Page 81 -

66 MADSEN AND KAUTZ

Table 5.3

Social Process
Multimedia case Web case
Similarities Power distribution in favor of the Power distribution in favor of
two project managers and the company management and
principal designer academic supervisor
Subteams and cultures exist Subteams and cultures exist (company
(IT consultants, academic management, academic researchers,
personnel) TCS representative)
Subculture interaction facilitated Subculture interaction facilitated by
by formal project organization formal project organization specified
specified in EU contract in TCS contract

Differences Two subteams and cultures within Project team a homogeneous group led
project team by academic supervisor
Altered power distribution, manifested Unaltered power distribution throughout
in academic team achieving a the process
dominant position
Subculture interaction mediated by Subculture interaction mediated by
written documents working code

few influential actors who wrote the initial EU and TCS project proposals, suggested the major
changes, and approved all intermediate results during the process; a number of subteams and
cultures were involved and influenced the continuous reinventions and configurations of the
content of change (both product and process); and the interaction between these subcultures
was mediated by the formal project organizations as specified in the EU and TCS contracts,
respectively (see Table 5.3).
However, there are also important differences between the two cases. In the Multimedia case,
the power distribution between the project team’s two subgroups was altered during the course
of the project, with the result that the Danish academic team achieved a dominant position due
to their greater knowledge about multimedia development and different work values. The Dan-
ish academic team was, for example, willing to work overtime and deliver beyond specification,
while the Norwegian IT consultants were used to strive to meet customer demands with minimum
resources. In comparison, the Web project team was a more homogeneous group led by the aca-
demic supervisor, and the power distribution within the project team and between the project team
and company management remained unaltered over time. Another significant difference relates
to subculture interaction. While in both cases the formal project organization was an important
mechanism in ensuring that there was interaction between subgroups, the difference concerns the
main boundary objects that were used to mediate the interaction, namely, written documents and
working code, respectively. We suggest that the two cases can be seen as representing two different
perspectives on systems development: one in favor of and with a strong focus on methods, plans,
and written documents (i.e., method as overarching approach and important means) and one in
favor of working code produced through pragmatic application of select methods and techniques
(i.e., method as helpful tools). The distinction between method as overarching approach and/or tool
is inspired by Stolterman and Russo (1997) and also relates to the process and product orientations
identified in the section on content of change.