Expensive or expansive? Learning the value of boundary crossing in design projects

References

• 1830: Railways & Robber Barons. 1986. Avalon Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Akkerman, S.F. and Bakker, A. (2011) Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–69. doi: 10.3102/0034654311404435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldrich, H. and Herker, D. (1977) Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–30.
   Google Scholar
• Askland, H.H., Gajendran, T. and Brewer, G. (2013) Project organizations as organizational fields: expanding the level of analysis through Pierre Bourdieu's Theory of Practice. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 3(2), 116–26. doi: 10.1080/21573727.2013.768986
   Google Scholar
• Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2006) The extent of team integration within construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 13–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Blau, J. (1984) Architects and Firms: A Sociological Perspective on Architectural Practices, MIT Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Bogers, M. and Sproedt, H. (2012) Playful collaboration (or not): using a game to grasp the social dynamics of open innovation in innovation and business education. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 23(2), 75–97. doi: 10.1080/08975930.2012.718702
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92, 141.
   Google Scholar
• Bruggeman, E.M., Chao-Duivis, M.A.B. and Koning, A.Z.R., eds. (2010) A Practical Guide to Dutch Building Contracts, IBR Instituut voor Bouwrecht, The Hague.
   Google Scholar
• Carlile, P.R. (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–55. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile, P.R. (2004) An integrative transferring, translating, and transforming: framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–68. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanin, M.N. and Shapiro, H.J. (1985) Inquiry dialectical extending in the planning: strategic boundaries. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 663–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, M.-Y. and Tsai, M.-H. (2008) Cross-organization process integration in design–build team. Automation in Construction, 17(2), 151–62. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2006.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinowsky, P. (2011) Engineering project organization: defining a line of inquiry and a path forward. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(1), 3–10. doi: 10.1080/21573727.2010.549611
   Google Scholar
• Cicmil, S. and Marshall, D. (2005) Insights into collaboration at the project level: complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 523–35. doi: 10.1080/09613210500288886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleopatra and the Society of Architects (2006) Days of Wonder.
   Google Scholar
• Denton, H.G. (1997) Multidisciplinary team-based project work: planning factors. Design Studies, 18(1997), 155–70. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(97)85458-0
   Google Scholar
• Dossick, C.S. and Neff, G. (2010) Organizational divisions in BIM-enabled commercial construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), 459–67. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. (2009) BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2000) Activity theory and the social construction of knowledge: a story of four umpires. Organization, 7(2), 301–10. doi: 10.1177/135050840072006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–56. doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2006) Activity theory and expansive design, in Smith, G.C. and Bagnara, S. (eds.) Theories and Practice in Interaction Design, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2008) From Teams to Knots, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2011) From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628. doi: 10.1177/0959354311419252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2015) Learning by Expanding. An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. and Sannino, A. (2010) Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. and Kärkkäinen, M. (1995) Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–36. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, M. (2009) Critical Play: Radical Game Design, MIT Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Forgues, D., Koskela, L. and Lejeune, A. (2009) Information technology as boundary object for transformational learning. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 14(2009), 48–58.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzatto, R.F., Amstel, F.M.C. Van and Costa, R.C.T. (2010) Jogos e Humor nas Metodologias de Design, in Proceedings do IX SBGames, Florianópolis, Brasil, pp. 138–44.
   Google Scholar
• Gottlieb, S. and Haugbølle, K. (2013) Contradictions and collaboration: partnering in-between systems of production, values and interests. Construction Management and Economics, 31(2), 119–34. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2012.756141
   Google Scholar
• Habraken, N. and Gross, M. (1988) Concept design games. Design Studies, 9(3), 150–58. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(88)90044-0
   Google Scholar
• Hannele, K., Reijo, M., Tarja, M., Sami, P., Jenni, K. and Teija, R. (2012) Expanding uses of building information modeling in life-cycle construction projects. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41(2012), 114–19.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, A. and Bresnen, M. (2011) The emergence of partnering in construction practice: an activity theory perspective. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(1), 41–52. doi: 10.1080/21573727.2010.549609
   Google Scholar
• Hasu, M. and Engeström, Y. (2000) Measurement in action: an activity-theoretical perspective on producer–user interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1), 61–89. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2000.0375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatchuel, A. (2001) Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of Herbert Simon. Journal of Management and Governance, 5(3), 260–73. doi: 10.1023/A:1014044305704
   Google Scholar
• Holzer, D. (2007) Are you talking to me? BIM alone is not the answer, in Kirsten Orr, S.K.-O. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Association of Architecture Schools of Australasia, Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V. and Uden, L. (2012) Understanding delegated actions: toward an activity-theoretical perspective on customer-centred service design, in Tossavainen, P.J., Harjula, M. and Holmlid, S. (eds.) Proceedings of ServDes.2012: Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation, Espoo, Finland, pp. 101–9.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, D. and Van Patter, G.K. (2005) Design as glue. Understanding the Stanford D. School. NextD Journal Conversation, (21), 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Kerosuo, H. (2004) Examining boundaries in health care — outline of a method for studying organizational boundaries in interaction. Outlines. Critical Practice Studies, 6(1), 35–60.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, S. (2001) Learning from the architecture studio: implications for project-based pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4–5), 349–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunz, W. and Rittel, H.W.J. (1970) Issues as Elements of Information Systems, Berkeley, CA, No. 131.
   Google Scholar
• Lahdenperä, P. (2012) Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery. Construction Management and Economics, 30(1), 57–79. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2011.648947
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. (1972) El manifiesto diferencialista, Siglo XXI, Ciudad del Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. (2014a) Toward an Architecture of Enjoyment, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. (2014b) Critique of Everyday Life, Verso, London.
   Google Scholar
• Master Builder (2008) Valley Games, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Miettinen, R. and Paavola, S. (2014) Beyond the BIM utopia: approaches to the development and implementation of building information modeling. Automation in Construction, 43(2014), 84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2014.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neff, G., Fiore-Silfvast, B. and Dossick, C.S. (2010) A case study of the failure of digital communication to cross knowledge boundaries in virtual construction. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 556–73. doi: 10.1080/13691181003645970
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Wallace, K. and Council, D. (1984) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer, London.
   Google Scholar
• Pemsel, S. and Widén, K. (2011) Bridging boundaries between organizations in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 29(5), 495–506. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2011.563786
   Google Scholar
• Räisänen, C. and Löwstedt, M. (2014) Stakes and struggles in liminal spaces: construction practitioners interacting with management-consultants. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 4(2–3), 1–11. doi: 10.1080/21573727.2014.918033
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, R. (1999) Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 49–65. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199901)20:1<49::AID-SMJ20>3.0.CO;2-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rau, C., Neyer, A.-K. and Möslein, K.M. (2012) Innovation practices and their boundary-crossing mechanisms: a review and proposals for the future. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(2), 181–217. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2012.647647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., Esquenazi, A. and Goldin, M. (2007) LEAPCON: simulation of lean construction of high-rise apartment buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(7), 529–39. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:7(529)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2004) Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, MIT Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Seirhuis, M., Conklin, J., Zimmerman, B., Charles, P., Drath, W., Horth, D., Domingue, J., Motta, E. and Li, G. (2001) Compendium: making meetings into knowledge events, in Knowledge Technologies 2001, Austin, TX, USA, pp. 4–7.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, V., Gu, N. and Wang, X. (2011) A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform. Automation in Construction, 20(2), 134–44. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S.L. (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601–17. doi: 10.1177/0162243910377624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. (1994) Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2(1–2), 21–39. doi: 10.1007/BF00749282
   Google Scholar
• The Pillars of the Earth (2006) 999 Games.
   Google Scholar
• Tsuru (2004) Abysse Corp.
   Google Scholar
• Ugg-Tect (2009) Edge Entertainment.
   Google Scholar
• Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008) On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–52. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1967) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 5(6), 6–18. doi: 10.2753/RPO1061-040505036
   Google Scholar
• Ward, A. (1990) Ideology, culture and the design studio. Design Studies, 11(1), 10–16. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(90)90010-A
   Google Scholar