The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems

By Natalia Levina, Emmanuelle Vaast. MIS Q., 2005

1,293 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/af0d3d5158daebe5d2ad35cf014dfee76eb49089

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Strategy tools as boundary objects (2009, background): “A semantic boundary is more complex because common meanings need to be developed in order to translate knowledge; for example, between a marketing department and a sales division, as they interpret what each other requires in order to market and sell a product (Levina and Vaast, 2005).”
Digital innovation: A review and synthesis (2019, background): “…beyond process characteristics (sense and observe, develop, implement, exploit) to include other dimensions, such as change levels (transactional versus transformational; Singh et al., 2011), change degree (incremental versus radical; Orlikowski, 1993), and boundary spanning (Levina & Vaast, 2005).”
The Contradictory Influence of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing (2013, unknown): “…the multiple networks possessed by an organizational actor—professional, friendship, or hobby-based, to name only a few—can render every employee a boundary spanner who is able to contextualize knowledge across different networks depending on which networks need to be tied (Levina & Vaast, 2005)).”
Enterprise Social Media: Definition, History, and Prospects for the Study of Social Technologies in Organizations (2013, background): “It is recognized as a distinct competence that emerges through practice around boundary objects (Levina & Vaast, 2005).”
Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration (2012, background): “We submit, however, that in organization science there has been a tendency to give prominence to one specific approach - the notion of “boundary object” (Carlile 2002, 2004; Leigh Star 2010; Levina and Vaast 2005; Star and Griesemer 1989).”
The Barriers and Enablers of Co-design for Services (2016, background): “As prerequisites of co-design, Vaajakallio et al. stress the design maturity of the organisation and the importance of committed “change agents” who spread the outcomes in the organisation and build co-design skills internally (as also suggested by Levina & Vaast, 2005).”
Innovating or Doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore Collaboration (2008, methodology): “This required onshore participants (who controlled important resources in these related fields) to allow offshore participants at least peripheral access to practices in these fields (Levina and Vaast 2005).”
Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work (2012, background): “More generally, technologies have been studied as boundary objects in knowledge sharing across professional and organizational boundaries (Bechky 2003, Carlile 2002, Gal et al. 2008, Levina and Vaast 2005).”
Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration and Learning (2008, background): “Boundary spanners may be nominated or may emerge, but to be effective they must be viewed as a legitimate (although possibly peripheral) participant in the fields being spanned and recognized as a negotiator between fields, and they must be motivated to act as negotiator (Levina and Vaast 2005).”
Toward a Deeper Understanding of System Usage in Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective (2007, unknown): “Certainly, several interpretive field studies of system usage could be said to have “engaged” in multilevel thinking, broadly construed (Barley 1990; Levina and Vaast 2005; Orlikowski 2000; Schultze and Boland 2000).”