Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Boundary Objects' keyword pg.1 of 1
12 MARCH 2015

Hugh Dubberly: Design the Future

"Hugh is the President of Dubberly Design and talented design planner and teacher. At Apple Computer in the late 80s and early 90s, Hugh managed cross-functional design teams and later managed creative services for the entire company. While at Apple, he co-created a technology-forecast film called 'Knowledge Navigator,' that presaged the appearance of the Internet in a portable digital device. While at Apple, he served at Art Center College of Design in Pasadena as the first and founding chairman of the computer graphics department.

Intrigued by what the publishing industry would look like on the Internet, he next became Director of Interface Design for Times Mirror. This led him to Netscape where he became Vice President of Design and managed groups responsible for the design, engineering, and production of Netscape's Web portal. Hugh graduated from Rhode Island School of Design with a BFA in graphic design and earned an MFA in graphic design from Yale.

This lecture was held on Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 4:30pm in 1305 Newell Simon Hall."



2012 • age of biology • Apple Computer • Art Center College of Design in Pasadena • Austin Henderson • biological model • boundary objectsCarnegie Mellon Universitycommunication systemsconcept map • concept mapping • conceptual model • continuous change • creative servicescross-functional design teamsdata modelling • data models • design of the system rather than the object • design planner • design the futureDesign the Future Lecture ProgrammeDonald Norman • Dubberly Design • Fred Murrell • George Lakoffgraphic designer • HCII • Hugh Dubberlyinterface design • James Griesemer • Jay Doblin • John Rheinfrank • Kevin KellyKnowledge Navigator (1988)lingua franca • manufacturing age • mechanistic modelmetaphors of realityNetscape • networked-services ecology • org chart • Pasadena • portable digital device • Rhode Island School of Designservice design • service designer • Susan Leigh Star • system image • technology forecasting • Times Mirror • VisiCalc • whole systems


Simon Perkins
21 MARCH 2013

Design Prototypes as Boundary Objects in Innovation Processes

"In our paper we focus on how design prototypes can foster communications in organizations that deal with the development of innovations. We distinguish the impact of prototypes between two different organizational levels; we first conduct the impact of prototypes at the level of organizational design teams that develop ideas and concepts for solutions. We then focus on the impact of prototypes on the level of organizational teams and departments that have not been part of the initial design phase but are responsible for further developments in the innovation process, e.g. production, financing, and marketing.

Previous research has indicated that prototypes have a significant influence on both organizational levels. Prototypes, in the best cases, can become so–called boundary objects between different domains and stakeholders and may deliver positive effects within the innovation process. However, the successful management of stakeholders in this context remains highly challenging. In this paper we want to address these difficulties as well as the current state of research in this field. We propose that a prototype does not only stand for an important design technique but should moreover be regarded as a management tool that can be integrated into a structured dialogue between stakeholders. We provide first insights on what a structured dialogue, based on prototypes, can mean and what it thereby should imply. We will synthesize prior research findings and begin to develop a concept on how to utilize prototypes as boundary objects from a management perspective."

(Holger Rhinow, Eva Köppen and Christoph Meinel, 2012)

Holger Rhinow, Eva Köppen, and Christoph Meinel: "Prototypes as Boundary Objects in Innovation Processes". Conference Paper in the Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Design Research Society (DRS 2012), Bangkok, Thailand, July 2012


2012 • between domains • between stakeholders • boundary objects • Christoph Meinel • design concepts • design phase • design prototypesdesign solutionsdesign teams • develop ideas • Eva Koppen • financing • first insights • foster communication • Holger Rhinow • impact of prototypes • innovationinnovation process • innovation processes • International Conference on Design Research Society • management perspective • marketing process • organisational designorganisational teamspositive effectsproduction processprototype • prototypes • prototyping • stakeholder management • structured dialogue


Simon Perkins

Contexts, boundary objects and hybrid spaces: theorising learning in lifelong learning

"More recently, with the interest in social theories of learning, there is increased recognition of the complexity of transfer. If learning is situated/contextualised, there is a requirement for disembedding/decontextualisation and re–situating/re–contextualisation, some of which might require more explicit deliberation than others. As Eraut (2004: 256) suggests, the transfer of knowledge entails the interrelated stages of:

1. the extraction of potential relevant knowledge from the context(s) of its acquisition and its previous use
2. understanding the new situation – a process that depends on informal social learning
3. recognising what knowledge and skills are relevant
4. transforming them to fit the new situation
5. integrating them with other knowledge and skills in order to think/act/communicate in the new situation.

This involves building relationships between domains and extending the learning context beyond specific sites, which creates a pedagogic zone in its own right, a hybrid space of in–between contexts.

To move away from the cognitive concept of transfer, a discourse of boundary–crossing and border–crossing has also emerged (Tuomi–Grohn and Engestrom 2003 and 2003a), with associated notions of boundary objects. This is to make explicit the social practices and objects through which learning is mediated, but also to identify that objects may be part of many contexts. In addition, notions of mediation, mobilisation and transition have been deployed as alternative to that of transfer. These emphasise the relational and flow over context as a container.

Rather than focus on transfer of an existing skills set, the practices themselves, while identifiable as the same at some level, take on a different significance when networked into a different set of practices. Here it may be the pattern of participatory processes that are transferred rather than knowledge. This entails moving from a generalised notion of learning transfer to an understanding of the diverse specifics of a context that may be mobilised. To focus on learning per se may not be helpful therefore. Conventionally we might focus on what occurs in one context to the exclusion of others. What is suggested here is that this is only an effective pedagogic strategy if we assume context as a container. When we start to question that, the interesting pedagogic space is that in–between arena of boundary practices, where ‘elements from both sides are always present in the boundary zone’ (Tuomi–Grohn, et al. 2003: 5). These are not closed spaces but hybrid, networked and mediated domains, which give raise to alternative framings and metaphors.

Here the notion of a boundary object is crucial. The notion of boundary objects was developed in actor–network theory (ANT) (Star 1989), but has also been taken up by Wenger (1998) in his conceptualisation of communities of practice. In ANT, ‘like the blackboard, a boundary object "sits in the middle" of a group of actors with divergent viewpoints’ (Star 1989: 46). Boundary objects circulate through networks playing different roles in different situations. They are not merely material; boundary objects can be ‘stuff and things, tools, artefacts and techniques, and ideas, stories and memories’ (Bowker and Start 2000: 298). For Wenger (1998: 107) boundary objects work at the edges of communities of practice mediating their external relationships; ‘they enable co–ordination, but they can do so without actually creating a bridge between the perspectives and the meanings of various communities’."

(Richard Edwards, SCUTREA Conference 2005)

*Bowker, G. and Star, S. (2000) Sorting things out: classification and its consequences, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
*Eraut, M. (2004) ‘Informal learning in the workplace’, Studies in Continuing Education, 26, 2, pp. 247–74.
*Star, S. L. (1989) ‘The structure of ill–structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving’, in L. Gasser and M. Huhns (eds) Distributed artificial intelligence, Vol. II, London, Pitman.
*Tuomi–Grohn, T. and Engestrom, Y. (eds) (2003) Between work and school: new perspectives on transfer and boundary–crossing, London, Pergamon.
*Tuomi–Grohn, T. and Engestrom, Y. (2003a) ‘Conceptualising transfer: from standard notions to developmental notions’, in T. Tuomi–Grohn and Y. Engestrom (eds) Between work and school: new perspectives on transfer and boundary–crossing, London, Pergamon.
*Tuomi–Grohn, T., Engestrom, Y. and Young, M. (2003) ‘From transfer to boundary–crossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education: an introduction’, in T. Tuomi–Grohn and Y. Engestrom (eds) Between work and school: new perspectives on transfer and boundary–crossing, London Pergamon.


Simon Perkins

to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.