(2001).ȱOrganizationalȱstructuresȱandȱconfigurations.ȱIn:ȱF.ȱM.ȱ Jablin,ȱ&ȱL.ȱL.ȱPutnamȱ(Eds.).ȱTheȱnewȱhandbookȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunication:ȱAdvanȬ cesȱinȱtheory,ȱresearchȱandȱmethods,ȱ(pp.ȱ503Ȭ543).ȱThousandȱOaks,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱ McPhee,ȱR.ȱD.,ȱ&ȱZaug,ȱP.ȱ(2000).ȱTheȱcommunicativeȱconstitutionȱofȱorganizations:ȱAȱfraȬ meworkȱforȱexplanation.ȱElectronicȱJournalȱofȱCommunication,ȱ10(1Ȭ2).ȱ[Online].ȱAvailaȬ ble:ȱhttp://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC$$765732955489$$/010/1/01017.html.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ MenneȬHaritz,ȱA.ȱ(1999).ȱSchließungȱundȱÖffnungȱderȱVerwaltungsentscheidung:ȱFunktioȬ nenȱschriftlicherȱAufzeichnungenȱimȱVorgang.ȱSozialeȱSysteme,ȱ5(1),ȱ137Ȭ158.ȱȱ Meyer,ȱJ.ȱW.,ȱ&ȱRowan,ȱB.ȱ(1977).ȱInstitutionalizedȱorganizations:ȱFormalȱstructureȱasȱmythȱ andȱceremony.ȱAmericanȱJournalȱofȱSociology,ȱ83(2),ȱ340Ȭ363.ȱ Michailova,ȱS.,ȱ&ȱHusted,ȱK.ȱ(2004).ȱDecisionȱmakingȱinȱorganisationsȱhostileȱtoȱknowledgeȱ sharing.ȱJournalȱforȱEasternȱEuropeanȱManagementȱStudies,ȱ9(1),ȱ9Ȭ19.ȱ Miles,ȱM.ȱB.,ȱ&ȱHuberman,ȱA.ȱM.ȱ(1994).ȱQualitativeȱdataȱanalysis.ȱThousandȱOaks,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱ Miller,ȱD.ȱ(1994).ȱWhatȱhappensȱafterȱsuccess:ȱTheȱperilsȱofȱexcellence.ȱJournalȱofȱManagementȱ Studies,ȱ31(3),ȱ325Ȭ358.ȱ Mingers,ȱ J.ȱ (2002).ȱ Canȱ socialȱ systemsȱ beȱ autopoietic?ȱ Assessingȱ Luhmann’sȱ socialȱ theory.ȱ SociologicalȱReview,ȱ50(2),ȱ278Ȭ299.ȱ Mingers,ȱ J.ȱ (2003).ȱ Observingȱ organizations:ȱ Anȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ Luhmann’sȱ organizationȱ theory.ȱ In:ȱ T.ȱ Bakken,ȱ &ȱ T.ȱ Hernesȱ (Eds.).ȱ Autopoieticȱ organizationȱ theory:ȱ Drawingȱ onȱ Niklasȱ Luhmann’sȱ socialȱ systemsȱ perspective,ȱ (pp.ȱ 103Ȭ122).ȱ Oslo:ȱ Copenhagenȱ Businessȱ SchoolȱPress.ȱ Mintzberg,ȱH.ȱ(1973).ȱTheȱnatureȱofȱmanagerialȱwork.ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow.ȱ Mintzberg,ȱ H.,ȱ &ȱ McHugh,ȱ A.ȱ (1985).ȱ Strategyȱ formationȱ inȱ anȱ adhocracy.ȱ Administrativeȱ ScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ30(2),ȱ160Ȭ197.ȱ Mintzberg,ȱ H.,ȱ Raisinghani,ȱ D.,ȱ &ȱ Théorêt,ȱ A.ȱ (1976).ȱ Theȱ structureȱ ofȱ ‘unstructured’ȱ deciȬ sionȱprocesses.ȱAdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ21(2),ȱ246Ȭ275.ȱ Moeller,ȱH.ȱG.ȱ(2006).ȱLuhmannȱexplained.ȱChicago:ȱOpenȱCourt.ȱ Mol,ȱ A.ȱ (1999).ȱ Ontologicalȱ politics.ȱ Aȱ wordȱ onȱ someȱ questions.ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Law,ȱ &ȱ J.ȱ Hassardȱ (Eds.).ȱActorȬnetworkȱtheoryȱandȱafter,ȱ(pp.ȱ74Ȭ89).ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱȱ Monod,ȱE.ȱ(2004).ȱEinstein,ȱHeisenberg,ȱKant:ȱMethodologicalȱdistinctionȱandȱconditionsȱofȱ possibilities.ȱInformationȱandȱOrganization,ȱ14(2),ȱ105Ȭ121.ȱ Morgan,ȱ G.ȱ (1980).ȱ Paradigms,ȱ metaphors,ȱ andȱ puzzleȱ solvingȱ inȱ organizationȱ theory.ȱ AdȬ ministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ25(4),ȱ605Ȭ622.ȱ Morgan,ȱG.ȱ(1986).ȱImagesȱofȱorganization.ȱBeverlyȱHills,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱ

Referencesȱ

191ȱ

Nassehi,ȱA.ȱ(2005).ȱOrganizationsȱasȱdecisionȱmachines.ȱNiklasȱLuhmann’sȱtheoryȱofȱorganȬ izedȱsocialȱsystems.ȱIn:ȱC.ȱJones,ȱ&ȱR.ȱMunroȱ(Eds.).ȱContemporaryȱorganizationȱtheory,ȱ (pp.ȱ178Ȭ191).ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Nassehi,ȱ A.,ȱ &ȱ Saake,ȱ I.ȱ (2002).ȱ Kontingenz:ȱ Methodischȱ verhindertȱ oderȱ beobachtet?ȱ Einȱ Beitragȱ zurȱ Methodologieȱ derȱ qualitativenȱ Sozialforschung.ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ Soziologie,ȱ 31(1),ȱ66Ȭ86.ȱ Neus,ȱA.ȱ(2001).ȱManagingȱinformationȱqualityȱinȱvirtualȱcommunitiesȱofȱpractice.ȱLessonsȱ learnedȱ fromȱ aȱ decade’sȱ experienceȱ withȱ explodingȱ Internetȱ communication.ȱ Freeȱ/ȱOpenȱSourceȱResearchȱCommunity.ȱ[Online].ȱAvailable:ȱhttp://opensource.mit.edu/ȱ papers/neus.pdf.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ Newell,ȱ S.ȱ (2004).ȱ Enhancingȱ crossȬprojectȱ learning.ȱ Engineeringȱ Managementȱ Journal,ȱ 16(1),ȱ 12Ȭ20.ȱ Newell,ȱS.,ȱBresnen,ȱM.,ȱEdelman,ȱL.,ȱScarbrough,ȱH.,ȱ&ȱSwan,ȱJ.ȱ(2006).ȱSharingȱknowledgeȱ acrossȱ projects:ȱ Limitsȱ toȱ ICTȬledȱ projectȱ reviewȱ practices.ȱ Managementȱ Learning,ȱ 37,ȱ 167Ȭ185.ȱ Nicolai,ȱ A.ȱ T.ȱ (2004).ȱ Theȱ bridgeȱ toȱ theȱ ‘realȱ world’:ȱ Appliedȱ scienceȱ orȱ aȱ ‘schizophrenicȱ TourȱdeȱForce’?ȱJournalȱofȱManagementȱStudies,ȱ41(6),ȱ951Ȭ976.ȱ Nicolai,ȱA.ȱT.,ȱ &ȱKieser,ȱA.ȱ(2002).ȱTrotzȱeklatanterȱErfolglosigkeit:ȱDieȱ ErfolgsfaktorenforȬ schungȱweiterȱaufȱErfolgskurs.ȱDieȱBetriebswirtschaft,ȱ62(6),ȱ579Ȭ596.ȱ Noe,ȱE.,ȱ&ȱAlrøe,ȱH.ȱF.ȱ(2006).ȱCombiningȱLuhmannȱandȱactorȬnetworkȱtheoryȱtoȱseeȱfarmȱ enterprisesȱasȱselfȬorganizingȱsystems.ȱCyberneticsȱandȱHumanȱKnowing,ȱ13(1),ȱ34Ȭ48.ȱȱ Nonaka,ȱ I.,ȱ &ȱ Takeuchi,ȱ H.ȱ (1995).ȱ Theȱ knowledgeȬcreatingȱ company:ȱ Howȱ Japaneseȱ companiesȱ fosterȱ creativityȱ andȱ innovationȱ forȱ competitiveȱ advantage.ȱ London:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press.ȱ Nunberg,ȱG.ȱ(1999,ȱDecemberȱ20th).ȱTheȱtroubleȱwithȱPowerPoint.ȱFortune,ȱpp.ȱ330Ȭ334.ȱ Olivera,ȱF.ȱ(2000).ȱMemoryȱsystemsȱinȱorganizations:ȱAnȱempiricalȱinvestigationȱofȱmechaȬ nismsȱ forȱ knowledgeȱ collection,ȱ storageȱ andȱ access.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Managementȱ Studies,ȱ 37(6),ȱ811Ȭ832.ȱ Orlikowski,ȱW.ȱJ.ȱ(2002).ȱKnowingȱinȱpractice:ȱEnactingȱaȱcollectiveȱcapabilityȱinȱdistributedȱ organizing.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ13(3),ȱ249Ȭ273.ȱ Ortmann,ȱG.ȱ(2004).ȱAlsȱob.ȱFiktionenȱdesȱOrganisierens.ȱWiesbaden:ȱVSȱVerlagȱfürȱSozialwisȬ senschaften.ȱ Ortmann,ȱG.,ȱ&ȱSalzman,ȱH.ȱ(2002).ȱStumblingȱgiantsȱ–ȱTheȱemptiness,ȱfullness,ȱandȱrecurȬ sivenessȱofȱstrategicȱmanagement.ȱSozialeȱSysteme,ȱ8(2),ȱ205Ȭ230.ȱȱ Orton,ȱ D.ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Weick,ȱ K.ȱ E.ȱ (1990).ȱ Looselyȱ coupledȱ systems:ȱ Aȱ reconceptualization.ȱ Theȱ AcademyȱofȱManagementȱReview,ȱ15(2),ȱ203Ȭ223.ȱ Parker,ȱI.ȱ(2001,ȱMayȱ28th).ȱAbsoluteȱPowerPoint:ȱCanȱaȱsoftwareȱpackageȱeditȱourȱthoughts?ȱ TheȱNewȱYorker,ȱAnnalsȱofȱBusinessȱSection,ȱp.ȱ76.ȱ Pentland,ȱ B.ȱ T.ȱ (1995).ȱ Grammaticalȱ modelsȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ processes.ȱ Organizationȱ SciȬ ence,ȱ6(5),ȱ541Ȭ556.ȱ Pentland,ȱB.ȱT.ȱ(2003).ȱSequentialȱvarietyȱinȱworkȱprocesses.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ14(5),ȱ528Ȭ 540.ȱ

192

Referencesȱ

ȱ

Pentland,ȱB.ȱT.,ȱ&ȱRueter,ȱH.ȱR.ȱ(1994).ȱOrganizationalȱroutinesȱasȱgrammarsȱofȱaction.ȱAdȬ ministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ39(3),ȱ484Ȭ510.ȱ Pfeffer,ȱJ.ȱ(1993).ȱBarriersȱtoȱtheȱadvanceȱofȱorganizationalȱscience:ȱParadigmȱdevelopmentȱ asȱaȱdependentȱvariable.ȱTheȱAcademyȱofȱManagementȱReview,ȱ18(4),ȱ599Ȭ620.ȱ Pike,ȱ K.ȱ L.ȱ (1967).ȱ Languageȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ aȱ unifiedȱ theoryȱ ofȱ structureȱ ofȱ humanȱ behavior,ȱ (2ndȱ ed.).ȱTheȱHague:ȱMouton.ȱ Ponzi,ȱL.,ȱ&ȱKoenig,ȱM.ȱE.ȱ(2002).ȱKnowledgeȱmanagement:ȱAnotherȱmanagementȱfad?ȱInȬ formationȱ Research,ȱ 8(1).ȱ [Online].ȱ Available:ȱ http://informationr.net/ir/8Ȭ1/paper145.ȱ html.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ Popper,ȱK.ȱR.ȱ(1959).ȱTheȱlogicȱofȱscientificȱdiscovery.ȱLondon:ȱHutchinson.ȱ Popper,ȱK.ȱR.ȱ(1972).ȱObjectiveȱknowledge:ȱAnȱevolutionaryȱapproach.ȱOxford:ȱClarendon.ȱ Prencipe,ȱA.,ȱ&ȱTell,ȱF.ȱ(2001).ȱInterȬprojectȱlearning:ȱProcessesȱandȱoutcomesȱofȱknowledgeȱ codificationȱinȱprojectȬbasedȱfirms.ȱResearchȱPolicy,ȱ30(9),ȱ1373Ȭ1394.ȱ Probst,ȱG.,ȱRaub,ȱS.,ȱ&ȱRomhardtȱK.ȱ(1999).ȱManagingȱknowledge.ȱLondon:ȱWiley.ȱ Putnam,ȱL.ȱL.,ȱ&ȱCooren,ȱF.ȱ(2004).ȱAlternativeȱperspectivesȱonȱtheȱroleȱofȱtextȱandȱagencyȱinȱ constitutingȱorganizations.ȱOrganization,ȱ11(3),ȱ323Ȭ333.ȱ Putnam,ȱL.ȱL.,ȱPhillips,ȱN.,ȱ&ȱChapman,ȱP.ȱ(1996).ȱMetaphorsȱofȱcommunicationȱandȱorganiȬ zations.ȱIn:ȱS.ȱR.ȱCless,ȱ&ȱW.ȱR.ȱNordȱ(Eds.).ȱHandbookȱofȱorganizationȱstudies,ȱ(pp.ȱ375Ȭ 408).ȱThousandȱOaks,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱ Quinn,ȱR.ȱE.,ȱ&ȱCameron,ȱK.ȱ(1983).ȱOrganizationalȱlifeȱcyclesȱandȱshiftingȱcriteriaȱofȱeffecȬ tiveness:ȱSomeȱpreliminaryȱevidence.ȱManagementȱScience,ȱ29(1),ȱ33Ȭ51.ȱȱ Raelin,ȱJ.ȱA.ȱ(1997).ȱAȱmodelȱofȱworkȬbasedȱlearning.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ8(6),ȱ599Ȭ620.ȱ Rafaeli,ȱS.,ȱ&ȱLaRose,ȱR.ȱJ.ȱ(1993).ȱElectronicȱbulletinȱboardsȱandȱ‘publicȱgoods’ȱexplanationsȱ ofȱcollaborativeȱmassȱmedia.ȱCommunicationȱResearch,ȱ20(2),ȱ277Ȭ297.ȱ Ruggles,ȱR.ȱ(1998).ȱTheȱstateȱofȱnotion:ȱKnowledgeȱmanagementȱinȱpractice.ȱCaliforniaȱManȬ agementȱReview,ȱ40(3),ȱ80Ȭ89.ȱ Reinhardt,ȱR.,ȱ&ȱEppler,ȱM.ȱJ.ȱ(Eds.).ȱ(2004).ȱWissenskommunikationȱinȱOrganisationen.ȱMethoȬ den,ȱInstrumente,ȱTheorien.ȱBerlin:ȱSpringer.ȱ Robichaud,ȱ D.,ȱ Giroux,ȱ H.,ȱ &ȱ Taylor,ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ (2004).ȱ Theȱ metaconversation:ȱ Theȱ recursiveȱ propertyȱofȱlanguageȱasȱaȱkeyȱtoȱorganizing.ȱTheȱAcademyȱofȱManagementȱReview,ȱ29(4),ȱ 617Ȭ634.ȱ Rorty,ȱR.ȱ(1989).ȱContingency,ȱirony,ȱandȱsolidarity.ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Ruesch,ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Bateson,ȱ G.ȱ (1951).ȱ Communication:ȱ Theȱ socialȱ matrixȱ ofȱ psychiatry.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Norton.ȱȱ Sacks,ȱO.ȱ(1987).ȱTheȱmanȱwhoȱmistookȱhisȱwifeȱforȱaȱhat.ȱNewȱYork:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow.ȱ Salaman,ȱ G.ȱ (2002).ȱ Understandingȱ advice:ȱ Towardsȱ aȱ sociologyȱ ofȱ managementȱ consulȬ tancy.ȱIn:ȱT.ȱClark,ȱ&ȱR.ȱFinchamȱ(Eds.).ȱCriticalȱconsulting:ȱNewȱperspectivesȱonȱtheȱmanȬ agementȱadviceȱindustry,ȱ(pp.ȱ247Ȭ259).ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Sartre,ȱJ.ȱP.ȱ(1956).ȱBeingȱandȱnothingness.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPhilosophicalȱLibrary.ȱ Scarborough,ȱ H.,ȱ &ȱ Swan,ȱ J.ȱ (2001).ȱ Explainingȱ theȱ diffusionȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ management:ȱ Theȱroleȱofȱfashion.ȱBritishȱJournalȱofȱManagement,ȱ12(1),ȱ3Ȭ12.ȱ

Referencesȱ

193ȱ

Schimank,ȱU.ȱ(1985).ȱDerȱmangelndeȱAkteurbezugȱsystemtheoretischerȱErklärungenȱgesellȬ schaftlicherȱDifferenzierungȱ–ȱeinȱDiskussionsvorschlag.ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱSoziologie,ȱ14(6),ȱ 421Ȭ434.ȱ Schindler,ȱ M.,ȱ &ȱ Eppler,ȱ M.ȱ J.ȱ (2003).ȱ Harvestingȱ projectȱ knowledge:ȱ Aȱ reviewȱ ofȱ projectȱ learningȱmethodsȱandȱsuccessȱfactors.ȱInternationalȱJournalȱofȱProjectȱManagement,ȱ21(3),ȱ 219Ȭ228.ȱ Schmundt,ȱH.ȱ(2004,ȱMarchȱ15th).ȱDieȱMachtȱderȱbuntenȱBilder.ȱDerȱSpiegel,ȱNo.ȱ12,ȱp.ȱ126.ȱ Schneider,ȱW.ȱL.ȱ(1995).ȱObjektiveȱHermeneutikȱalsȱForschungsmethodeȱderȱSystemtheorie.ȱ SozialeȱSysteme,ȱ1(1),ȱ129Ȭ152.ȱ Schoen,ȱD.ȱ(1983).ȱTheȱreflectiveȱpractitioner:ȱHowȱprofessionalsȱthinkȱinȱaction.ȱNewȱYork:ȱBasicȱ Books.ȱ Schoeneborn,ȱD.ȱB.ȱ(2004).ȱInteraktionȱstattȱDistribution.ȱWieȱkommunikativeȱBarrierenȱdesȱ Wissensmanagementsȱ überwundenȱ werdenȱ können.ȱ In:ȱ B.ȱ Wyssusekȱ (Ed.).ȱ WissensȬ managementȱkomplex:ȱPerspektivenȱundȱsozialeȱPraxis,ȱ(pp.ȱ135Ȭ157).ȱBerlin:ȱErichȱSchmidtȱ Verlag.ȱ Schoeneborn,ȱD.ȱB.ȱ(2006).ȱWissenskommunikationsȬManagement.ȱEineȱStudieȱzurȱNeugestaltungȱ desȱ Wissensmanagementsȱ ausȱ medienȬȱ undȱ kommunikationswissenschaftlicherȱ Perspektive.ȱ Stuttgart:ȱibidem.ȱ Schoeneborn,ȱ D.ȱ B.,ȱ &ȱ Blaschke,ȱ S.ȱ (2006).ȱ Theȱ organizationȱ thatȱ neverȱ sleeps.ȱ Aȱ metaphoricalȱ pathologyȱofȱorganizationalȱinsomnia.ȱPaperȱpresentedȱatȱtheȱInternationalȱCommunicaȬ tionȱAssociationȱ2006ȱAnnualȱConference,ȱJuneȱ19Ȭ23,ȱ2006,ȱDresdenȱ(Germany).ȱ Schofield,ȱJ.ȱW.ȱ(1990).ȱIncreasingȱtheȱgeneralizabilityȱofȱqualitativeȱresearch.ȱIn:ȱE.ȱW.ȱEisȬ ner,ȱ &ȱ A.ȱ Peshkinȱ (Eds.).ȱ Qualitativeȱ inquiryȱ inȱ education,ȱ (pp.ȱ 201Ȭ232).ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ TeachersȱCollegeȱPress.ȱ Schreyögg,ȱ G.,ȱ &ȱ Sydow,ȱ J.ȱ (Eds).ȱ (2003).ȱ Managementforschungȱ 13:ȱ Strategischeȱ Prozesseȱ undȱ Pfade.ȱWiesbaden:ȱGabler.ȱ Schumpeter,ȱJ.ȱ(1943).ȱSocialism,ȱcapitalismȱandȱdemocracy.ȱLondon:ȱAllenȱ&ȱUnwin.ȱ Scott,ȱW.ȱR.ȱ(1998).ȱOrganizations:ȱRational,ȱnatural,ȱandȱopenȱsystems.ȱUpperȱSaddleȱRiver,ȱNJ:ȱ PrenticeȱHall.ȱ Searle,ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ (1969).ȱ Speechȱ acts.ȱ Anȱ eassyȱ inȱ theȱ philosophyȱ ofȱ language.ȱ London:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress.ȱ Seidl,ȱD.ȱ(2006a).ȱTheȱbasicȱconceptsȱofȱLuhmann’sȱtheoryȱofȱsocialȱsystems.ȱIn:ȱD.ȱSeidl,ȱ&ȱ K.ȱH.ȱBeckerȱ(Eds.).ȱNiklasȱLuhmannȱandȱorganizationȱstudies,ȱ(pp.ȱ21Ȭ53).ȱCopenhagen:ȱ CopenhagenȱBusinessȱSchoolȱPress.ȱ Seidl,ȱ D.ȱ (2006b).ȱ Organizationȱ andȱ interaction.ȱ In:ȱ D.ȱ Seidl,ȱ &ȱ K.ȱ H.ȱ Beckerȱ (Eds.).ȱ Niklasȱ Luhmannȱ andȱ organizationȱ studies,ȱ (pp.ȱ 145Ȭ170).ȱ Copenhagen:ȱ Copenhagenȱ Businessȱ SchoolȱPress.ȱ Seidl,ȱD.,ȱ&ȱBecker,ȱK.ȱH.ȱ(Eds.).ȱ(2006a).ȱNiklasȱLuhmannȱandȱorganizationȱstudies.ȱCopenhaȬ gen:ȱCopenhagenȱBusinessȱSchoolȱPress.ȱ Seidl,ȱ D.,ȱ &ȱ Becker,ȱ K.ȱ H.ȱ (2006b).ȱ Organizationsȱ asȱ distinctionȱ generatingȱ andȱ processingȱ systems.ȱNiklasȱLuhmannȇsȱcontributionȱtoȱorganizationȱstudies.ȱOrganization,ȱSpecialȱ Issueȱonȱ‘NiklasȱLuhmannȱandȱOrganizationȱStudies’,ȱ13(1),ȱ9Ȭ35.ȱȱ

194

Referencesȱ

ȱ

Shannon,ȱ C.ȱE.,ȱ &ȱWeaver,ȱW.ȱ(1949).ȱTheȱmathematicalȱtheoryȱofȱcommunication.ȱ Urbana,ȱIL:ȱ UniversityȱofȱIllinoisȱPress.ȱ Shenhar,ȱA.ȱJ.ȱ(2001).ȱOneȱsizeȱdoesȱnotȱfitȱallȱprojects:ȱExploringȱclassicalȱcontingencyȱdoȬ mains.ȱManagementȱScience,ȱ47(3),ȱ394Ȭ414.ȱ Shwom,ȱ B.ȱ L.ȱ (2003).ȱ „Theȱ greatȱmanȱ hasȱ spoken.ȱ Nowȱ whatȱ doȱ Iȱ do?”ȱ Aȱ responseȱ toȱ EdȬ wardȱ R.ȱ Tufte’sȱ “Theȱ cognitiveȱ styleȱ ofȱ PowerPoint”.ȱ Communicationȱ Insights,ȱ 1(1),ȱ 1Ȭ 16.ȱ [Online].ȱ Available:ȱ http://www.communipartners.com/documents/ComInsV1._ȱ 000.pdf.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ Sitkin,ȱ S.ȱ B.ȱ (1992).ȱ Learningȱ fromȱ mistakes:ȱ Theȱ strategyȱ ofȱ smallȱ losses.ȱ In:ȱ L.ȱ L.ȱ CumȬ mings,ȱ&ȱS.ȱB.ȱCummingsȱ(Eds.).ȱResearchȱinȱorganizationalȱbehavior,ȱ(vol.ȱ14),ȱ(pp.ȱ231Ȭ 266).ȱGreenwich,ȱCT:ȱJAIȱPress.ȱȱ Smith,ȱD.ȱE.ȱ(1984).ȱTextuallyȱmediatedȱsocialȱorganization.ȱInternationalȱSocialȱScienceȱJourȬ nal,ȱ36(1),ȱ59Ȭ75.ȱ Smith,ȱR.ȱC.ȱ(1993).ȱImagesȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunication:ȱRootȬmetaphorsȱofȱtheȱorganizationȬ communicationȱ relation.ȱ Paperȱ presentedȱ atȱ theȱ Internationalȱ Communicationȱ AssociaȬ tionȱ1993ȱAnnualȱConference,ȱWashington,ȱDC.ȱ Soentgen,ȱJ.ȱ(1992).ȱDerȱBau.ȱBetrachtungenȱzuȱeinerȱMetapherȱderȱLuhmannschenȱSystemȬ theorie.ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱSoziologie,ȱ21(6),ȱ456Ȭ466.ȱ Sørensen,ȱ C.,ȱ Whitley,ȱ E.ȱ A.,ȱ Madon,ȱ S.,ȱ Klyachko,ȱ D.,ȱ Hosein,ȱ I.,ȱ &ȱ Johnstone,ȱ J.ȱ (2001).ȱ Cultivatingȱrecalcitranceȱinȱinformationȱsystemsȱresearch.ȱIn:ȱN.ȱRusso,ȱB.ȱFitzgerald,ȱ &ȱJ.ȱI.ȱDeGrossȱ(Eds.).ȱRealigningȱresearchȱandȱpracticeȱinȱinformationȱsystemsȱdevelopment:ȱ Theȱsocialȱandȱorganizationalȱperspective,ȱ(pp.ȱ297Ȭ31).ȱBoston:ȱKluwer.ȱȱ Sosik,ȱ J.ȱ J.,ȱ &ȱ Jung,ȱ D.ȱ I.ȱ (2003).ȱ Impressionȱ managementȱ strategiesȱ andȱ performanceȱ inȱ informationȱtechnologyȱconsulting.ȱTheȱroleȱofȱselfȬotherȱratingȱagreementȱonȱcharisȬ maticȱleadership.ȱManagementȱCommunicationȱQuarterly,ȱ17(2),ȱ233Ȭ268.ȱ Spender,ȱJ.ȱC.ȱ(1996).ȱOrganizationalȱknowledge,ȱlearning,ȱandȱmemory:ȱThreeȱconceptsȱinȱ searchȱofȱaȱtheory.ȱJournalȱofȱOrganizationalȱChangeȱManagement,ȱ9(1),ȱ63Ȭ78.ȱ Star,ȱS.ȱL.,ȱ&ȱStrauss,ȱA.ȱ(1999).ȱLayersȱofȱsilence,ȱarenasȱofȱvoice:ȱTheȱecologyȱofȱvisibleȱandȱ invisibleȱwork.ȱComputerȱSupportedȱCooperativeȱWork,ȱ8(1),ȱ9Ȭ30.ȱ Starbuck,ȱW.ȱH.ȱ(1982).ȱCongealingȱoil:ȱInventingȱideologiesȱtoȱjustifyȱactingȱideologiesȱout.ȱ JournalȱofȱManagementȱStudies,ȱ19(1),ȱ3Ȭ27.ȱ Starbuck,ȱ W.ȱ H.ȱ (1992).ȱ Learningȱ byȱ knowledgeȬintensiveȱ firms.ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Managementȱ Studies,ȱ29(6),ȱ713Ȭ740.ȱ Starbuck,ȱW.ȱH.,ȱBarnett,ȱM.ȱL.,ȱ&ȱBaumardȱP.ȱ(forthcoming).ȱPayoffsȱandȱpitfallsȱofȱstrateȬ gicȱlearning.ȱJournalȱOfȱEconomicȱBehavior.ȱ Steinmeyer,ȱJ.ȱ(2003).ȱHidingȱtheȱelephantȱȬȱHowȱmagiciansȱinventedȱtheȱimpossibleȱandȱlearnedȱtoȱ disappear.ȱNewȱYork:ȱCarrollȱ&ȱGraf.ȱ Stewart,ȱ T.ȱ A.ȱ (2001,ȱ Februaryȱ 5th).ȱ Banȱ itȱ now!ȱ Friendsȱ don’tȱ letȱ friendsȱ useȱ PowerPoint.ȱ Fortune,ȱp.ȱ213.ȱ Strauss,ȱA.ȱL.ȱ(1988).ȱTheȱarticulationȱofȱprojectȱwork:ȱAnȱorganizationalȱprocess.ȱTheȱSocioȬ logicalȱQuarterly,ȱ29(2),ȱ163Ȭ178.ȱ Sturdy,ȱ A.ȱ (1997).ȱ Theȱ consultancyȱ processȱ –ȱ anȱ insecureȱ business?ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Managementȱ Studies,ȱ34(3),ȱ389Ȭ413.ȱ

Referencesȱ

195ȱ

Suchman,ȱL.ȱ(1995).ȱMakingȱworkȱvisible.ȱCommunicationsȱofȱtheȱACM,ȱ38(9),ȱ56Ȭ64.ȱ Swan,ȱJ.ȱA.,ȱNewell,ȱS.ȱM.,ȱ&ȱRobertson,ȱM.ȱ(1999).ȱTheȱillusionȱofȱ‘bestȱpractices’ȱinȱinformaȬ tionȱsystemsȱforȱoperationsȱmanagement.ȱEuropeanȱJournalȱofȱInformationȱSystems,ȱ8(3),ȱ 284Ȭ293.ȱ Taylor,ȱ B.ȱ C.,ȱ &ȱ Trujillo,ȱ N.ȱ (2001).ȱ Qualitativeȱ researchȱ methods.ȱ In:ȱ F.ȱ M.ȱ Jablin,ȱ &ȱ L.ȱ L.ȱ Putnamȱ(Eds.).ȱTheȱnewȱhandbookȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunication.ȱAdvancesȱinȱtheory,ȱreȬ search,ȱandȱmethods,ȱ(pp.ȱ161Ȭ194).ȱThousandȱOaks,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱ Taylor,ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ (1993).ȱ Rethinkingȱ theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ organizationalȱ communication:ȱ Howȱ toȱ readȱ anȱ orȬ ganization.ȱNorwood,ȱNJ:ȱAblex.ȱ Taylor,ȱJ.ȱR.ȱ(2000a),ȱThinkingȱaboutȱorganizationȱinȱaȱnewȱway:ȱAnȱinquiryȱintoȱtheȱontoȬ logicalȱ foundationsȱ ofȱ organization.ȱ Electronicȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Communication,ȱ 10(1Ȭ2).ȱ [Online].ȱ Available:ȱ http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC$$365732955501$$/010/1/01015.ȱ html.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ Taylor,ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ (2000b).ȱ Aȱ commonȱ ground,ȱ commonȱ grounds,ȱ orȱ footbridges?ȱ In:ȱ S.ȱ R.ȱ CorȬ man,ȱ&ȱM.ȱS.ȱPooleȱ(Eds.).ȱPerspectivesȱonȱorganizationalȱcommunication.ȱFindingȱcommonȱ ground,ȱ(pp.ȱ190Ȭ199).ȱNewȱYork:ȱGuilfordȱPress.ȱ Taylor,ȱJ.ȱR.ȱ(2001).ȱTheȱȈrationalȈȱorganizationȱreconsidered:ȱAnȱexplorationȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ organizationalȱimplicationsȱofȱselfȬorganizing.ȱCommunicationȱTheory,ȱ11(2),ȱ137Ȭ177.ȱ Taylor,ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ (2003).ȱ Organizationalȱ communication:ȱ Isȱ itȱ aȱ discipline?ȱ Inauguralȱ lectureȱ asȱ Kurtȱ Baschwitzȱ Professorȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Amsterdam,ȱ Juneȱ 12,ȱ 2003.ȱ [Online].ȱȱ Available:ȱhttp://www.communicatie.com/documenten/achtergrondartikel%20james%ȱ 20taylor.doc.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ Taylor,ȱ J.ȱ R.ȱ (2005).ȱ Inȱ praiseȱ ofȱ ambiguity:ȱ Forumȱ response.ȱ Managementȱ Communicationȱ Quarterly,ȱ19(2),ȱ299Ȭ306.ȱ Taylor,ȱJ.ȱR.,ȱ&ȱvanȱEvery,ȱE.ȱJ.ȱ(2000).ȱTheȱemergentȱorganization:ȱCommunicationȱasȱitsȱsiteȱandȱ surface.ȱMahwah,ȱNJ:ȱLawrenceȱErlbaum.ȱ Taylor,ȱJ.ȱR.,ȱ&ȱRobichaud,ȱD.ȱ(2004).ȱFindingȱtheȱorganizationȱinȱtheȱcommunication:ȱDisȬ courseȱasȱactionȱandȱsensemaking.ȱOrganization,ȱ11(3),ȱ395Ȭ413.ȱ Taylor,ȱJ.ȱR.,ȱFlanagin,ȱA.ȱJ.,ȱCheney,ȱG.,ȱ&ȱSeibold,ȱD.ȱR.ȱ(2001).ȱOrganizationalȱcommunicaȬ tionȱ research:ȱ Keyȱ moments,ȱ centralȱ concerns,ȱ andȱ futureȱ challenges.ȱ Communicationȱ Yearbook,ȱ24,ȱ99Ȭ137.ȱ Teȇeni,ȱD.ȱ(2001).ȱAȱcognitiveȬaffectiveȱmodelȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunicationȱforȱdesignȬ ingȱIT.ȱMISȱQuarterly,ȱ25(2),ȱ251Ȭ312.ȱ Tedeschi,ȱJ.ȱT.,ȱ&ȱMelburg,ȱV.ȱ(1984).ȱImpressionȱmanagementȱandȱinfluenceȱinȱtheȱorganiȬ zation.ȱ In:ȱ S.ȱ B.ȱ Bacharach,ȱ &ȱ E.ȱ J.ȱ Lawlerȱ (Eds.).ȱ Researchȱ inȱ theȱ sociologyȱ ofȱ organizaȬ tions,ȱ(vol.ȱ3),ȱ(pp.ȱ31Ȭ58).ȱGreenwich,ȱCT:ȱJAIȱPress.ȱ TheisȬBerglmair,ȱ A.ȱ M.ȱ (2003).ȱ Organisationskommunikation.ȱ Theoretischeȱ Grundlagenȱ undȱ empirischeȱForschungen,ȱ(2ndȱed.).ȱOpladen:ȱWestdeutscherȱVerlag.ȱ TheisȬBerglmair,ȱA.ȱM.ȱ(2005).ȱPublicȱRelationsȱausȱorganisationssoziologischerȱPerspektive.ȱ In:ȱ G.ȱ Bentele,ȱ R.ȱ Fröhlich,ȱ &ȱ P.ȱ Szyszkaȱ (Ed.).ȱ Handbuchȱ Publicȱ Relations,ȱ (pp.ȱ 37Ȭ49).ȱ Opladen:ȱWestdeutscherȱVerlag.ȱ Thompson,ȱ C.ȱ (2003,ȱ Decemberȱ 14th).ȱ PowerPointȱ makesȱ youȱ dumb.ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Timesȱ Magazine,ȱpp.ȱ88Ȭ89.ȱ

196

Referencesȱ

ȱ

Totzke,ȱ R.ȱ (2004).ȱ Schriftȱ undȱ Wissen:ȱ Wasȱ dieȱ WissensmanagementȬTheorieȱ vonȱ Platonsȱ Schriftkritikȱlernenȱkann.ȱIn:ȱB.ȱWyssusekȱ(Ed.).ȱWissensmanagementȱkomplex:ȱPerspektiȬ venȱundȱsozialeȱPraxis,ȱ(pp.ȱ85Ȭ100).ȱBerlin:ȱErichȱSchmidtȱVerlag.ȱ Tsoukas,ȱ H.ȱ (1991).ȱ Theȱ missingȱ link:ȱ Aȱ transformationalȱ viewȱ ofȱ metaphorsȱ inȱ organizaȬ tionalȱscience.ȱTheȱAcademyȱofȱManagementȱReview,ȱ16(3),ȱ566Ȭ585.ȱ Tsoukas,ȱ H.ȱ (1993).ȱ Analogicalȱ reasoningȱ andȱ knowledgeȱ generationȱ inȱ organizationalȱ theory.ȱOrganizationȱStudies,ȱ14(3),ȱ323Ȭ346.ȱ Tufte,ȱE.ȱR.ȱ(2003).ȱTheȱcognitiveȱstyleȱofȱPowerPoint.ȱCheshire,ȱCT:ȱGraphicsȱPress.ȱ Türcke,ȱ C.ȱ (2005).ȱ Vomȱ Kainszeichenȱ zumȱ genetischenȱ Code.ȱ Kritischeȱ Theorieȱ derȱ Schrift.ȱ MünȬ chen:ȱBeck.ȱ vanȱMaanen,ȱJ.ȱ(1995).ȱStyleȱasȱtheory.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ6(1),ȱ133Ȭ143.ȱ Vaughan,ȱ D.ȱ (1999).ȱ Theȱ darkȱ sideȱ ofȱ organizations:ȱ Mistake,ȱ misconduct,ȱ andȱ disaster.ȱ AnnualȱReviewȱofȱSociology,ȱ25(1),ȱ271Ȭ305.ȱ Vicari,ȱ S.,ȱ &ȱ Troilo,ȱ G.ȱ (1998).ȱ Errorsȱ andȱ learningȱ inȱ organizations.ȱ In:ȱ G.ȱ vonȱ Krogh,ȱ J.ȱ Roos,ȱ &ȱ D.ȱ Kleineȱ (Eds.).ȱ Knowingȱ inȱ firms:ȱ Understanding,ȱ managingȱ andȱ measuringȱ knowledge,ȱ(pp.ȱ204Ȭ222).ȱLondon:ȱSage.ȱ Vogd,ȱW.ȱ(2005).ȱSystemtheorieȱundȱrekonstruktiveȱSozialforschung.ȱEineȱempirischeȱVersöhnungȱ unterschiedlicherȱtheoretischerȱPerspektiven.ȱOpladen:ȱBudrich.ȱ vonȱFoerster,ȱH.ȱ(1992).ȱEthicsȱandȱsecondȬorderȱcybernetics.ȱCyberneticsȱ&ȱHumanȱKnowing,ȱ 1(1),ȱ9Ȭ19.ȱ vonȱKrogh,ȱG.,ȱ&ȱCusumano,ȱM.ȱA.ȱ(2000).ȱThreeȱstrategiesȱforȱmanagingȱfastȱgrowth.ȱSloanȱ ManagementȱReview,ȱ42(2),ȱ53Ȭ61.ȱ Walgenbach,ȱP.,ȱ&ȱHegele,ȱC.ȱ(2001).ȱWhatȱcanȱanȱappleȱlearnȱfromȱanȱorange?ȱOr:ȱWhatȱdoȱ companiesȱuseȱbenchmarkingȱfor?ȱOrganization,ȱ8(1),ȱ121Ȭ144.ȱ Walsh,ȱJ.ȱP.ȱ(1995).ȱManagerialȱandȱorganizationalȱcognition:ȱNotesȱfromȱaȱtripȱdownȱmemȬ oryȱlane.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ6(3),ȱ280Ȭ321.ȱ Walsh,ȱ J.ȱ P.,ȱ &ȱ Ungson,ȱ G.ȱ R.ȱ (1991).ȱ Organizationalȱ memory.ȱ Theȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Managementȱ Review,ȱ16(1),ȱ57Ȭ91.ȱ Weber,ȱM.ȱ(1958).ȱBureaucracy.ȱIn:ȱH.ȱH.ȱGerth,ȱ&ȱC.ȱW.ȱMillsȱ(Eds.).ȱFromȱMaxȱWeber:ȱEsȬ saysȱinȱsociology,ȱ(pp.ȱ196Ȭ244).ȱNewȱYork:ȱGalaxy.ȱ Weber,ȱM.ȱ(1969).ȱTheȱmethodologyȱofȱtheȱsocialȱsciences.ȱNewȱYork:ȱFreeȱPress.ȱ Weick,ȱK.ȱE.ȱ(1979).ȱTheȱsocialȱpsychologyȱofȱorganizing.ȱReading,ȱMA:ȱAddisonȬWesley.ȱ Weick,ȱ K.ȱ E.ȱ (1983).ȱ Organizationalȱ communication:ȱ Towardȱ aȱ researchȱ agenda.ȱ In:ȱ L.ȱ L.ȱ Putnam,ȱ &ȱ M.ȱ E.ȱ Pacanowskyȱ (Eds.).ȱ Communicationȱ andȱ organization.ȱ Anȱ interpretiveȱ approach,ȱ(pp.ȱ13Ȭ29).ȱBeverlyȱHills,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱ Weick,ȱ K.ȱ E.ȱ (1989).ȱ Theoryȱ constructionȱ asȱ disciplinedȱ imagination.ȱ Theȱ Academyȱ ofȱ ManȬ agementȱReview,ȱ14(4),ȱ516Ȭ531.ȱ Weick,ȱK.ȱE.ȱ(1995).ȱSensemakingȱinȱorganizations.ȱThousandȱOaks,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱȱ Weick,ȱK.ȱE.,ȱ&ȱRoberts,ȱK.ȱH.ȱ(1993).ȱCollectiveȱmindsȱinȱorganizations:ȱHeedfulȱinterrelatȬ ingȱonȱflightȱdecks.ȱAdministrativeȱScienceȱQuarterly,ȱ38(3),ȱ357Ȭ381.ȱ Weick,ȱK.ȱE.,ȱ&ȱSutcliffe,ȱK.ȱM.ȱ(2001).ȱManagingȱtheȱunexpected.ȱAssuringȱhighȱperformanceȱinȱ anȱageȱofȱcomplexity.ȱSanȱFrancisco,ȱCA:ȱJosseyȬBass.ȱ

Referencesȱ

197ȱ

Weick,ȱ K.ȱ E.,ȱ Sutcliffe,ȱ K.ȱ M.,ȱ &ȱ Obstfeld,ȱ D.ȱ (2005).ȱ Organizingȱ andȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ senseȬ making.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ16(4),ȱ409Ȭ421.ȱ Werr,ȱ A.,ȱ &ȱ Stjernberg,ȱ T.ȱ (2003).ȱ Exploringȱ managementȱ consultingȱ firmsȱ asȱ knowledgeȱ systems.ȱOrganizationȱStudies,ȱ24(6),ȱ881Ȭ908.ȱ Wiio,ȱ O.ȱ A.,ȱ Goldhaber,ȱ G.ȱ M.,ȱ &ȱ Yates,ȱ M.ȱ P.ȱ (1981).ȱ Organizationalȱ communicationȱ reȬ search:ȱTimeȱforȱreflection?ȱSomeȱconclusionsȱfromȱauditȱandȱnetworkȱstudiesȱinȱdifȬ ferentȱcountries.ȱCommunicationȱYearbook,ȱ4,ȱ83Ȭ97.ȱ Willke,ȱH.ȱ(1998).ȱSystemischesȱWissensmanagement.ȱStuttgart:ȱLuciusȱ&ȱLucius.ȱ Winter,ȱS.ȱG.,ȱ&ȱ Szulanski,ȱG.ȱ(2001).ȱReplicationȱofȱorganizationalȱroutines:ȱConceptualizȬ ingȱtheȱexploitationȱofȱknowledgeȱassets.ȱIn:ȱN.ȱBontis,ȱ&ȱC.ȱW.ȱChooȱ(Eds.).ȱTheȱstrateȬ gicȱmanagementȱofȱintellectualȱcapitalȱandȱorganizationalȱknowledge:ȱAȱcollectionȱofȱreadings,ȱ (pp.ȱ207Ȭ221).ȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱȱ Witzel,ȱA.ȱ(1982).ȱVerfahrenȱderȱqualitativenȱSozialforschung.ȱÜberblickȱundȱAlternativen.ȱFrankȬ furtȱamȱMain:ȱCampus.ȱ Witzel,ȱ A.ȱ (2000).ȱ Dasȱ problemzentrierteȱ Interview.ȱ Forumȱ Qualitativeȱ Sozialforschung,ȱ 1(1)ȱ [Online].ȱ Available:ȱ http://www.qualitativeȬresearch.net/fqsȬtexte/1Ȭ00/1Ȭ00witzelȬd.ȱ htm.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ Worley,ȱR.ȱB.,ȱ&ȱDyrud,ȱM.ȱA.ȱ(2004).ȱPresentationsȱandȱtheȱPowerPointȱproblem.ȱBusinessȱ CommunicationȱQuarterly,ȱ67(1),ȱ78Ȭ80.ȱ Wright,ȱC.,ȱ&ȱKitay,ȱJ.ȱ(2002).ȱ‘Butȱdoesȱitȱwork?’ȱPerceptionsȱofȱtheȱimpactȱofȱmanagementȱ consulting.ȱStrategicȱChange,ȱ11(5),ȱ271Ȭ278.ȱ Wyssusek,ȱB.ȱ(Ed.).ȱ(2004).ȱWissensmanagementȱkomplex:ȱPerspektivenȱundȱsozialeȱPraxis.ȱBerlin:ȱ ErichȱSchmidtȱVerlag.ȱ Yates,ȱJ.,ȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱW.ȱJ.ȱ(1992).ȱGenresȱofȱorganizationalȱcommunication:ȱAȱstructuraȬ tionalȱ approachȱ toȱ studyingȱ communicationȱ andȱ media.ȱ Theȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Managementȱ Review,ȱ17(2),ȱ299Ȭ326.ȱ Yates,ȱJ.,ȱ&ȱOrlikowski,ȱW.ȱJ.ȱ(forthcoming).ȱTheȱPowerPointȱpresentationȱandȱitsȱcorollaries:ȱ Howȱgenresȱshapeȱcommunicativeȱactionȱinȱorganizations.ȱIn:ȱM.ȱZachry,ȱ&ȱC.ȱThrallsȱ (Eds.).ȱ Communicativeȱ practicesȱ inȱ workplacesȱ andȱ theȱ professions:ȱ Culturalȱ perspectivesȱ onȱ theȱregulationȱofȱdiscourseȱandȱorganizations,ȱ(pp.ȱ67Ȭ92).ȱAmityville,ȱNY:ȱBaywood.ȱ Yin,ȱR.ȱK.ȱ(1984).ȱCaseȱstudyȱresearch:ȱdesignȱandȱmethods.ȱNewburyȱPark,ȱCA:ȱSage.ȱ Zhao,ȱN.ȱB.,ȱ&ȱOlivera,ȱF.ȱ(2006).ȱErrorȱreportingȱinȱorganizations.ȱTheȱAcademyȱofȱManageȬ mentȱReview,ȱ31(4),ȱ1012Ȭ1030.ȱ Zillien,ȱN.ȱ(2005).ȱȇPowerPointȱmakesȱyouȱdumbȇ.ȱEinȱKlärungsversuchȱmitȱHilfeȱderȱTheoȬ rieȱ derȱ Strukturierung.ȱ In:ȱ M.ȱ Jäckel,ȱ &ȱ M.ȱ Maiȱ (Eds.).ȱ OnlineȬVergesellschaftung.ȱ MeȬ diensoziologischeȱ Perspektivenȱ aufȱ neueȱ Kommunikationstechnologien,ȱ (pp.ȱ 155Ȭ174).ȱ WiesȬ baden:ȱVS.ȱ Zillien,ȱ N.ȱ (2006).ȱ ȇNächsteȱ Folieȱ bitte!ȇȱ Derȱ Einsatzȱ vonȱ Präsentationsprogrammenȱ zurȱ Wissensvermittlungȱ undȱ Wissensbewahrung.ȱ In:ȱ C.ȱ Swertz,ȱ P.ȱ Ohly,ȱ &ȱ J.ȱ SieglerȬ schmidtȱ(Eds.).ȱWissensorganisationȱundȱVerantwortung.ȱGesellschaftliche,ȱökonomischeȱundȱ technischeȱAspekte.ȱFortschritteȱderȱWissensorganisation,ȱ(pp.ȱ159Ȭ168).ȱWürzburg:ȱErgon.ȱ Zollo,ȱM.,ȱ&ȱWinter,ȱS.ȱG.ȱ(2002).ȱDeliberateȱlearningȱandȱtheȱevolutionȱofȱdynamicȱcapabiliȬ ties.ȱOrganizationȱScience,ȱ13(3),ȱ339Ȭ351.ȱ

198

Referencesȱ

ȱ

Zorn,ȱT.ȱE.,ȱ&ȱTaylor,ȱJ.ȱR.ȱ(2003).ȱKnowledgeȱmanagementȱand/asȱorganizationalȱcommuniȬ cation.ȱ In:ȱ D.ȱ Tourish,ȱ &ȱ O.ȱ Hargieȱ (Eds.).ȱ Keyȱ issuesȱ inȱ organizationalȱ communication,ȱ (pp.ȱ96Ȭ112).ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge.ȱȱ Zuckerman,ȱ L.ȱ (1999).ȱ Wordsȱ goȱ rightȱ toȱ theȱ brain,ȱ butȱ canȱ theyȱ stirȱ theȱ heart?ȱ Someȱ sayȱ popularȱ softwareȱ debasesȱ publicȱ speaking.ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Times.ȱ [Online].ȱ Available:ȱ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900EEDA133BF934A25757C0A96F95 8260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.ȱ[09/30/2007].ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ