bridging the gap between manufacturing and service through it-based boundary objects

468 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 60, NO. 3, AUGUST 2013

Bridging the Gap Between Manufacturing andService Through IT-Based Boundary Objects

Jorg Becker, Daniel Beverungen, Ralf Knackstedt, Martin Matzner, Oliver Muller, and Jens Poppelbuß

Abstract—Manufacturing and service companies increasinglyengage in networks to provide their customers with integratedsolutions. In order to leverage complementary resources and capa-bilities fully, the network actors must span traditional boundariesbetween communities of practice in manufacturing and service.Fields like supply chain management and business process man-agement, as well as the literature on boundary spanning, offer lit-tle guidance for the systematic identification of boundary objectsthat could be used to bridge this gap. Drawing on existing workson boundary objects and service blueprinting, we design a newmethod for diagnosing boundary-spanning processes and identify-ing candidates for IT-based boundary objects that integrate man-ufacturing and service companies’ subprocesses. The method wasiteratively developed over a period of three years in a cyclic actionresearch project with two business-to-business service networks inthe mechanical and electrical engineering industries.

Index Terms—Action research, boundary spanning, busi-ness process management (BPM), service blueprinting, servicenetworks.

I. INTRODUCTION

IN order to generate sustainable financial returns and staycompetitive in dynamic markets, firms are urged to special-

ize in their core competencies, yet they are at the same timeincreasingly required to fulfill complex customer needs by of-fering individualized end-to-end solutions. Forming networkswith external partners is a viable means by which to cope withthis challenge [1]–[3] because it offers the opportunity to tapinto complementary resources that may not be available in-house [4]. However, the delivery of joint value propositions tocustomers requires network actors to collaborate on several lev-els (e.g., products and services, processes and activities, partic-ipants, information, and technologies) [3], [5]. Fortunately, re-cent innovations in information technology offer unprecedentedopportunities for coordination and for sharing information with

Manuscript received April 21, 2011; revised July 5, 2012, April 4, 2012,and October 14, 2011; accepted August 1, 2012. Date of publication October5, 2012; date of current version July 13, 2013. Review of this manuscript wasarranged by Department Editor Bernard C. Y. Tan.

J. Becker, D. Beverungen, and M. Matzner are with the EuropeanResearch Center for Information Systems (ERCIS), University of Muen-ster, 48149 Munster, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]).

R. Knackstedt is with the Institute for Business Economics and Informa-tion Systems, University of Hildesheim, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany (e-mail:[email protected]).

O. Muller is with the Institute for Information Systems, University of Liecht-enstein, 9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein (e-mail: [email protected]).

J. Poppelbuß is with the Institute for Information Management Bremen,28359 Bremen, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]).

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2012.2214770

more flexibility, at faster speeds, and at lower cost than everbefore [6].

The trend toward networking applies particularly well to al-liances of manufacturing and service firms that jointly provideintegrated, end-to-end customer solutions. Such solutions arecomprised of physical goods and value-added services, includ-ing consulting, maintenance, recycling services, or even operat-ing the entire solution “as a service”. Many manufacturers pro-vide these value-added services together with or solely throughexternal service partners [7]. Agarwal and Selen even argue thatnew or enhanced service offerings “can only be eventuated as aresult of partnering” [8, p. 431]. We use the term service networkto refer to a value network in which one or more manufactur-ing organizations and one or more service organizations jointlyprovide customers with integrated solutions that could not beoffered by any of the firms alone [9], [10].

For manufacturers and service companies alike, aspirationsto offer integrated solutions of physical goods and associatedservices require new or adapted organizational structures andcapabilities [11]. In particular, information flows within thenetwork must be implemented [12]. This paper focuses on amethod for identifying boundary objects that can be used toshare information and coordinate business processes in servicenetworks. Although well-grounded in theory, previous researchon boundary objects falls short of contributing methods for theseboundary objects’ systematic identification and design. By con-trast, service blueprinting is a widely adopted approach foranalyzing and designing service interactions with customers,so we modify and extend the service blueprinting approachto inform the diagnosis of boundary-spanning processes andthe identification of potential boundary objects in networkedsettings.

The contribution of this paper lies in its development in an ac-tion research study of an innovative, theory-ingrained approachto bridging the boundaries between communities of practice inmanufacturing and services. The method synthesizes prior workon boundary objects and service blueprinting and makes it eas-ier for organizations to build new networks with companies thatown complementary competencies and to eliminate friction inexisting networks.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section IIprovides research background on cross-boundary business pro-cess management (BPM) and boundary objects. Section III syn-opsizes an action research project that we carried out as partof a larger, publicly funded research endeavor. Sections IV–VIillustrate how we developed the method iteratively by passingthrough several action research cycles, and Section VII outlinesthe electronic machine record and the digital recycling passportas exemplary IT-based boundary objects generated by applying

0018-9391/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE

BECKER et al.: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE THROUGH IT-BASED BOUNDARY OBJECTS 469

the method in two service networks. Section VIII follows with adiscussion of the research results, limitations, and directions forfuture research, and Section IX concludes with a brief summary.

II. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

A. BPM in Service Networks

Service networks are interorganizational alliances formedwith the intention of building cooperative, interdependent,strategic, long-term relationships [13], [14]. The participatingorganizations collaborate to deliver innovative value proposi-tions and to improve the efficiency of network operations.

Previous research has contended that a process-oriented viewis helpful in managing and aligning the activities in such net-works and in implementing supporting information technol-ogy [15]. The literature on BPM offers methods for both radical(or punctuated) change and incremental change [16], [17]. BPMis associated with the term “business process re-engineering”(BPR), which advocates radical and revolutionary process re-design as a one-time project [18], [19]. By contrast, total qualitymanagement (TQM) advocates an incremental, evolutionary ap-proach that targets continuous improvements in processes [16],[20].

Champy [21] highlights the potential of redesigning busi-ness processes across organizational boundaries. He postulatesthe three core principles of transparency, standardization, andharmonization and terms his collaborative approach to busi-ness process reengineering “X-Engineering.” However, collab-orative approaches considerably increase the complexity ofBPM [22], [23]. Streamlining business processes across orga-nizations requires an open exchange of information, commonplanning, and synchronizing activities [24]. Activities may evenbe shifted from one network partner to another because of re-source availability or specialized expertise. Hence, informationflows and coordination mechanisms [25] must be created be-tween the sub-processes and activities of the participating orga-nizations [22], [26], and the information flows and coordinationmechanisms, in turn, must be supported by appropriate infor-mation technology [27].

Work in the field of SCM also suggests a wide range of ap-proaches to business process coordination, most of which arebased on analytical models (e.g., control theoretic approaches,channel coordination approaches, contract approaches, infor-mation sharing approaches, market economics approaches) orsimulations (e.g., MIT Beer Game, information sharing ap-proaches, multiagent simulation, fuzzy logic) [28]. In addition,researchers like Dong and Chen [29] have proposed formalprocess modeling methods. Dong and Chen’s approach for theprocess-oriented design, modeling, and analysis of manufactur-ing supply chains is based on Petri nets. Similarly, Gou et al. [30]suggest an approach for distributed process modeling based onUnified Modeling Language sequence diagrams and Petri nets.

Bititci et al. [31] observe that formal SCM methods do notsufficiently address issues like strategic collaboration or lever-aging synergies along the supply chain. Therefore, alternativeapproaches have been proposed that emphasize the need for hu-man interaction [32] and collective sense making [33]. Adam

et al. [34], for instance, present a framework and a lifecy-cle model for planning, implementing, and controlling cross-enterprise processes that uses manual analysis and compari-son of process models to compare global and local knowl-edge in value-added networks. Using the same line of think-ing, Adamides and Karacapilidis [33] propose the Group ModelBuilding by Selection and Argumentation (G-MoBSA) method-ology to support joint process interventions. The method, whichrelies on joint modeling sessions in which a range of relevantstakeholders takes part, uses a predefined argumentation schemato structure stakeholder interactions.

Apart from process analysis and improvement methods, ref-erence models like SCOR [35] and data exchange standards likeEDI, ebXML, RosettaNet, and UBL [36] have been proposedto support the design of interorganizational business processes.However, most approaches are targeted at specific industries(e.g., retail, pharmaceuticals) or functional domains (e.g., or-der management, logistics) and focus on supporting the basicinformation flow along the order-to-cash process. Service net-works, in contrast, often involve coordination requirements inthe context of less structured, collaborative presales, after-sales,and business development processes across communities ofpractice.

From this brief review of available method support, we con-clude that interorganizational business process integration inservice networks is a complex and context-specific endeavor.The alignment of business processes within service networkscannot usually be achieved by applying quantitative optimiza-tion methods or adopting off-the-shelf industry standards, butusually must be negotiated. Such negotiations are social pro-cesses in which the network partners form sense-making com-munities [37] that can be subject to asymmetrical distributionsof power [38]. Together, the network partners must envisionpotential business process designs, negotiate who will be re-sponsible for which sub-processes and activities, and codify ajoint concept of “what is to be” [32]. No extant method providesa rationale that systematizes this complex social design process.

B. Spanning Boundaries Between Communities of Practice

Academic literature on boundary spanning has discussedthe roles of people and objects in connecting communities ofpractice. Communities of practice are organizational silos withhighly specialized knowledge, terminologies, and subculturesthat are detached from each other by organizational bound-aries [32]. Individuals can perform boundary-spanning rolesby, for example, facilitating the sharing of expertise betweengroups that differ in terms of location, affiliation, hierarchicalposition, or function [39]. These individuals are often man-agers of research groups, HR managers, and sales and IT pro-fessionals [39]. Boundaries can also be bridged by boundaryobjects, artifacts that reside at the interfaces between fields orcommunities and that facilitate the transfer of cross-boundaryinformation and knowledge [40]–[42]. Typical examples ofboundary objects are design drawings [43], physical proto-types [40], project plans [44], [45], and enterprise-wide informa-tion systems [39], [46]. Boundary objects traditionally have two


characteristics [42]: they are sufficiently robust to maintain a sin-gle, unified identity across fields so they can serve as a commonreference point during collaborations, and they are sufficientlyflexible to be interpreted differently by diverse communities, sothey can be locally useful and do not require complete consensusamong communities.

For example, a project plan for a software developmentproject is used by various stakeholders, from steering boardmembers to project managers and software developers. Theproject plan is sufficiently robust if it provides a shared roadmapthat contains timelines, budgets, specifications, roles, activities,outputs, and so on to which each project member can refer.It is also sufficiently flexible so that groups of actors can useit for their local purposes; project managers use it to moni-tor progress, while developers use it to retrieve specifications.Thus, the project plan is a boundary object because it has ashared identity across communities and local usefulness withineach community.

Besides shared identity and local usefulness, researchershave identified other characteristics and types of boundary ob-jects [39]. For example, Wenger [47] outlines the followingcharacteristics (see also [42], [48]).

1) Modularity: Different parts of a boundary object servedifferent actors. For example, a newspaper is a structuredcollection of articles for a range of audiences.

2) Abstraction: A boundary object serves different actors byabstracting from details that are relevant only to specificcommunities of practice. For example, a digital map al-lows actors to zoom in and out to show or hide certainterrain details.

3) Accommodation: A boundary object is useful for differentactors because it informs different activities. For example,a blueprint of a building allows architects to design thebuilding, clients to visualize it, and facility managers tomaintain it.

4) Standardization: The information conveyed by a boundaryobject has a certain level of standardization so it is inter-pretable by diverse communities of practice. For example,a health record uses standardized coding of conditionsand treatments to enable short and precise communicationof information between physicians from different disci-plines.

In addition, several types of boundary objects have been iden-tified. Star and Griesemer [42] categorize the boundary objectsthey discovered in a study of the Natural History Museum inBerkeley into repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries,and standardized forms. Further developing this classification inan ethnographic study on new product development, Carlile [40]proposes a distinction into repositories (establishing a shared vo-cabulary across fields by providing common terms and defini-tions); standardized forms and methods (allowing standardizedproblem solving across fields by providing reusable templates);and objects, models, and maps (fostering cross-boundary knowl-edge transformation by outlining the differences and dependen-cies between fields).

While the characteristics and types of boundary objects arehelpful in describing them ex-post, these characteristics and

types provide little help in discovering and creating potentialboundary objects in practice [39]. Research on boundary span-ning has provided little concrete guidance on how organizationsshould go about identifying opportunities for implementing ap-propriate boundary objects [49].

III. RESEARCH METHOD

A. Action Research

Action research, a well-established research method in the so-cial and medical sciences [50], is a two-track research strategythat aims simultaneously at solving problems relevant to practiceand creating scientific knowledge [51]. According to Baskerville“One clear area of importance in the ideal domain of action re-search is new or changed systems development methodologies”[50, p. 12]. Therefore, we deemed action research a suitablemethodology for our endeavor to develop a method that sup-ports the identification of IT-based boundary objects in servicenetworks. Action research is performed collaboratively betweenresearchers and practitioners. In its most basic form, it is a two-stage process: a collaborative diagnostic phase and a subse-quent collaborative therapeutic phase [50]. Susman and Everedintroduce a more elaborate model of action research that weapplied in our research project: iterative cycles of diagnosing,action planning, action taking, evaluating, and learning [51].During each of these phases, we acted on two levels: On thefirst level, informed by the challenges that our industry part-ners faced (diagnosing), we iteratively designed a novel artifact(action planning), a method for analyzing boundary-spanningproblems in service networks and identifying boundary ob-jects that can foster information sharing and process coordi-nation. On the second level, we repeatedly applied the methodin the field (action taking), evaluated its applicability and utility,and derived implications for its further design (evaluating andlearning).

B. Project Setting

The action research study presented here was embedded intoa larger government-funded research project on integrated in-formation system architectures for service networks. The in-dustry partners selected for this study were Engineering (anengineering company) and Recycling (a recycling company),as these two industries have been confronted with similar chal-lenges concerning information sharing and process coordina-tion with their network partners. Both companies had formedservice networks that focus on collaborating to provide logisticsand technical services for complex physical goods. By select-ing two similar service networks, we intended to increase thegeneral applicability of the method we developed (i.e., externalvalidity).

1) Engineering: Engineering is a global, leading machinetool manufacturing company headquartered in Germany. Oper-ating from a high-wage country, the business strategy of En-gineering is focused on continuous innovation and superiorvalue creation by providing individualized solutions. Engineer-ing Sales & Services (ESS hereafter) is an independent company


TABLE IOVERVIEW OF SERVICE NETWORKS ANALYZED

within the Engineering group that is responsible for the develop-ment, sales, and delivery of industrial services along the entirelifecycle of the core product, from assembly to maintenance andrepair to replacement. As the machine tools are critical resourcesin the company’s customers’ production lines, it is important toEngineering that it ensures global coverage and short responsetimes in service delivery. With more than sixty subsidiariesglobally and a number of third-party service providers, ESSclaims to have the most comprehensive service network in theindustry.

2) Recycling: Recycling, a global provider of end-of-product-life solutions, is headquartered in Germany. In coop-eration with a number of external service partners, Recyclingoffers logistics and recycling services for electronic goods thathave reached the end of their lifecycles. The service portfolioincludes environmental consulting services, reverse logistics, re-furbishment, recycling, and disposal. After the European UnionWEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) directivecame into effect, the demand for recycling and related after-useservices has grown dramatically. Since August 2005, originalequipment manufacturers (OEMs) have been required to collectand refurbish or recycle at their own cost used products accord-ing to specified standards. The directive led to the emergence ofnew service network constellations.

Table I provides an overview of the service networks; weanalyzed and listed the numbers and types of data sources weused during the action research project.

IV. FIRST ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE

A. Diagnosing

The first action research cycle was dominated by the diagnos-ing phase. A similar key problem, a lack of coordination causedby insufficient information sharing between the organizations,was identified in both organizations.

The network partners used electronic data interchange (EDI)to transfer electronic documents related to the default order-to-cash process (e.g., purchase orders and invoices), but littleelectronic information exchange took place in the after-salesstages. A central underlying cause was the heterogeneity ofthe information systems the manufacturing and service partnersused.

We decided to look for potential IT-based boundary objects(cf. Section II) at the interfaces between the manufacturing andservice partners in order to foster information sharing and reducecoordination problems. Our first working hypothesis was thatboundary objects could be identified by analyzing those businessprocesses that crossed the boundaries between manufacturingand service.

B. Action Planning

After completing the diagnosis, we planned a number ofworkshops involving one or two researchers and one to threepractitioners from the company to investigate further the


interfaces between the manufacturing and service organiza-tions of each network. Each workshop session focused on adifferent value proposition (i.e., a bundle consisting of a corephysical product and related services) offered by the overallnetwork.

C. Action Taking

For each value proposition the underlying business processes,including activities, actors, information flows, and IT systems,were documented in process models. After sketches were doneon flipcharts during the workshops, the researchers consolidatedand formalized the content using the BPMN and the event-drivenprocess chain (EPC) modeling notations and Microsoft Visio.Reviews of existing documents and systems supported this anal-ysis. The documentary evidence included business documentscreated and used during the execution of these processes, and thesystem analysis included ERP systems and various databases forproduct lifecycle data. After the “as-is” analysis, the workshopsessions discussed viable “to-be” ways of information sharingand process coordination.

Following the outlined procedure, we derived a number ofpotential boundary objects that would facilitate coordination inthe analyzed service networks. At Engineering, for instance,we identified the need for machine-usage logfiles to supportperformance-contracting business models, while at Recyclingwe identified the bill of materials as a potential boundary objectthat could help Recycling identify and monetize the valuableraw materials contained in electronic devices.

D. Evaluating and Learning

After completing the first workshops, we reflected upon theapproach with the practitioners. The workshops yielded someideas for boundary objects, but the search process of opting forparticular candidates while putting others back seemed inad-equate to reaching a satisfactory state of completion, and thepractitioners described the process as unsystematic and open-ended. The outcomes of the workshops varied widely with themotivation and creativity of the researchers and practitionersinvolved and were more like brainstorming sessions than ana-lytical examinations. As the resulting degree of variability wasconsidered unsatisfactory, we decided to initiate a second actionresearch cycle.

V. SECOND ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE

A. Diagnosing

We updated our first working hypothesis by including theneed for a more systematic approach toward the analysis ofboundary spanning business processes and the identification ofcandidates for IT-based boundary objects.

B. Action Planning

The action planning stage began with a review of existingmethods and tools that may be used to structure and guidethe analysis of cross-boundary business processes. The service

blueprint originally proposed by Shostack [52], which is widelyadopted in practice to analyze and design customer interactionsin service settings, was identified as a promising approach. Theservice blueprinting notation visualizes what Thompson [53]calls the technical core (i.e., the backstage), the buffer betweenthe technical core and the environment (i.e., the frontstage), andthe environment itself (i.e., the customer). In concrete terms, aservice blueprint distinguishes between activities to be carriedout by service providers and those to be carried out by cus-tomers. Accordingly, activities are assigned to the frontstage orthe backstage of service systems and are confined by several“lines” [52], [54].

The “line of interaction” and the “line of visibility” are es-pecially important, as they determine the division of labor andthe degree of information sharing in a service encounter, re-spectively. The line of interaction divides the activities carriedout by the service provider from those performed by the cus-tomer, so adjusting this line toward the service provider, forexample, means that customers have to carry out additional ac-tivities in the service process (e.g., in a self-service businessmodel). The line of visibility determines what information isprovided about a service activity [52], [54]. For example, lo-gistics service providers enable customers to track their parcelsvia the Internet, which extends the process visibility for theircustomers.

The service blueprint was originally designed to analyzebusiness-to-consumer interactions [see Fig. 1(a)], so it abstractsfrom the backstage activities of customers. To make the methodapplicable to our business-to-business context, we mirroredthe blueprint at the line of interaction, resulting in a secondline of visibility. Consequently, our adaptation of the serviceblueprint features four layers in which an activity may reside[see Fig. 1(b)].

C. Action Taking

In the action-taking step, we applied the adapted serviceblueprinting approach to the business processes that had beendocumented in the first action research cycle. Scanning throughthe process models, we analyzed each activity to determinewhether it needed to be reallocated to another layer of the ser-vice blueprint by crossing the line of interaction or one of thetwo lines of visibility. This procedure, done for pairs of networkpartners, consisted of two steps: First, a decision regarding theline of interaction was made; that is, the responsible actor wasdetermined (e.g., outsourcing or insourcing the activity to/fromthe network partner). Second, decisions regarding the lines ofvisibilities were made; that is, the extent of information to beshared about the activity (e.g., status or outcome of an activity)was determined.

Depending on these decisions made, we identified the needfor a boundary object as occurring 1) if a backstage activity ofone actor had to be made visible to another actor (i.e., changinga line of visibility) or 2) if a backstage or frontstage activity ofone actor had to be transferred into the sphere of another actor(i.e., changing the line of interaction).


Fig. 1. (a) Traditional and (b) adapted service blueprint.


In sum, the use of the adapted service blueprint substantiallyimproved the effectiveness of the analysis since the boundary-spanning needs could be traced back to certain activities. Weidentified several opportunities for shifting the responsibility foractivities and providing information about activities that wouldbe helpful for the network partners. In particular, the blueprintenabled us to distinguish between frontstage and backstage ac-tivities on either side of each dyad. However, decisions aboutshifting the lines of interaction and visibility were made largelyintuitively, without reference to a clearly defined decision pro-cess, and different analysts made significantly different deci-sions. The practitioners articulated the need for more concreteguidelines concerning how to decide whether an activity shouldbe reallocated and whether it should be made visible to a differ-ent actor, so we decided to initiate a third action research cycleto improve the method further.

VI. THIRD ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE

A. Diagnosing

Although the method provided more systematic guidancethrough the service blueprinting framework than it did throughthe initial brainstorming approach, it was still perceived as ab-stract and theoretical. We hypothesized that creating a checklist-like catalogue of analysis questions to help in deciding whetheran activity in a business process should be reallocated and/ormade visible would address this problem. Similar approacheshave been conducted in related studies, albeit on the level ofentire service jobs as units of analysis [55].

B. Action Planning

In the action planning phase, we turned back to the literatureto review prior work on organizational design and informationsharing that could identify theoretical frameworks to guide theanalysis process. At this point, we were particularly interested

in finding guidance for the two major design decisions to bemade—that is, adjusting the line of interaction and adjustingthe lines of visibility.

1) Adjusting the Line of Interaction: The line of interac-tion represents the boundary of an organization, so it is aprime argument for the existence of the organization itself; cf.[56]–[58]. Several streams of research describe the factors thatunderlie the organizations’ boundary-setting decisions.

Classic strategic management literature has argued that orga-nizations should draw their boundaries so as to generate sustain-able competitive advantage. For example, the resource-basedview of the firm proposes that a firm’s competitive edge springsfrom valuable resources that are at the firm’s disposal and thatcannot be readily imitated by competitors [59]. With the rise ofthe network society [60], the relational view [10] proposes thatinter-organizational resources in networks are prime sourcesof competitive advantage. Bringing together complementarystrengths offers the opportunity to create jointly “unique newproducts, services, or technologies” [10, p. 662].

Another stream of research that describes the factors thatunderlie the organizations’ boundary-setting decisions is basedon efficiency considerations and drawing organizational bound-aries to minimize cost. Here, transaction cost theory “speci-fies the conditions under which firms should manage a particu-lar economic exchange within their organizational boundary aswell as the conditions under which it should be [externalized]”[61, p. 137]. From this perspective, an activity should be exter-nalized (internalized) if the tradeoff between lower productioncosts and higher transaction costs resulting from factors likemore difficult communication and lack of control is positive(negative).

We concluded that both strategic and efficiency aspects mustbe considered in our action research project when deciding onthe division of labor in a given set of network partners. Thenetwork activities must be allocated in such a way that innova-tive value propositions can be offered, while ensuring efficientoperations.


TABLE IIKEY QUESTIONS FOR ADJUSTING THE LINE OF INTERACTION

To guide adjustments to the line of interaction from a strategicand long-term perspective, we formulated key questions in linewith two constructs:

1) Resource complementarity is a key factor in realizing gainsfrom network participation [10]. Assigning the activity toa certain network partner should lead to a superior re-source configuration that would otherwise not be achiev-able. Which of the network partners should take responsi-bility for this activity based on each of the network part-ners’ distinctive resources that complement the resourcesof the other network partners?

2) Interfirm relations in service networks are intended tobe cooperative, interdependent, and long-term [13]. Re-arranging the division of labor influences the relationshipbetween the network partners, chances for mutual learn-ing, the creation of informal norms of reciprocity, trust,and the motivation to invest in relationship-specific assets.Which of the network partners should be responsible forperforming this activity to ensure a balanced partnershipand informal norms of reciprocity in the network?

From an operational-efficiency perspective, the improved di-vision of labor in networks may offer the chance to lever-age performance and productivity gains. Using this line ofthought, we formulated questions for analysis with respect to thefollowing constructs.

1) Resource availability in terms of quality and capacity isimportant if an activity is to be assigned to a network part-ner. The access to these resources must not be restrictedbecause of limited compatibility in terms of organizationalsystems, processes or cultures [10], [62]. Which of the net-work partners is equipped with the resources and capacityrequired to perform this activity?

2) Economies of specialization allow each network partnerto focus on activities in its areas of competence [13], soa manufacturer in the service network can advance theefficiency of its manufacturing processes while serviceproviders focus on improving the efficiency of servicedelivery. Which of the network partners would benefitmost from specializing in this activity?

3) Cost-effectiveness can be achieved by reducing the inputsneeded for an activity, such as when a certain network part-ner consumes fewer resources than others. Costs can alsobe reduced through reducing frictions in the overall pro-cess, thereby lowering coordination overhead [63]. Cap-italizing on externally existing complementary resourcescan save costs compared to building up resources inter-nally [61]. Which of the network partners can execute thisactivity most cost-effectively?

4) Performance is expected to improve when activities areassigned to network partners because of their special ex-pertise [13]. Which of the network partners should performthis activity in order to reach superior output performanceor quality?

The corresponding key questions which guide the adjustmentof the line of interaction for network activities from both thestrategic and the operational efficiency perspective are providedin Table II.

2) Adjusting the Lines of Visibility: With regard to thelines of visibility, the challenge is to identify whether the(re)allocation of activities calls for a change or an extensionof information sharing. Two major arguments have been madein the literature: First, work that promotes functional decom-position (e.g., service disaggregation [55] and offshoring [64])has argued that moving activities from the frontstage into thebackstage, if possible, helps reduce contingencies for externalstakeholders. Second, work on the influence of knowledge ex-change on long-term economic success has argued that movingactivities from the backstage to the frontstage is the only way tointegrate complex resources sufficiently for mutual value.

Because of the innovativeness and complexity of the valuepropositions in our service network scenarios, we focused onthe latter strand of arguments. Following the theoretical foun-dations around the concept of absorptive capacity, we adoptedthe dimensions of rich information sharing developed by Mal-hotra et al. [65, p. 157ff.] to inform our set of key questions foradjusting the lines of visibility:

1) Extent of coordination information exchange denotes theamount of information that is exchanged between network


TABLE IIIKEY QUESTIONS FOR ADJUSTING THE LINES OF VISIBILITY (REQUEST INFORMATION)

partners, such as inventory, logistics, and production status[65]. As much coordination information as is helpful toincrease operational efficiency, but as little information asto avoid information overload, should be shared. Whichand what amount of status information (e.g., inventorystatus, logistics status, and production status) from theother partner would be useful to the responsible actor inperforming the activity in scope?

2) Breadth of information exchange denotes the range of in-formation that is exchanged, which may go beyond day-to-day operational information [65]. Partners may consider“sharing long-term information such as market trends,changes in customer preferences, new product introduc-tions, and future plans” [65, p. 157]. Would long-term in-formation (information related to process improvements,strategic directions, market conditions and trends, changesin customer preferences, and new capabilities) from theother partner be helpful to the responsible actor in im-proving the performance of this activity?

3) Quality of information exchange denotes the timeliness,accuracy, relevance, and value of information exchangedbetween network partners [65]. Would the quality of in-formation provided by the other partner suit the needs ofthe responsible actor?

4) Privileged information exchange which denotes the ex-change of confidential and exclusive information betweena firm and its network partner [65], is specific to the needsof the receiving partner. Would the information providedby the other partner be of distinct value to the responsibleactor?

5) Absorptive capacity denotes the capability to acquire, as-similate, transform, and exploit information and knowl-edge [66]—that is, the beneficiary’s capability to inter-nalize and use the information requested or provided.Would the responsible actor be able to absorb (i.e., receive,understand/internalize, and use) the information providedby the other partner?

The key questions are provided from two perspectives basedon whether the owner of the activity requests information from

or provides information to the other partner(s). Table III lists thekey questions by which the owner of the activity (after the po-tential adjustment of the line of interaction) determines whetherto request information from its partners, and Table IV presentsthe questions that help to evaluate whether the owner of the ac-tivity should provide information to its partners. Together withTable II, which guides the adjustment of the line of interaction,these questions constitute the basis for a comprehensive deci-sion tree that structures the overall analysis (see Fig. 2). Weconsider the sequence of decisions made in step 2 arbitrary;that is, the partner may as well first decide what information toprovide before deciding what information to request.

C. Action Taking

This section illustrates the application of the third iteration ofour method with two examples, one from each of our industrypartners.

1) Engineering: Fig. 3 shows a high-level BPMN modelof the incident management process at ESS. This discussionfocuses on analyzing through examples the resolve incident andrecover operations activity.

Regarding the line of interaction, we documented that ESSis the best actor to carry out the activity “resolve incident andrecover operations,” but when conditions are highly complexor uncertain, engineers from the production plants must be in-cluded in the process because of their unique product knowl-edge. Although including them is more expensive up front, doingso may avoid even more expensive machine downtime. How-ever, when conditions involve short reaction times or routine in-cidents that do not require disassembling the machine, the repairprocess might be handed over to third-party service providers toincrease efficiency, as long as doing so does not interfere withthe need to protect product knowledge. Specialized maintenanceproviders might have the assets and capabilities required to ex-ecute the activity in sufficient quality (performance) in regionsin which there is no subsidiary of ESS (resource complementar-ity) or no capacity can be dispatched (resource availability). Ifthe specialized maintenance providers are restricted to replacing


TABLE IVKEY QUESTIONS FOR ADJUSTING THE LINES OF VISIBILITY (PROVIDE INFORMATION)

Fig. 2. Decision tree for allocating activities in the adapted service blueprint.

standard components, they could even be able to perform thetask more cost-efficiently than Engineering could (economiesof specialization, cost-effectiveness).

With respect to the lines of visibility, we diagnosed a lack ofinformation sharing. Knowledge created from this activity, suchas service reports that document tests and repairs that have beenperformed, or changed spare parts, was not shared with networkpartners. Information about the results of these activities wouldbe of great strategic value for other network partners becauseit would stimulate learning and build relational assets. For ex-ample, customers could capitalize on long-term information bykeeping comprehensive and up-to-date records about their as-sets (breadth of information exchange), while the manufactur-ing plants could use this privileged information to improve theirproduct design and manufacturing knowledge based on rich fielddata (privileged information exchange, absorptive capacity). Forthe service provider that operates a performance-contracting

business model, it is important to assess the machine’s cur-rent status in the field and to streamline service operations forefficiency based on detailed information from customers andplants (breadth of information exchange, quality of informationexchange). The actors also have to convey information in aninterpretable format (absorptive capacity).

2) Recycling: Fig. 4 excerpts the product treatment processat recycling, the “recycle product” activity, in which used elec-tronics are registered, tested, and refurbished or recycled. Cur-rently, this task is a backstage activity of Recycling, that is, noother actor is involved in performing the task. As the outsourcingof recycling activities from OEMs and retailers to specializedproviders was the main reason for forming the service network,we did not consider adjusting the current division of work by ad-justing the line of interaction. Most OEMs are not interested inbuilding up their own resources to meet the requirements of theWEEE directive, but Recycling’s core competency is providing


Fig. 3. Analysis of boundary processes at ESS (excerpt).

solutions for end-of-life products. It has invested in highly spe-cialized resources (economies of specialization), it is equippedwith sufficient capacities (resource availability), and it continu-ously improves its processes in this area. Hence, also in terms ofresource complementary, cost-effectiveness, and performance,Recycling is the best owner of the activity.

However, with regard to the line of visibility, we found aboundary-spanning problem. Because of the great variety ofproducts Recycling handles, it lacks detailed knowledge on howto process optimally (e.g., dismantle, repair, reassemble) eachbrand and model. So far, operational decision making (e.g.,which treatment to apply, which materials to recover, whichtools to use) is primarily based on employees’ experience, butofficial information about the structure and composition of prod-ucts, as well as guidelines for repairing or recycling, would beof great value to Recycling. OEMs typically have most of therequired information (breadth and quality of information ex-change). Providing access to product master data, such as bills ofmaterials, technical drawings, and routings, could satisfy Recy-cling’s informational needs and help them improve operationalefficiency (absorptive capacity).


After the third action research cycle, the method was com-prised of two phases. First, mapping the basic structure of aservice network by means of process models helps to decon-struct the inter-organizational complexity, to increase processawareness, and to share process knowledge (phase 1, result of

cycle 1). Then the service blueprinting analysis schema (phase 2,result of cycle 2) provides a way to question the task assignmentto network partners and to investigate the degree of informationsharing between them (see Fig. 2). To guide the method’s ap-plication, we compiled a set of key questions (phase 2, resultof cycle 3) that help uncover opportunities for improvement ina systematic manner. Directed by the analysis questions devel-oped in the third action step, analysts come to more consistentdecisions about shifting the lines of interaction and visibility, asthe analysts consider the entire set of relevant concepts that areembedded in the key questions for analysis.

VII. EXEMPLARY BOUNDARY OBJECTS

In order to demonstrate the applicability of the method wedeveloped, we present one of the IT-based boundary objects weidentified for each of the two cases: an electronic machine record(Engineering) and a digital recycling passport (Recycling). Weshow why both are boundary objects since they are “locallyuseful” for the communities of practice involved (both serviceand manufacturing), and they facilitate a “common identity”across boundaries.

A. Electronic Machine Record

Working with Engineering and ESS, we conceptualized andprototypically implemented an electronic machine record envi-sioned to be the central point of access to the comprehensivedata stored in fifteen major IT systems of Engineering and ESS.Examples of business objects in the record include quotations,contracts, manuals, bills of materials, routings, requests, proto-cols, invoices, usage data, and software updates.

A machine’s history is stored for its entire lifecycle, even inthe event of a change of ownership, and the machine record isa boundary object that bridges some major gaps we identifiedbetween manufacturing and service units. It features a commonidentity, as the machine is the reference point for all service andmanufacturing activities, and the service network as a wholebenefits from reduced redundancy and improved data quality.The set of all individual machine records is a reference pointfor network-wide collaborative planning and control of the in-stalled base and for providing performance-contracting businessmodels. Estimates of future service requirements are improvedbecause they are based on the integrated data about the specificconfigurations of the machines sold to customers (including anymodifications by service processes) and the operational data ofthe installed base, as reported by ESS and customers. Such fore-casts are locally useful to both manufacturing and service. En-gineering can assess spare-part requirements sooner and moreprecisely, which allows them to schedule purchases or buildup their resources accordingly. ESS can input the analysis intohuman resource planning in order to optimize the geographicdistribution of its staff.

The electronic machine record also facilitates the use ofperformance-contracting business models. The calculation ofquotations is facilitated, as the analysis of machine records isthe only way to compute the integrated value propositions’ totalcost of ownership reliably. All available data on the machine


Fig. 4. Analysis of boundary processes at Recycling (excerpt).

should be taken into account, from construction data to all ser-vice processes carried out by ESS and all third-party serviceproviders. The machine record’s documentation of all mainte-nance activities and operational data reduces ambiguity relatedto the current status and correct maintenance of the machine.

B. Digital Recycling Passport

Working with Recycling, we conceptualized and prototypi-cally implemented a digital recycling passport, a boundary ob-ject that was the result of analyzing the activities of the producttreatment process of Recycling and the master data managementactivities of OEMs.

The analysis of the product treatment process at Recyclingshowed that providing visibility into OEMs’ product master datawould help address many of the boundary-spanning problemsencountered in the service network we examined. However,additional workshops revealed that sets of complete productmaster data (e.g., bills of materials, technical drawings, routings)are too sensitive to be shared across the network. RECYCLING iscooperating with multiple OEMs that are in fierce competitionwith each other, so most manufacturers are not willing to sharethis information with Recycling.

The digital recycling passport is a subset of the overall prod-uct master data, which is relevant for recycling processes butcan be shared without confidentiality concerns. Each passport iscomprised of product identifiers; exploded view drawings of theproduct and relevant components; lists of general componentsand materials, including quantities and weights; guidelines fordisassembly and material treatment (including process steps, du-rations, and tools to be used); and warnings regarding hazardousmaterials and risky processing steps.

These passports are locally useful for both recycling providersand OEMs. The information provided can greatly improve thequality and efficiency of Recycling’s planning and decision mak-ing (e.g., by providing data on quantities of materials) and oper-ational processes (e.g., by providing guidelines for disassemblyand treatment). For their part, OEMs can benefit from satisfyingupcoming regulatory requirements and minimizing the environ-mental impact of their products. As the passports are digitalrepresentations of the omnipresent physical products, it is ex-pected that they will easily maintain a shared identity across therecycling and manufacturing communities.

Table V revisits the constituent properties of boundary objectsas elaborated in Section II-B and matches them to selectedfeatures of the electronic machine record and digital recyclingpassport.

VIII. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

A. Contribution

This paper presents a synthesis of previously unrelated the-oretical concepts from the fields of boundary spanning, serviceblueprinting and strategic and operations management litera-ture. The result is a theory-ingrained method for diagnosingboundary-spanning problems in service networks and identify-ing IT-based boundary objects that have the potential to resolvethem. By reporting on the iterative development of the method,we demonstrate how initial theoretical concepts from severalstreams of literature were revised, combined, and embeddedinto the method (see Table VI). We operationalized theoreticalwork on boundary objects by augmenting it with concepts fromservice blueprinting and management literature and extended


TABLE VPROPERTIES OF THE BOUNDARY OBJECTS

the service blueprinting approach by enabling it to analyze thebusiness processes of dyads of network partners, instead offocusing solely on provider-customer relationships. Therefore,the method differs from other methods in use that also apply theservice blueprinting approach, such as IBM’s Lovem [67].

This paper extends the literature on business process manage-ment (BPM) and supply chain management (SCM). AlthoughBPM and SCM research has recognized the need for interorgani-zational business process management, corresponding methodsupport is scarce, as existing approaches are limited to analyticalmodels, mathematical methods, and optimization techniques.Other streams of BPM and SCM literature have focused ontop-down coordination approaches using reference models andstandards. Although these approaches provide comprehensiveassistance in optimizing transactional business processes, theyoften miss those information objects and coordination mecha-nisms that are needed for scenarios beyond the traditional order-to-cash process [35]. We believe that the alignment of businessprocesses within a service network can seldom be calculatedusing formal methods or be imposed by international standards,but that such alignment has to be negotiated. The proposedmethod renders two managerial contributions. First, the methodcan give organizations guidance on how to form new networkconstellations in order to tap into complementary resource in-frastructures and core competencies. For instance, manufactur-ing companies can form networks with banking companies tooffer their machines as financed solutions, which would enablethem to serve customers who are unwilling or unable to makelarge investments before using the machine. Second, the method

can be applied to identify frictions within the operations of ex-isting networks, such as a lack of information on the currentcondition of a machine at the customer’s plant (from the pointof view of a service provider) or a lack of information on thecomplete service history of a machine (from the point of viewof a manufacturing company).

B. Limitations

As in all research, this study and its results are subject tosome limitations. First, we presented only two applications ofthe proposed method, although the method has already beenapplied in three additional scenarios from the fields of logistics,facility management, and retailing that could not be reportedhere because of space limitations. In addition, we successfullyapplied the method to standardize electronic documents andprocess building blocks that companies can use to provide inte-grated solutions to their customers [68]. The results from theseapplications indicate that the method we developed can supportservice network designers in shifting activities between networkpartners, and implementing boundary objects between them.

Second, following a cross-case replication logic [69], themethod should be applied to networks that feature other charac-teristics in order to strengthen its external validity. Interactionsof manufacturers with service providers are symbiotic, conju-gate collectives [70] since they bring together partners fromindustries whose resources are complementary. Applying themethod in, for example, more competitive, market-like scenarioswill probably require adaptations to the method. Similarly, we


TABLE VIOVERVIEW OF INTERVENTIONS DURING METHOD DEVELOPMENT

deliberately abstracted from issues that may arise from powerasymmetries between network partners and assumed that thenetwork profits are “jointly generated and owned by partner-ing firms” [10, p. 675]. Including such issues into the analysiswould also require adaptations to our method. To account forsuch cases, researchers or practitioners can incorporate into themethod other sets of underlying theories (e.g., agency theory)and key questions.

Third, evaluating the effects of organizational interventionsthat result from applying our method was beyond the scope ofthis paper. Such evaluations are costly in terms of the effortand time required to implement changes in business processesin the networks and the large-scale IT projects needed for theimplementation of IT-based boundary objects. Such evaluationsare also subject to unintended side effects and drift that cannotbe fully controlled for [71].

Finally, the method presented here focuses on analyzingboundary-spanning issues from the perspective of a dyad soit abstracts from additional integration effects that emerge fromanalyzing all network relationships at a time (provided there aremore than two network actors). We decided that a simultaneousanalysis of all network relationships was not feasible becauseof the complexity that grows exponentially with any additionalnetwork actor. Nevertheless, we consider the results from ana-lyzing dyads to be a valuable input into the collective effort ofmore than two network partners. The work could be extended

by including a cyclic process of design, sense-making, and ne-gotiation [72] in which the actors bring together and discusstheir blueprints.

IX. CONCLUSION

Although business networks are proliferating, boundary-spanning problems cause companies to struggle to tap intocomplementary resources and competencies. The current bodyof literature fails to provide a theoretically grounded method asa device for identifying un-spanned boundaries and as a meansto envision and discuss IT-based boundary objects as a rem-edy to the problem. In response, we analyzed this phenomenonfrom the viewpoint of interorganizational networks that offercomplex value propositions of physical goods and value-addedservices and proposed a method, designed in a cyclic actionresearch endeavor, for identifying opportunities for IT-basedboundary objects to bridge the gaps between actors in servicenetworks. Evidence from two real-life scenarios that are focusedon integrating business processes from manufacturing and ser-vice companies demonstrates the applicability of the proposedmethod. The experiences gained from applying the method inthese scenarios demonstrate that the method enables design-ers of business processes in networks to identify and remedyboundary-spanning problems.


REFERENCES

[1] J. H. Gittell and L. Weiss, “Coordination networks within and acrossorganizations: A multi-level framework,” J. Manage. Studies, vol. 41,no. 1, pp. 127–153, 2004.

[2] R. F. Lusch, S. L. Vargo, and M. Tanniru, “Service, value networks andlearning,” J. Academy Marketing Sci., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 19–31, 2010.

[3] D. R. Shaw and C. P. Holland, “Strategy, networks and systems in theglobal translation services market,” J. Strategic Inf. Syst., vol. 19, no. 4,pp. 242–256, 2010.

[4] K. Hafeez, Y. B. Zhang, and N. Malak, “Core competence for sustainablecompetitive advantage: A structured methodology for identifying corecompetence,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 28–35, Feb.2002.

[5] S. Alter, “Service system fundamentals: Work system, value chain, andlife cycle,” IBM Syst. J., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 71–85, 2008.

[6] M. M. Davis, J. C. Spohrer, and P. P. Maglio, “Guest editorial: Howtechnology is changing the design and delivery of services,” OperationsManage. Res., vol. 4, no. 1–2, pp. 1–5, 2011.

[7] C. Kowalkowski, D. Kindstrom, and L. Witell, “Internalisation or external-isation?: Examining organisational arrangements for industrial services,”Manag. Service Quality, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 373–391, 2011.

[8] R. Agarwal and W. Selen, “Dynamic capability building in service valuenetworks for achieving service,” Decision Sci., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 431–475,2009.

[9] R. C. Basole and W. B. Rouse, “Complexity of service value networks:Conceptualization and empirical investigation,” IBM Syst. J., vol. 47,no. 1, pp. 53–70, 2008.

[10] J. H. Dyer and H. Singh, “The relational view: Cooperative strategy andsources of interorganizational competitive advantage,” Academy Manage.Review, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 660–679, 1998.

[11] A. Davies, T. Brady, and M. Hobday, “Charting a path toward integratedsolutions,” MIT Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 39–48, 2006.

[12] C. Durugbo, A. Tiwari, and J. R. Alcock, “A review of information flowdiagrammatic models for product–service systems,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf.Technol., vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1193–1208, 2011.

[13] A. Takeishi, “Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: Managementof supplier involvement in automobile product development,” StrategicManage. J., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 403–433, 2001.

[14] E. E. Lank, Collaborative advantage: How organizations win by workingtogether. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

[15] D. M. Lambert, S. J. Garcia-Dastugue, and K. L. Croxton, “An evalua-tion of process-oriented supply chain management frameworks,” J. Bus.Logistics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 25–51, 2005.

[16] R. Y. Y. Hung, “Business process management as competitive advantage:A review and empirical study,” Total Quality Manage. Bus. Excellence,vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21–40, 2006.

[17] W. J. Kettinger, J. T. C. Teng, and S. Guha, “Business process change: Astudy of methodologies, techniques, and tools,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 21,no. 1, pp. 55–80, 1997.

[18] T. H. Davenport and J. E. Short, “The new industrial engineering: Infor-mation technology and business process redesign,” Sloan Manage. Rev.,vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 11–27, 1990.

[19] M. Hammer, “Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate,” HarvardBus. Rev., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 104–112, 1990.

[20] M. Zairi and D. Sinclair, “Business process re-engineering and processmanagement: A survey of current practice and future trends in inte-grated management,” Bus. Process Manage. J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8–30,1995.

[21] J. Champy, X-Engineering the Corporation: the Next Frontier of BusinessPerformance. New York: Warner Books, 2002.

[22] R. McAdam and D. McCormack, “Integrating business processes forglobal alignment and supply chain management,” Bus. Process Manage.J., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 113–130, 2001.

[23] B. Niehaves and R. Plattfaut, “Collaborative business process manage-ment: Status quo and quo vadis,” Bus. Process Manage. J., vol. 17, no. 3,pp. 384–402, 2011.

[24] T. Skjoett-Larsen, C. Thernøe, and C. Andresen, “Supply chain collab-oration: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence,” Int. J. Phys.Distrib. Logistics Manage., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 531–549, 2003.

[25] T. W. Malone and K. Crowston, “The interdisciplinary study of coordina-tion,” ACM Comput. Surveys, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 87–119, 1994.

[26] C. Durugbo, A. Tiwari, and J. R. Alcock, “Managing information flowsfor product-service systems delivery,” in Proc. 2nd CIRP IPS2 Conf.,Linkoping, Sweden, 2010, pp. 365–370.

[27] C. Hsu and J. C. Spohrer, “Improving service quality and productivity:Exploring the digital connections scaling model,” Int. J. Services Technol.Manage., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 272–292, 2009.

[28] H. Chan and F. Chan, “A review of coordination studies in the context ofsupply chain dynamics,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 2793–2819,2010.

[29] M. Dong and F. F. Chen, “Process modeling and analysis of manufacturingsupply chain networks using object-oriented petri nets,” Robot. Comput.-Integrated Manuf., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 121–129, 2001.

[30] H. Gou, B. Huang, W. Liu, and X. Li, “A framework for virtual enterpriseoperation management,” Comput. Ind., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 333–352, 2003.

[31] U. S. Bititci, V. Martinez, P. Albores, and J. Parung, “Creating and man-aging value in collaborative networks,” Int. J. Phys. Distrib. LogisticsManage., vol. 34, no. 3/4, pp. 251–268, 2004.

[32] R. Smeds and J. Alvesalo, “Global business process development in avirtual community of practice,” Prod. Planning Control, vol. 14, no. 4,pp. 361–371, 2003.

[33] E. D. Adamides and N. Karacapilidis, “A knowledge centred frameworkfor collaborative business process modelling,” Bus. Process Manage. J.,vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 557–575, 2006.

[34] O. Adam, A. Hofer, S. Zang, C. Hammer, M. Jerrentrup, and S. Leinen-bach, “A collaboration framework for cross-enterprise business processmanagement,” in Proc. First Int. Conf. Interoperability Enterprise Softw.Appl., 2005, pp. 499–510.

[35] D. Power, “Supply chain management integration and implementation: Aliterature review,” Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 252–263, 2005.

[36] R. K. L. Ko, S. S. G. Lee, and E. W. Lee, “Business process management(BPM) standards: a survey,” Bus. Process Manage. J., vol. 15, no. 5,pp. 744–791, 2009.

[37] Z. Simsek, M. H. Lubatkin, and S. W. Floyd, “Inter-firm networks and en-trepreneurial behavior: A structural embeddedness perspective,” J. Man-age., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 427–442, 2003.

[38] J. Sydow and A. Windeler, “Organizing and evaluating interfirm networks:A structurationist perspective on network processes and effectiveness,”Org. Sci., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 265–284, 1998.

[39] N. Levina and E. Vaast, “The emergence of boundary spanning compe-tence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of informationsystems,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 335–363, 2005.

[40] P. R. Carlile, “A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundaryobjects in new product development,” Org. Sci., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 442–455, 2002.

[41] S. L. Star, “This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin ofa concept,” Sci., Technol. Human Values, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 601–617,2010.

[42] S. L. Star and J. R. Griesemer, “Institutional ecology,translations’ andboundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum ofvertebrate zoology, 1907-39,” Social Studies Sci., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 387–420, 1989.

[43] U. Gal, K. Lyytinen, and Y. Yoo, “The dynamics of IT boundary objects,information infrastructures, and organisational identities: The introduc-tion of 3D modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering, andconstruction industry,” European J. Inf. Syst., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 290–304,2008.

[44] K. U. Koskinen and S. Makinen, “Role of boundary objects in negotiationsof project contracts,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 31–38,2009.

[45] E. K. Yakura, “Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects,”Academy Manage. J., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 956–970, 2002.

[46] G. Mark, K. Lyytinen, and M. Bergman, “Boundary objects in design: Anecological view of design artifacts,” J. AIS, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 34, 2007.

[47] E. Wenger, Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.

[48] S. D. Pawlowski and D. Robey, “Bridging user organizations: Knowledgebrokering and the work of information technology professionals,” MISQuarterly, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 645–672, 2004.

[49] J. E. Taylor, “Three perspectives on innovation in interorganizational net-works: Systemic innovation, boundary object change, and the alignment ofinnovations and networks,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Civil Environ. Eng.,Stanford Univ., Stanford, 2005.

[50] R. L. Baskerville, “Investigating information systems with action re-search,” Commun. ACM, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1–32, 1999.

[51] G. I. Susman and R. D. Evered, “An assessment of the scientific merits ofaction research,” Administ. Sci. Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 582–603,1978.


[52] G. L. Shostack, “How to design a service,” European J. Marketing, vol. 16,no. 1, pp. 49–63, 1982.

[53] J. D. Thompson, Organizations in action: Social science bases of admin-istration. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

[54] V. Zeithaml and M. J. Bitner, Services Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

[55] U. M. Apte and R. O. Mason, “Global disaggregation of information-intensive services,” Manage. Sci., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1250–1262, 1995.

[56] D. Katz and R. L. Kahn, “Organizations and the System Concept,” inThe Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley, 1966,pp. 14–29.

[57] J. G. March and H. A. Simon, Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley,1958.

[58] P. R. Lawrence and J. W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment.Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.

[59] J. B. Barney, “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage,” J.Manage., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99–120, 1991.

[60] M. Castells, The Rise of the Network Society—The Information Age: Econ-omy, Society, and Culture. vol. 1, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

[61] J. B. Barney, “How a firm’s capabilities affect boundary decisions,” SloanManage. Rev., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 137–145, 1999.

[62] L. Araujo, A. Dubois, and L. E. Gadde, “The multiple boundaries of thefirm,” J. Manage. Studies, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1255–1277, 2003.

[63] R. Gulati and H. Singh, “The architecture of cooperation: Managing coor-dination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances,” Administ.Sci. Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 781–814, 1998.

[64] J. K. Stratman, “Facilitating offshoring with enterprise technologies: Re-ducing operational friction in the governance and production of services,”J. Operations Manage., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 275–287, 2008.

[65] A. Malhotra, S. Gosain, and O. A. El Sawy, “Absorptive capacity config-urations in supply chains: Gearing for partner-enabled market knowledgecreation,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 145–187, 2005.

[66] S. A. Zahra and G. George, “Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptu-alization, and extension,” Academy Manage. Rev., pp. 185–203, 2002.

[67] IBM International Technical Support Organization, Business Process En-gineering and Beyond. San Jose: IBM Redbooks, 1995.

[68] Publicly Availably Specification PAS 1091: Interface Specifications forthe Integration of Manufacturing and Service. Berlin: German StandardsInstitute, Beuth Verlag, 2010.

[69] R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, 2008.

[70] W. G. Astley and C. J. Fombrun, “Collective strategy: Social ecologyof organizational environments,” Academy Manage. Rev., vol. 8, no. 4,pp. 576–587, 1983.

[71] C. Ciborra and O. Hanseth, “Introduction: From Control to Drift,” in FromControl to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures.New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000, pp. 1–11.

[72] K. Lyytinen, T. Keil, and V. Fomin, “A framework to build process the-ories of anticipatory information and communication technology (ICT)standardizing,” Int. J. IT Standards Standardization Res., vol. 6, no. 1,pp. 543–573, 2008.

Jorg Becker received the Diploma in business ad-ministration and the Ph.D. degree from Saarland Uni-versity, Saarbrucken, Germany.

Currently, he is the Director of the Department ofInformation Systems, University of Muenster, Ger-many, where he holds the Chair in Information Man-agement. He serves as Academic Director of the Eu-ropean Research Center for Information Systems. Hisareas of research include information management,information modeling, data management, and retailinformation systems. Furthermore, he is involved in

strategic IT consulting projects with industrial, service, and trade companies. Heis editor of several IS journals and regularly serves as a member of the programcommittees of leading IS conferences.

Daniel Beverungen received the Diploma in infor-mation systems from the University of Paderborn,Germany. In 2010, he received the Ph.D. degree in in-formation systems from the University of Muenster,Germany, for his work on modeling, configuring, andpricing customer solutions.

Currently, he is an Assistant Professor at theEuropean Research Center for Information Systems(ERCIS), University of Muenster. His main researchinterests comprise service science management andengineering, business process management, decision

support systems, and social network analysis. In these areas, he concluded andcurrently manages a number of research projects funded by the German FederalGovernment and industry. His work has been published in peer-reviewed aca-demic journals and presented at major international conferences. In addition, hewas involved in developing several industry standards.

Ralf Knackstedt received the Diploma, Ph.D. de-gree, and post-doctoral qualification (Habilitation,venia legend) in information systems from the Uni-versity of Muenster, Germany.

Since 2005, he has been an Assistant Professorat the University of Muenster, and he is currentlyan Interim Professor for Information Systems at theUniversity of Hildesheim, Germany. His main re-search interests include conceptual modeling, busi-ness process management, business information sys-tems, business intelligence, knowledge management,

and compliance management. He managed a number of funded research projectsand is a (co)author of numerous peer-reviewed publications in international con-ferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Martin Matzner received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. de-grees in information systems from the University ofMuenster, Germany. In 2012, he received the Ph.D.degree in information systems from the Universityof Muenster for his work on the management of net-worked service business processes.

Currently, he is a Researcher at the EuropeanResearch Center for Information Systems (ERCIS),University of Muenster. His main research interestsinclude service management, business process man-agement, and business process analytics. His work

has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals and presented at majorinternational conferences.

Oliver Muller received the Diploma in informationsystems from the University of Muenster, Germany.In 2012, he received the Ph.D. degree in informationsystems from the University of Muenster for his workon customer decision support systems.

He is currently with the Institute for InformationSystems, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liecht-enstein, where he is an Assistant Professor at theHilti Chair of Business Process Management. Priorto his academic career, he gained industry experienceas a professional consultant for supply chain man-

agement and as a visiting researcher at SAP Research. His research interestsinclude process and service management, decision support systems, and inno-vation management. His work has been published in peer-reviewed academicjournals and presented at major international conferences. Moreover, he hasbeen awarded with industry-sponsored prizes for his research.

Jens Poppelbuß received the Diploma in informationsystems from the University of Muenster, Germany.In 2012, he received the Ph.D. degree in informationsystems from the University of Muenster for his workon developing methods and tools for assessing andimproving business process management capabilitiesin service networks.

He is currently a Researcher and a Lecturer at theInstitute for Information Management Bremen (IFIB)of the University of Bremen, Germany. His researchinterests include maturity models, business process

management, and product-service systems. His work has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals and presented at major international conferences.

bridging the gap between manufacturing and service through it-based boundary objects

Documents