Page 222 -

MANAGING KNOWLEDGE FOR INNOVATION 211

Faced with these challenges, Dougherty argues that a way forward is to articu-
late work practices and knowledge flows in a more holistic way that pulls the
whole flow of actual practices into the foreground and makes actual practices
‘concrete, observable and doable, not just abstract concepts’ (Dougherty,
p. 279). This, she argues, can be done by developing straightforward, concrete
images of the flow and value of interconnected knowledge and work activi-
ties – for example, through prototypes and demonstrations – which helps pull
together the design of technologies and services with the needs of users. Such
articulations allow people to ‘collectively invoke a shared representation of
their joint work . . . to select elements of practice from their established reper-
toire and fit them to a situation, and to develop new elements of practice in new
settings, thus enlarging and recreating practice-based knowledge’ (p. 275). For
example, in Medico, the Centres of Excellence played the dual role, both in
illustrating the technology and its usefulness for certain types of patient and
in making the interconnected practices of medical staff visible and concrete to
previously dispersed groups.

Materiality of innovation
We saw above how using technologies and objects that have ‘interpretive flex-
ibility’ can help span boundaries within organizations. Practice perspectives take
this further by focusing explicitly on the material properties of everyday life as
central to the mediation of practice. This includes, not just ‘boundary objects’
but also physical spaces, layouts, equipment (e.g. computer equipment, tele-
phones, white boards). For example, the pressing of a ‘mute’ button in a tele-
phone conversation, the ability of some actors to start or stop a conference call
or the physical layout of a room can change the flows of knowledge between
actors acting, as Orlikowski (2006) puts it as ‘scaffolds’ for human interaction
(see also Chapter 3).
In relation to innovation, physical and visual representations provide par-
ticularly useful ‘platforms’ for the interrelationship between designers and
users, becoming ‘a ground, so to speak, in which people come together
and interact over their work even as the practice per se emerges’ (Dough-
erty, 2003, p. 280). Practice-based studies deepen our understanding of
the particular features that such material artefacts need to have in order
to encourage innovation. In her research on groups of designers (e.g. in
the construction industry), Whyte and her team found that visual repre-
sentations (e.g. design drawings) played a crucial role, both in encouraging
learning, knowledge-sharing processes and coordination across the different
professional and occupational groups involved, and also in legitimating ideas
(Whyte et al., 2008). As well as having ‘interpretive flexibility’, their detailed
analysis of practice found that representations that were more ‘successful’
in this regard were those that had the following features (encapsulated in
Figure 9.6):

6/5/09 7:20:36 AM
9780230_522015_10_cha09.indd 211 6/5/09 7:20:36 AM
9780230_522015_10_cha09.indd 211