The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-1403.htm

IMP
12,2 Crossing the boundary between
physical and digital: the role of
boundary objects
216 Daniela Corsaro
IULM University, Milan, Italy
Received 12 June 2017
Revised 13 December 2017
6 March 2018
8 April 2018 Abstract
Accepted 9 April 2018 Purpose – Digitalization is one of the most important phenomena that characterize the last decade – not only
in business-to-consumer markets but also in business-to-business as well. The advent of digital technologies
has multiplied the number and type of touchpoints between actors, thus generating new spaces of interaction
where cross-boundary movements are frequent and traverse physical and digital contexts. All these elements,
in turn, produce a higher need for coordination in business relationships. By using the concept of boundary
objects, the purpose of this paper is to understand the main functions of boundary objects to coordinate
business relationships across digital and physical contexts.
Design/methodology/approach – The empirical research is based on two case studies where the role
of boundary objects is particularly emphasized: Salesforce.com and 3DiTALY. 27 qualitative interviews
with key referents have been carried out. To analyze data, the authors applied a constructionist
perspective based on Carlile’s (2004) framework of transferring, translating and transforming knowledge
across boundaries.
Findings – The study will identify six functions that boundary objects play in coordinating business
relationships across physical and digital contexts. It will also show the relevance of a mental network space of
shared understanding to enable changes in the relational network space.
Practical implications – This study makes concrete the abstract idea of boundary objects. Therefore,
it sheds light on the opportunity of managing strategically boundary objects in order to improve their
effectiveness in digital environments.
Originality/value – The study will contribute to IMP research on b-to-b relationships by showing that, in
digital contexts, boundary objects are key to coordinate interaction in space and cross-boundary movements.
The study will show that once considering a digital context, the traditional functions of boundary objects in
terms of transfer, translation, and transformation can be further declined into sub-functions. The study will
also provide important managerial implications on how boundary objects can be strategically used by
companies to increase the effectiveness of their business relationships.
Keywords Boundary objects, Business relationships, Interaction, Coordination, Digitalization
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Digitalization is one of the most important phenomena that characterize the last decade –
not only in business-to-consumer (B2C) markets but in business-to-business (B2B) as well
(Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2015). The use of digital technologies is changing companies’
business models, providing new revenue and value-producing opportunities (Gensler and
Liu-Thompkins, 2013). We refer in particular to digital technologies for connectivity, big
data, Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing, along with those technologies that are
driving the transition from digital to “real,” such as additive manufacturing (3D printing),
augmented reality, robotics, and machine-to-machine interactions.
The diffusion of the mentioned digital technologies has greatly added to the complexity
in managing business relationships. Digitalization has generated new spaces for interaction
between actors in the business network. The number and type of touchpoints has multiplied
IMP Journal ( Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014; Shams and Kaufmann, 2016), which, in turn, has led to a
Vol. 12 No. 2, 2018
pp. 216-236
higher heterogeneity of actors involved in business relationships. This means confronting
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-1403
the views of more and different participants (Rampersad et al., 2010) and how knowledge
DOI 10.1108/IMP-06-2017-0036 can be effectively shared among them.
 At the same time, by generating higher interconnectivity among actors, digitalization Boundary
has allowed different contexts to start to communicate, where structural boundaries become between
less meaningful in favor of contextual boundaries, which also include the social aspects physical and
of interaction. The effects are that market boundaries are even more fuzzy and
multidimensional than they were in those early days (Hodgkinson, 2015). digital
IMP’s scholars have identified the space dimension as an important characteristic of
interaction (Håkansson et al., 2009). As more and more interactions take place across 217
contexts (physical and digital), a specific effort in coordination for relationships is needed for
them to work effectively.
This paper will address the issue of coordinating business relationships across digital and
physical contexts by applying the concept of a boundary object. Boundary objects have been
defined as “objects that live in multiple social worlds and which have different identities in it”
(Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 438). These objects can be either abstract (conceptual) or concrete
(physical) and serve to communicate and coordinate the perspectives of various constituencies
(Amabile, 1988, 1996). They translate, coordinate, and align the perspectives of the different
parties (Klimbe et al., 2010), making available an actor’s local understanding to be reframed in
the context of a wider collective activity.
Notwithstanding, boundary objects have been studied in many different fields, e.g.,
sociology, psychology, strategy, organizational theory, medicine, biology, and many others
(see for instance Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-Smith and Shalley, 2003); research on boundary
objects applied to inter-organizational relationships in digital contexts is still preliminary.
Developing interactions that often cross the physical and digital spaces, actors may face
difficulties in integrating individual views and practices (Mouzas et al., 2008), and a failure
in coordination can undermine the relationship development. In business relationships,
the process of interpretation and meaning construction comes from interaction and
conversation based on social, linguistic, and cultural resources, norms, and rules
(Edvardsson et al., 2011). Only recently, Marheineke et al. (2016a, b) have explored the
phenomenon of boundary objects in the process of virtual collaboration.
This paper will find out the main functions of boundary objects for coordinating
relationships that cross digital and physical contexts. To do that, we will adopt a social
constructionist perspective and apply the framework by Carlile (2004) in terms of
transfer, translate, and transform functions of boundary objects for managing knowledge
across boundaries.
Two cases have been selected in which the role of boundary objects emerges as being
particularly evident. The first is Sales Force.com., a cloud computing company that provides
an innovative b-to-b customer relationship management (CRM) 2.0 solutions; the second is
3DiTALY, which operates in the 3D printing business. This research draws on IMP research
along with sociological studies to explore how business relationships coordinate in business
relationships through boundary objects.
The study will contribute to IMP research on b-to-b relationships by showing that, in
digital contexts, boundary objects are key to coordinate interaction in space and
cross-boundary movements. The study will also show that once considering a digital
context, the traditional functions of boundary objects in terms of transfer, translation, and
transformation can be further declined into sub-functions. The study will then provide
important managerial implications on how boundary objects can be strategically used by
companies to increase the effectiveness of their business relationships.
The paper is divided into the following sections. Section 2 reviews the literature on
boundary objects and their functions; Section 3 examines space and cross-boundary
movements; and Section 4 illustrates the methodology of research. Section 5 presents the
two cases studies, while Section 6 discusses findings. The paper ends with Section 7,
containing conclusions and implications for research and practice.
IMP 2. Coordinating business relationships through boundary objects
12,2 Social construction is a social and epistemological theoretical approach that analyzes
phenomena in social contexts (Burr, 2003). Instead of seeing reality as a given external
object to be discovered, social construction scholars aim to understand the ways in
which individuals and groups participate in the creation of the perceived social reality,
and how people engage in interaction and social practices. People create a common and
218 shared reality as a social construction (Berger and Luckmann, 1991), where sense-giving
and sense-making generate an understanding of how social actors shape a meaningful
social world (Giddens, 1984). The emphasis is therefore on processes rather than on
outcomes (Burr, 2003).
The social constructionist perspective no longer views knowledge as an object that can
be brought into companies from the outside but as knowing and learning practices within
network partners across organizational boundaries (Gherardi, 2011). A process of
socialization arises from participation in shared activities, based on shared understandings
of the rules that guide actors’ behaviors, which thus support coordination.
Boundary objects support the construction of meanings and translate, coordinate,
and align the perspectives of the different parties (Klimbe et al., 2010). When identified by
multiple actors, boundary objects serve as a common point of reference to facilitate
conversation around contested issues. They can be abstract or concrete (Carlile, 2002, 2004).
Wenger (2000) identified three different types of boundary objects: artefacts, discourses,
and processes. Artefacts correspond to standardized forms, methods, objects, models, and
maps; discourses represent a common language that allows people to communicate
and negotiate meanings across boundaries; and processes include explicit routines and
procedures in an organization:
All our offices worldwide are exactly the same in terms of spaces, furnishings, colors, layout, so that
employees and visitors do not need to adapt when moving from one site to another (LEGO, general
director).
This quote by LEGO provides an example of how a physical environment can become a
boundary object that facilitates interactions.
When actors participate in shared activities, based on shared understandings of the rules
that guide actors’ behaviors, a process of socialization occurs, which allows for coordination.
Learning and acting are social processes developed in a social context where actors, by
interacting, construct knowledge and meanings.
The plastic character of boundary objects lies in being adaptable to local needs and in
being robust enough to maintain a common identity across different uses: “they are a means
of translation” able to maintain “coherence across intersecting communities” (Bowker and
Star, 1999, p. 297). The effectiveness of a boundary object thus depends on how successfully
it can be used to decontextualize knowledge on one side of a boundary and recontextualize it
on the other side. This process of decontextualizing and recontextualizing knowledge is
dependent on the sharing and understanding of information during communication,
coordination, and collaboration interfaces.
Boundary objects by definition have an array of meanings associated with them,
each useful in individual situated practices. They are weakly structured in common
use and become strongly structured in individual site use, i.e., they enable an actor’s
local understanding to be reframed in the context of some wider collective activity
(Fischer et al., 2005).

2.1 Interpretative framework: functions of boundary objects

Carlile (2004) distinguished three types of knowledge boundaries among communities of
practice that become increasingly complex to cross, i.e., syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
knowledge boundaries, each of which is characterized by a specific function. Only after Boundary
a way has been found to cross these boundaries, knowledge can be transferred, translated, between
or transformed. physical and
Knowledge transfer specifically refers to information processing and applies when
syntactic knowledge boundary exists; knowledge translation is about learning and creating digital
shared meanings; knowledge transformation is about negotiating new practices.
A syntactic knowledge boundary exists due to different vocabularies. To create shared 219
understanding at a syntactic knowledge boundary, a common lexicon must be developed
(Carlile, 2004; Kotlarsky et al., 2015). In business relationships, each person has its own
jargon, even more if cultural differences are involved. Syntactic boundaries make
knowledge transfer difficult, as there is no common dictionary. Novelty further makes some
differences and dependencies unclear or some meanings ambiguous. Recalling the LEGO
case, once the company decided on a shift in strategy, which implied the implementation of
specific KPIs to measure the performance of retailers, many of such retailers were not able to
understand these new metrics, thus generating problems of misalignment. Knowledge
transfer became a real challenge for the company.
When new requirements and/or new actors are present, interpretive differences in what a
word, measurement, or outcome means limit the effective transfer of knowledge between
actors, leading to the need for translation.
A semantic knowledge boundary exists when communities of practice attribute different
meanings to concepts and have different interpretations of concepts (Carlile, 2004; Hawkins
and Rezazade M., 2012). According to La Rocca and Snehota (2011), market actors interact and
engage in relationships that require mutual understanding, where shared understanding is the
result of an interactive interpretation by multiple persons (Miranda and Saunders, 2003).
Shared understanding has been defined as “the degree of cognitive overlap and commonality
in beliefs, expectations, and perceptions about a given target” (Cohen and Gibson, 2003, p. 8).
To effectively manage cross-boundary movements, a shared understanding must be
established: Only when a sufficient “degree of cognitive overlap and commonality in beliefs,
expectations, and perceptions about a given target” (Cohen and Gibson 2003, p. 8) is created,
parties can share knowledge. To create shared understanding at a semantic knowledge
boundary, common meanings must be developed by translating and negotiating among the
different meanings of parties and also negotiating interests and making trade-offs between
actors. Knowledge translation is concerned with making the perspective of one community
intelligible to other communities. In this case, the boundary object becomes a cognitive
mediator that represents a transaction zone for the perspectives in attendance.
In the LEGO example, a document has been developed that explained to all partners in
the value network, especially retailers, the meaning of the shift in strategy. The diffusion of
this document, along with specific training activities toward retailers, allowed partners to
create a shared understanding around the use of the new KPIs.
Finally, there is pragmatic boundary. Sometimes a common lexicon and understanding
are still not enough because of conflicting interests. Pragmatic boundaries look at how
shared meaning is transformed into the actual product/service. To solve pragmatic
boundaries, practical and political effort is needed. Boundary objects such as prototypes
(Schrage, 1999), drawings, and “trade-off” methodologies (Carlile and Lucas 2003) have
proved effective in providing a concrete means of representing different functional
interests and facilitating their negotiation and transformation in product-development
settings. They are malleable enough to change but solid enough to define a direction.
Knowledge transformation is thus concerned with altering existing knowledge structures
and cognitive frames of communities of practice (Carlile, 2004; Boland and Tenkasi, 1995).
Transformation processes therefore take place when the interests of actors diverge, when
there is negotiation of interests and knowledge, or the construction of a compromise.
IMP When actors have different interests, the dependencies between them are not indifferent;
12,2 these pragmatic differences generate costs to the actors involved. Under these
circumstances, domain-specific knowledge, as well as the common knowledge used,
may need to be transformed to effectively share and assess knowledge at the boundary.
When interests are in conflict, the knowledge developed in one domain generates negative
consequences in another. In this last case, the boundary object becomes a social mediator,
220 and issues such as power, allegiances, exchanges of contributions, and identity become
particularly relevant.
Again in the LEGO case, the change in the company’s strategy has lead retailers to
introduce new practices: limited discounts on toys, weekly reports on their sales, active
participation to training activities organized by LEGO, co-branding initiatives, and many
others. All these changes have been transformative in the sense that children’ parents
started to consider more the bricks as learning tools rather than mere gifts to be bought in
specific occasion, like at Christmas or for their birthday.
These three mechanisms, i.e. transfer, translation, transformation, are not stable entities.
They are enacted in practice ( Jarzabkowski et al., 2012), i.e., they are shaped to situations of
novelty, uncertainty, and change when new practices emerge (Okhuysen and Bechky, 2009).
As a result, the evolutionary characteristic of a boundary object and its ability to carry
information and context allow different communities to interface (communicate, coordinate,
or collaborate) with each other.

3. Space dimension of interaction

The position in space affects the resources mobilized, the activities that are performed, and
the intensity of interaction among actors (Håkansson et al., 2009, p. 38). Scholars in the IMP’
s stream of research, in particular, have stressed that actors, activities, and resources are
bound to the time and space of business interactions (Snehota and Hakansson, 1995; Halinen
et al., 2012). The space dimension affects the multiplicity of actors involved, the difficulties
in delimiting the boundaries of the spacial interaction and the unpredictability of the
consequences arising from it (Håkansson et al., 2009). In networks, a continuous
configuration and reconfiguration of activity patterns occurs based on interdependency in
space and increasing specialization over time (Gadde et al., 2003).
The single firm is therefore embedded in the context of other firms, which forms a
relational space (Araujo et al., 2003), defined as a space for reciprocal influence, which can
enable and constrain relationship development (Gibbert and Välikangas, 2004). As the
relational space evolves, network boundaries change over time (Gadde, Håkansson, 2001).
According to Törnroos et al. (2017), while much research has been devoted to time, space
so far remained largely unexplored within business network research. The authors
developed the concept of relational network space, which emerges based on structural,
mental, and relative dimensions in a social process of business interaction.
The structural network dimension describes the physical-locational and structural-
organizational aspects of spatial connections in networks existing at a specific point in time.
Structural network space manifests in the form of location nodes in space and in the form of
existing activity links, resource ties, and actor bonds, which form the connections, interactions,
and diverse flows (e.g. information, economic, technological) needed through space.
The mental network dimension defines the cognitive space in the form of network maps
or “pictures” as perceived by human actors in the network. If we look at mental maps of
business actors, we are focusing on their experiences, feelings, how they make sense of their
network of relationships, and how they cognitively map the network space, as if they
perceive an existing structure of nodes and threads.
The relative network dimension has been defined as the comparative and relative
positions of corporate actors in the network space in which they are embedded. At a specific
point in time, the relative positions, links, and connections between network actors can be Boundary
mapped and analyzed. The relationships between them lend firms the potential to strategize, between
enhance their roles, and create positions through their specific locations in the geospatial physical and
and mental landscape in a specific situation.
These three dimensions – structural, mental, and relative – become enmeshed and digital
undergo change generating the relational network space. According to the authors, the
relational dimension provides a dynamic view on space as being socially produced, 221
reproduced, and changing. This dimension comprises the interplay of interactive social
processes between the business actors that create the network, and it is affected by them
when networking and interaction proceed.

3.1 Cross-boundary movements in business relationships

The advent of new digital technologies has affected the space dimension of business
interaction where cross-boundary movements are more frequent. In this study, we define
cross-boundary movements as changes that generate new spaces of interaction, and which
can happen at different levels: between actors, between industries, between physical and
digital contexts, between humans and machines, between b-to-b and b-to-c, and so on.
Sales automation in b-to-b through artificial intelligence, for instance, is moving toward
the creation of intelligent systems able to effectively collaborate with people through
interactive and scalable systems. In the next future, more standardized selling activities will
be automatized, giving salespeople free time they could dedicate to manage more complex
relationships as well as those interactions that require the human touch. On the buyer side,
purchasing managers are increasing the quota of purchases done through e_commerce
platforms, often mobile, looking for very similar experiences they live as consumers.
But moving across boundaries in space requires coordination for activities in business
relationships to be pursued effectively. There should exists some kinds of rule or condition
that must be followed (Kogut and Zander 1996) as well as a semantic approach that
addresses different interpretations of language or context (Carlile, 2002). At these interfaces,
participants must be willing to change the knowledge and understanding from their own
domain (Carlile, 2004). It is difficult to have an effective coordination interface if there is a
lack in common grounding between the participants. This failure can be attributed to the
inability to identify the partner’s intent, comprehension of the situation, and poor feedback.
In multi-actor interactions, different coordinating mechanisms have been identified, such
as routines (Nelson and Winter, 2002), teamworking and systemic learning (Verganti, 1997),
norms and experiences (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003), and shared intentions (Taillard
et al., 2016). IMP scholars have also recently stressed the importance of inter-subjective
representations, symbols, representations, maps, and visualization tools as cross-boundary
special elements aimed at improving the effectiveness of business relationships. For
example, Mouzas and Henneberg (2015) noted how inter-cognitive representations inscribe
shared understandings and thus provide an objective basis and guidance for further
interactions. Araujo and Kjellberg (2015) emphasized the link between (coordinated) action
and the resulting (shared) cognitive structures that guide future coordinated action.
This study will in particular explore coordination mechanisms in terms of boundary
objects in the context of business relationships that cross the digital and the physical
space of interaction.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Research approach
To explore the role of boundary objects to coordinate business relationships across digital
and physical contexts, an interactive, qualitative, case study approach was adopted to gain
IMP insight into the phenomena described (Gummesson, 2003). This qualitative method allows
12,2 for a phenomenological and contextual approach to the real-life context within which
managers operate (Eisenhardt, 1989, b) and facilitates rich and in-depth descriptions that are
important, given the complex and multifaceted nature of the phenomenon in question
(Dubois and Gadde, 2002).
The research followed an abductive process: data collection and analysis, and the search
222 for complementary theories constituted parallel iterative processes in which the researcher
moves back and forth between theoretical concepts and field observation, seeking to
enhance the understanding of both theory and data during that process (Dubois and Gadde,
2002). Theoretical structures and empirical observations develop concomitantly and
interactively in an abductive approach (Dubois and Gibbert, 2010). This alternation between
theory and practice has been particularly useful to decline the Carlile’s (2004) functions of
boundary objects – transfer, translate, transform – in the real-life contexts observed; while
theoretical debate around the three functions is huge, their application in practice is not so
straightforward. Adopting an abductive approach is facilitated to recognize how different
domains naturally generate interpretive differences and so emphasize processes that help
create “shared meanings” (Dougherty 1992) or mechanisms “to reconcile discrepancies in
meaning” (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, p. 67).
We considered this flexible approach more appropriate because of the under-researched
nature of the concept and the need to understand context. This approach facilitates study of
the holistic characteristics of inter-organizational relationships.

4.2 Case selection

In line with interpretative research guidelines, two cases have been selected as expressions of
innovative companies, where the role of boundary objects is particularly evident to coordinate
a wide range of heterogeneous actors. The cases are Salesforce.com and 3DiTALY.
Salesforce.com is a leading cloud computing company, which developed the most
innovative CRM solution worldwide, i.e., a structured and integrated systems to improve,
support, and facilitate the management of customer relationships. Developing an effective
CRM strategy is increasingly important in business nowadays due to the growing
complexity of companies’ business networks and the increasing interconnectedness among
people. CRM 2.0 (CRM with social functions), in particular, provides large data capabilities
for scouting external information and integrating it with internal ones; in this way they can
provide insights for the business, obtaining much more sophisticated analytics compared to
the electronic spreadsheets of traditional CRMs.
The second case, 3DiTALY, represents a network of companies specialized in 3D
printers and printing services, scanners, and training activities. The advent of 3D printing is
a cultural revolution, which stands in antithesis to a hyper-specialized society in which
people only perform the activities for which they have the relevant expertise. The industrial
production that prevailed up to now, in fact, is efficient and cost-effective only in
the production of thousands of identical pieces, while producing a single piece with the
classical systems is difficult and, in proportion, enormously expensive.
The selection of the two cases was based on four criteria: intensity case sampling,
i.e. cases that are information rich because they manifest sufficient intensity to illuminate
the role of boundary objects; maximum variation (heterogeneity) among cases to capture the
central themes that cut across a great deal of variation. Salesforce is transforming its CRM
in a new joint space for interaction where aspects of the physical world become represented
in the digital one; on the other way round, in the 3DiTALY case digital concepts become
physical artefacts; homogeneous cases, the purpose of which is to describe some particular
element. In our situation, both companies are overcoming spacial boundaries between
physical and digital contexts by strongly changing their interaction patterns; and emergent
situations, taking advantage of new opportunities during data collection, as most of the Boundary
changes described occurred while the researcher was collecting the data. between
The investigation was based on the analysis of records and interviews with 27 informants physical and
(see Table I). We adopted an expert judgment technique (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996) to select
interviewees who could provide relevant insights. digital
Interviews lasted approximately between 50 minutes and 1.30 hours. The interviews
were tape-recorded and transcribed. The researchers analyzed archival materials in order 223
to gather additional background information and to substantiate the interview data.
These archival data include institutional presentations of the company, articles in business
news and case histories the companies developed.

4.3 Interview scheme

We used a semi-structured set of questions for the interviews, which provided the
formality to analyze complex phenomena and enabled the emergence of unexpected
issues (Wengraf, 2001). The interviews scheme was divided into three parts: first, we
asked respondents to describe the context in which their company operated and how it
evolved over time. Second, by following the approach by Ulaga and Eggert (2006), we
asked about critical events that occurred with respect to key relationships. Once an
interesting element emerged, we tried to address the discussion toward interactions and
episodes that characterized it, which actors were involved, how they managed its effects,
and how such effects have influenced other events. Accordingly, we use the definition of
critical incidents by Schurr et al. (2005) as happenings relevant for a party at a given place
and time. Critical incidents in the network depend at least in part on the perceptions and
intentions of the actors; they are events that the one participant considers as problematic
and confusing (Halinen et al., 1999). So, in the interview scheme there were no direct
question on boundary objects, which would be too difficult to be understood by managers,
but they have been derived indirectly.
The time dimension was then captured by analyzing in a retrospective way episode
that occurred over time and how they connect to previous, present, and following events
(Medlin and Törnroos, 2014).
During interviews, we followed up with additional questions requesting clarifications,
examples, and more details regarding potentially interesting ideas. All interviews were
registered and transcribed.

Commonalities
Company Business Interviewed people among cases Differences among cases

Salesforce. Cloud Vice president Italy, Enhanced role of Multinational company. Pure
com computing marketing manager; boundary objects service. It operates only in
company, CRM country manager; around which the b-to-b. Its focus is on
seven salespeople who company generated overcoming space boundaries
use salesforce CRM innovation and new in the sharing of information
(customer companies); value co-creation through CRM
two consultants activities
expert in CRM
3DiITALY 3D printing Founder; new Italian company. Both b-to-b
and connected business developer; and b-to-c. In between service
services marketing manager and manufacturing, its focus
two resellers; five is on overcoming space Table I.
customers boundaries between physical Cases selection and
and digital production interviewed people
IMP 4.4 Data analysis
12,2 Data collection and data analysis were carried out to achieve complementary insights and
enhanced confidence in the findings (Eisenhardt, 1989, b).
Data analysis involved a coding process, which implied identifying the major themes
that address the research objectives of the study. Data analysis followed a two-stage
process. First, an intra-case study was conducted to isolate the boundary objects that
224 emerged in each situation and classify them into artefacts, discourses, and processes.
Second, we figured out the functions they pursued in each situation and compared these
functions with the categories identified in the literature in terms of transfer, translation,
and transformation functions. In details, when a strong information-processing process
was involved and common lexicon present we classified data into knowledge transferring.
When the previous were not enough and there was the creation of common meanings
to share knowledge, we referred to it as knowledge translation. Finally, when common
interests were also needed to share and assess knowledge we classified data in terms of
knowledge transformation.
Given that we studied two cases, we concentrated more on commonalities rather than on
differences. The analysis process was driven by the fact that ideas or insights should be
applicable in both cases (see Bendapudi and Leone, 2002).
We supported case description with the use of some narratives (Yin, 2014; Gummesson,
2000). Every narrative offered a plausible reason for a particular outcome and the connected
sequence of events, reducing equivocality (Weick, 1995; Czarniawska, 2004). From our
interpretivist position, stories themselves construct meaningful realities.

5. Case studies
5.1 SalesForce.com
Salesforce.com is a cloud computing company founded in 1999. In June 2004, the company’s
initial public offering was listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the stock symbol
CRM and raised US$110 million. In 2016, Forbes designated Salesforce.com as the most
innovative company worldwide.
Personalizing the digital space for business interaction. Most of Salesforce.com success is
due to its well-known CRM service solution, which is broken down into several broad
categories: Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, Data Cloud Marketing Cloud, Community Cloud,
Analytics Cloud, App Cloud, and IoT with over 100,000 customers.
The CRM keeps track of all contacts, opportunities, accounts, partners, and competitors
in one single platform that everyone can share throughout the organization, allowing the
sales division to function more efficiently no matter where they are physically: “Salesforce.
com CRM lets you deliver a new era of service in a hyper-connected world” (key account
manager, Salesforce Italy).
The goal is to pivot the entire ecosystem to a new customer experience. The platform
enables companies to create a customer-centered business from marketing to sales,
customer service, and business analysis. It is simultaneously a platform and an ecosystem,
which creates a seamless single connected experience for every user. This technology helps
users work smarter by gaining deeper insights into their customers and empowers the
company to build apps in a flash to connect with consumers.
The company not only provides its business customers the basic tools to create and
manage strong relationships with the final leads, but they are also able to personalize the
way they engage their final customers through different combinations of apps, tools,
different levels of difficulty and extensions. Every customer who can access the dashboard
in the CRM is allowed to modify it according to its needs and preferences. Again, the idea is
to share the infrastructure but leave organizations free to determine its content. Customers
share the infrastructure as multi-tenants, and they are at the same time free to determine its Boundary
content and, above all, to manage the customization required by companies simultaneously between
with an upgrade: “Thousands of users suddenly find themselves living in the same physical and
apartment building; they all pay the rent, but then they have the opportunity to create their
own apartment and furnish it as they see fit” (Vice president, Italy, Salesforce.com). digital
Business opportunities becoming social objects. The Salesforce.com CRM’s social
capabilities are quite disruptive and particularly interesting for the scope of this paper: 225
“The last release of our CRM works like Facebook, where a person uploads a photo and his
friends comment it. Similarly, in our CRM a business opportunity is not anymore a record, but
it becomes an object, expressed through a text, an image, a graphic, an audio message, a ‘like’
and, above all, it is an object that becomes social” (key account manager, Salesforce Italy).
Salesforce’s social media function and news feed work similarly to social networks,
making them familiar and easy to use. People can easily browse the news feed and post
status updates, upload files, share links and more, right from the dashboard. Basically, they
can upload whatever elements they think could be useful to describe a relationship with a
certain customer company: texts, pictures, videos, audios, links, presentations, a sign, a
mood, a color, etc., anything their creativity can imagine, they can do. Making this parallel
with Facebook is an expression of a profound change for CRMs – from a quite static and
impersonal approach toward a personal and interactive one, where the same business
opportunity assumes meaning and significance through the continued participation of
different stakeholders who contribute to its definition.
Salesforce.com experts have also realized the importance of visualizing concepts resulting
from the CRM analytics: knowledge now goes through signs, symbols, and representations,
and not only numbers, figures and graphs. The purpose of analysts is to work on quality and
accuracy; however, the significance of its representation as the transformation of data into
meaningful information can only happen through an aesthetic/functional path.
For customer companies implementing Salesforce CRM has fostered internal
communication, interaction, and coordination among colleagues within the company. At the
same time, it has improved communication and coordination with business partners, who can
access the CRM if authorized by the company. A distributor or a supplier, for instance, can be
invited to give their contribution to describe the state of a certain relationship. Thus,
Salesforce CRM not only coordinate intra-organizationals ideas and views, but it is a tool also
for coordinating the whole network, which includes both internal and external relationships.
The effects of all these changes consist in a reduction of 50 percent of the
e-mails exchanged among parties, which is very positive as, at the end, e-mails end up as
transactional objects rather than relational. To incentive this process, the system awards
most contributing people: “We have completely changed the way we interact. We almost do
not use any more e-mails. Interaction has become much more seamless, smart, and fast”
(customer company, Xerox). They are no more e-mails that speak of subjects and objects,
but now objects themselves started to speak.
To make this process working effectively, the company invested in granting a connected
experience everywhere. It was, in fact, the first launching on the market the CRM as native
mobile, allowing to exploit all the potentialities of mobility. “Welcome to the internet of
customers, where every company can connect every app, employee, partner, product, and
device with its customers using the power of social, mobile, and cloud” (key account
manager, Europe).
Around this CRM solution, a community of 150,000 people emerges. Salesforce collects
suggestions from people in the community, from blogs, and from influencers and tries to
figure out how to improve its software, often by re-contacting those who made valuable
suggestions. Most contributing people, again, are awarded.
IMP Blurring the boundary between b-to-c and b-to-b. In 2010, a further innovation has
12,2 characterized the development of the company’s business. In a manner similar to what
Apple has created for the consumer world, Salesforce has made for business, i.e., it launched
Salesforce AppExchange, an online marketplace for third-party applications that runs on
the Salesforce.com platform. It created a single ecosystem for building, discovering, and
running all the company apps. To understand the magnitude of this solution, in Salesforce
226 14,000 people work in the AppExchange business unit.
Further, Salesforce.com has been the first company introducing its CRM in the form of
software as a service (SaaS), thus applying the modern logic of value in use. The service is
based on a subscription fee, which companies can end whenever they want. Like a
consumer can subscribe to Netflix, similarly a company can subscribe to Salesforce.com
and decide in every moment to end it. This was not possible before Salesforce.com entered
the market due to limitations in the software upgrade. The upgrade was indeed a problem
due to the complex and costly process of migration that companies tended to postpone,
unfortunately limiting their innovation capability. Salesforce.com performed automatic
updates of web-based applications, so that users always have the latest version of its
software, including personalization. All additions and customizations are retained from
one update, which lasts six minutes.
These innovations made it possible for Salesforce to compete with the “big four”
enterprise software companies (Oracle, SAP, IBM, Microsoft) and to become the company
with the highest-rate growth in the USA in 2015.
Of course, Salesforce.com services are proposed at a premium price, and the effectiveness
of these smart technologies depends on the type of organizational culture of the companies
where they are implemented.

5.2 3DiTALY
3DiTALY was settled in 2013 as a network of companies specializing in 3D printers, 3D
printing services, consumption materials, scanners, and training activities. 3DiTALY is the
first company in the world to create a store network on the topic of digital fabrication. It is
currently the leading company in Italy.
Shortening the distance between inventor and user. The company’s philosophy is to
subvert the traditional supply chains of industrial production, thus shortening the distance
between inventor and entrepreneur. This philosophy encourages creativity and DIY (do it
yourself ) through the widespread accessibility to digital manufacturing machines.
3D printing has shortened the supply chain and reduced related costs, therefore
democratizing technology. Thanks to 3D printing, production is getting closer to the user:
“Digital manufacturing reverses the economic logic of traditional manufacturing. In mass
production, almost all costs are to cover the initial equipping of the machine: the greater the
complexity of the product and more changes to be made, so the costs rise. With digital
manufacturing, it is exactly the opposite: things that are expensive in the traditional
production, become free” (Chris Anderson, maker).
As the costs of 3D printers and printing services are diminishing, it will be possible in the
near future for consumers to produce by themselves specific things they need and when
they need, thus guaranteeing maximum levels of personalization. The thrust toward
creativity is therefore strong; potentially, a family will be able to print basic necessities and
patent new ones according to their particular needs, without any waste of economic
resources and allowing the re-use of materials. The diffusion of 3D printing is changing the
widespread conception of consumption by putting human creativity at the center of
the equation. It is a cultural revolution, which stands in contrast to a hyper-specialized
society where people perform only the activities for which they have the relevant skills.
Some professionals will be then free from the relationship with large companies to create Boundary
their own creations and will be able to touch their projects. between
Restructuring the value network. Application of 3D printing is extensive and includes physical and
rapid prototyping for architects, urban planners and designers; mechanics, mechatronics,
automotive, jewelry, art and contemporary sculpture; physical computing, toys, 3D photo,
digital
interaction design, cinema, fashion design, cake design, applied sciences and biomedical
industries, robotics, and many others. Before the diffusion of 3D technology, prototyping 227
costs were extremely high, often prohibitive. Particularly interesting applications are in
healthcare, e.g., human organs can be perfectly translated into an artefact allowing doctors
to simulate surgeries and thus reduce the risk of failure. This has been particularly
important for some hospital departments, like nephrology, which may have a limited
amount of available resources to invest in more expensive technologies.
The company targets creative people and inventors, along with companies, schools, and
citizens, providing them with the machines, equipment, and services necessary to give
substance to their ideas. Each user is able to develop a culture of doing and can acquire the
skills needed to turn ideas into prototypes and products. Interest groups are built around
ideas and projects, thus giving rise to a new form of entrepreneurship that exceeds the logic
of traditional marketing and becomes more social.
3D printing places creativity at the center. For this reason, every 3DiTALY dealer
combines different skills to facilitate cross-creative approaches, e.g., architects, designers,
engineers, communications experts, analysts, information aesthetics experts, and marketing
people. In this process, the customer is an integral part of the context: it is no longer a
passive recipient of an artefact, but he/she also contributes to its definition through many
trials that were not possible before due to the high costs of prototyping. While before the
interaction was mainly between the persons and the digital image of the artefact, now it
starts to be among the persons, the digital image and the artefact itself.
3DiTALY also aims to create a network of companies with a high social impact that
safeguards the environment. In fact, 3D printers mainly use a material called PLA (polyacid
acid), a biodegradable bioplastic obtained from starch and widely used in the manufacture of
shopping bags. It is reusable almost indefinitely, so that there is the possibility of re-using
objects to create new ones. 3D printing fits into a wider context of critical and sustainable
consumption, saving on materials and costs and limiting the level of pollution and toxicity of
the processes. In fact, the industrial production that has prevailed up to now is efficient and
convenient only in the production of thousands of equal pieces, while producing a single piece
with the classical systems is difficult and, in proportion, enormously wasteful. Also interesting
is the application of 3D technology to drastically reduce housing issues in third world countries,
through the construction of houses in sand or clay, with virtually no costs. Shanty towns can be
replaced by modular and economic, reusable, and noninvasive houses for the natural territory.
The digital artisan crossing boundaries between tradition and modernity. Particularly
interesting is the partnership that 3DiTALY developed with Antica Dolceria Bonajuto in Modica,
the oldest chocolate factory in Sicily. Together, they developed the first 3D printer for chocolate,
introducing an important innovation, which crossed the boundaries of traditional industries.
In other words, the oldest technique for making chocolate blends with innovative 3D printing.
Bonajuto chocolate is produced with an ancient technique that uses low-temperature
processing. This process dates back to the ceremonial Aztec civilization and was brought to
Modica (Sicily) in the sixteenth century by the Spanish. The production technique has not
evolved through the industrial stage and has remained unchanged for ingredients and
method of preparation.
The idea is to actually print the chocolate ( for the first time in Italy) using a 3D
PowerWASP printer. This was not an easy task, as modica chocolate is free of butter and
IMP fat, which makes it difficult to be extruded through a 3D printer: “Antica Dolceria Bonajuto
12,2 was thrilled by the invitation to collaborate; our belief is that old does not mean it is old but
rather a wealth of experience constantly in progress starting from essential fixed points
(quality of raw material and product characteristics) can always be put to the test service”
(sales manager, 3D printing).
A partnership originated from the two different realities, linked by innate creativity and
228 innovative spirit. A new value has been co-created through the combination of traditional
craftsmanship and digital technologies. Both companies decided to catch opportunities to
reinvent the art of pastry “in order to stimulate creativity and thus the attractiveness of this
business even for future young generations” (Antica Dolceria Bonajuto, owner). The merge
between tradition and modernity gave rise to a new profession: the digital artisan, a
combination of traditional craftsmanship and new technologies. The social impact is huge,
giving the possibility to artisan art to be preserved over generations.
As further concretization of passage, in 2005 3DiTALY established the Digital Arts and
Manufacturing Academy (DAMA), based in Milan. The academy aims to train future
professionals of the digital fabrication in different traditional fields. The idea arises from the
union of the know-how in 3DiTALY additive production with the mixture of training skills
coming from a wide range of disciplines, looking at the most extreme frontiers of the
“Making Universe.” The scope is to integrate the cultural baggage of artisanship with
the technologies of digital fabrication: “DAMA is an innovative makerspace, a place where
heterogeneous people meet and exchange knowledge, with an eclectic vision of the
production of objects that embraces ancient and new processes. DAMA is experimentation,
experience, virtual world of design but also craftsmanship. I do not want to do the same job
of my grandfather, I want to start form there and exploit the big opportunities from new
technologies” (DAMA academy student) (Table II).

6. Discussion
6.1 Contribution to theory on boundary objects
With the advent of digital marketing and social selling, the business space for interaction
has stretched, both for B2B and B2C companies. Individuals and companies have access
to information any time and any place, thanks to the digital world. The large amount
of information available, the increasing number of interaction points, and the
dematerialization of contents pose the issue of how to coordinate business relationships
in digital contexts.
Through the analysis of two cases studies, this paper shows that digitalization is
dramatically changing how interaction occurs in space, thus multiplying the touchpoints

Artefacts Discourses Processes

Salesforce.com Representations (visual,
3DiTALY
Table II.
A classification of
boundary objects in
the two case studies
pictorial, textual,
illustrations, audio, etc.)
Mobile interfaces
Apps
Physical creations
Digital images
Multiple actors conversates
about business relationships
Communities are generates
where conversation about
different objects take place
Conversations among people
characterized by different skills
Discourses about how to modify
artefacts
New routines about the CRM
system functioning
Periodic rewarding systems
Integrating tradizion with
modernity
New learning path
New printers
New interaction modes between
machine and human
among interacting actors and generating cross-boundary movements. Digitalization has Boundary
enabled interaction among heterogeneous actors, in terms of objectives, position, power, between
culture, and so on, which require the creation and sharing of a “sense” that makes the physical and
network cohesive. All these elements generate a greater need for coordination, which, as our
empirical study reveals, assigns a key role to boundary objects. digital
Carlile and Lucas (2003) proposed that different boundary objects are needed for
facilitating either conveyance of information or convergence on meaning. We indeed confirm 229
that point and also add that, in business relationships in digital contexts, artefacts, discourses,
and processes are even more needed to coordinate effectively business relationships.
Our study has revealed the main functions of boundary objects to coordinate
inter-organizational relationships across physical and digital contexts, using as
interpretative framework the functions of transferring, translating, and transforming by
Carlile (2004). It emerged that each of these three can be further specified in sub-functions
when applied to interaction in digital contexts.
First, we found that the function of transfer can be declined into the sub-functions of
simplification and stories transfer.
Simplification. Simplification is a way to transfer knowledge across different spacial
contexts. In the Salesforce.com case, a sophisticated CRM is made very simple: text, photos,
videos, ppt, etc. are the boundary objects that allow one to more easily transfer concepts and
making these concepts accessible to different stakeholders. Compared to the literature on
knowledge transfer (Kotlarsky et al., 2015), we add that simplification facilitates transfer
even if differences exist among actors and there is novelty. On this last aspect, in particular,
Salesforce.com has reduced uncertainty about novelty, introducing in the market that idea
of a CRM SaaS (i.e. value in use) as well as the launch AppExchange, a system of apps
similar to Apple’s one, thus making b-to-b to get closer to consumer world.
Stories transfer. Both cases highlight the increasing role of boundary objects as ways to tell
stories about the company, its solution, and its customers in an appealing and human-related
way (Rullani, 2002). By using Salesforce.com CRM, people would no longer need to transfer
content through e-mails, but they are objects to start to tell stories about relationships. Since
there is embedded a story, the transferring of this object becomes an important means of
coordination among different spacial contexts. Thus, what is transferred is not the object itself
but the story that accompanied it. The same happens in the case of 3D artefacts and digital
craftsmanship able to transfer to the present old stories about traditions and arts. In both cases
analyzed, indeed, success does not remain (only) in the quality of a mathematical-statistical
component of algorithms but in how it combines with the human component. Humanizing is a
way to add a human touch to objects, which otherwise would remain anonymous.
With regards to the process of translate, we found the sub-functions of socializing
concepts and contextualize knowledge.
Socializing concepts. In both cases, the boundary objects allow one to translate different
ideas and converge toward shared meanings (LaRocca et al. 2016).
The Saleforce.com case highlights how business opportunities can assume sense
and meaning through the continued participation of various persons who contribute to
their representation and thus definition. Representing the content of business relationships,
relationships themselves come to exist and become concrete. Also, the new modality to
represent a business relationship moves from a static and impersonal logic, toward a more
personal and interactive one.
In the 3DiTALY case, architects, designers, inventors, and craftsmen transfer embedded
knowledge into a physical artefact that others can concretely observe, touch, experience.
The protagonists are those capable of generating new ideas, share them, interact and
collaborate with each other, making their own differences an important resource.
IMP Contextualize knowledge. Boundary objects have different meanings in different social
12,2 contexts, but their structure is common enough for all intersecting social worlds to recognize
and to use them as a means of translation, thus bringing coherence across intersecting social
contexts (Storbacka et al., 2016). In the cases analyzed, it is evident how social objects
become flexible and in a continuous evolution. In such a way, they are used to grant a higher
contextualization of communication practices, by representing what is occurring in a
230 specific space context in a certain time moment. Being mobile is a way to promote such a
contextualization, making it easy for people to update the CRM here and now and not when
they are back to the office or at fixed deadlines. Through mobile, physical interactions can
be represented in the digital space almost in real time. Bowker and Star (1999) observed that
the effectiveness of a boundary object depends on how successfully it can be used to
decontextualize knowledge on one side of a boundary and recontextualize it on the other
side. This process of decontextualizing and recontextualizing knowledge is very evident in
the 3d printing case: there is a continuos interaction between the digital image of the artefact
(decontextualization) and the physical artefact (contextualization) and back again in a
circular process that has been made possible only due to the reduced costs of 3d printers
with respect to producing prototypes.
Finally, we discovered that the transformation function in Carlile’s (2004) framework can
be declined into engage in a broader experience and boosting creativity.
Engage in a broader experience. The creation of new meanings occurs through the
activities and speeches that link the various actors in a process of social construction that
takes place before, during, and after an exchange (Peñaloza and Venkatesh, 2006). In digital
contexts, interacting in cross-boundary movements allows the development of a collective
sense that goes beyond the concept of the product or service (Madhok and Tallman, 1998)
and engages people in a broader experience. Boundary objects can be transformative, as
they can generate new concepts and new paradigms, which are not only temporary but also
become stable changes of the system. In the 3dITALY, a new experience has been generated
that moves beyond from buying a 3d printer or using printing services, it becomes a
learning experience. In the Saleforce.case, a community of people emerged around the CRM
which has an important transformative role in improving the company’s solution.
Boost creativity. Digitalization opens new possibilities that lead people to be the driving
forces of change (Perry-Smith, 2006; Amabile, 1996). The presence of boundary objects
boosts the creativity of individuals who can more easily contribute to new ideas.
The emergent figure of the digital artisan is an example of how transformative can be
creativity. The Salesforce.com case is also interesting in this regards, as an actor can upload
directly from the dashboard every type of object (textual, visual, pictorial, evocative, etc.),
he/she thinks can be useful to assign meaning to a certain relationship. New objects can be
creatively identified.
Figure 1 summarizes the functions of boundary objects in digital contexts.

6.2 Contribution to theory on interaction in space and cross-boundary movements

IMP scholars have defined the relational network space as a multidimensional spatial
context comprising business interactions and strategizing, altering the former nodes and
links, positions, and roles between actors over time. Törnroos et al. (2017), in particular,
asserted that space emerges based on structural, mental, and relative dimensions, thereby
producing a dynamic relational network space in a social process of business interaction.
Our study has shown that, to generate such space in digital contexts, the structural, mental,
and relative dimensions are not on the same level: the mental dimensions seem to prevail
over the others or, better, to be a driving force. The mental network dimension defines the
cognitive space in the form of network maps or “pictures” as perceived by human actors in
the network. Our study clearly revealed that a primary determinant of the evolution of a Boundary
relational network space in the digital context is the presence of a shared understanding, between
which straight bring us to boundary objects. In the Salesforce case, the creation of shared physical and
knowledge among actors about relationships in the CRM could have led to redirect
investments toward one or another relationships based on their relative potentialities digital
(relative network space) thus finally modifying the structural network space too.
Similarly, in the 3DiTALY case the enhanced interaction between people around 231
the physical artefact has led to restructure the whole manufacturing chain, where also the
relative network space changed: users drawn and increased power being able to infuse
artefacts with their creativity, something that was not possible before due to the high costs
of prototyping.
In interactions increasingly ranging from digital to physical, the importance of shared
understanding for cross-boundary movements is high, as only after these schemes have
been aligned actors do begin to share knowledge and the relationships to evolve. So,
changes in the structural and relative network space appear very much a consequence of
what happens in the mental network space.

7. Conclusions and implications for research and practice

This paper has revealed the importance of boundary objects to cross the boundary
between physical and digital contexts. In particular, we have found that, once business
relationships occurs across physical and digital, the well-grounded functions of boundary
objects – transferring, translating, and transforming – can be further specified.
The functions we identified are simplification and stories transfer ( for transfer);
socializing concepts and contextualize knowledge ( for translating); engage in a broader
experience and boosting creativity (for transforming).
We contributed to IMP studies on space dimensions and cross-boundary movements by
showing that since business relationships are going to be increasingly digitalized, a better
understanding of the mechanisms that coordinate the different spaces of interactions should
be gained. We also highlighted that, among the dimensions identified in Törnroos et al.
(2017) model on the relational network spaces (structural, relative, mental), the mental
network space seems to have a particular important role in determining the relational
network space as much of the boundary objects found in the analysis fall into this category.
The present research has limitations. First, it is based only on two case studies, which do
not cover the whole set of ways through which relationships can be digitalized. The second
limitation is that the study mainly considers the space dimension of interaction, even if we
know that context has both a space and time dimension. Important clues about this aspect

Artefacts, Discourses, Processes

Functions of boundary objects

to cross knowledge boundaries Transfer Translate Transform
(Carlile, 2004)

Engage in a
Socialize broader Figure 1.
Simplification
Sub-functions
to coordinate
concepts experience A declination of the
business Stories Transfer
functions of boundary
relationships Contextualize
Boost objects to coordinate
across physical knowledge
and digital creativity business relationships
contexts across physical and
digital contexts
IMP are provided by the 3DiTALY case, where the rise of the digital artisan represents a
12,2 transformation process, which connects past, present, and future. Research could thus better
combine space with time considerations and how they influence each other.
Moreover, it would be interesting to understand further how boundary objects are
used to cross boundaries between humans and non-humans (such as in the case of
artificial intelligent system) as well as how they can represent a bridge between B2C and
232 B2B contexts.
In terms of managerial implications, we agree that few studies actually applied the
concept of boundary objects in practice (Levina and Vaast, 2005). By identifying
the functions of boundary objects in digital contexts, this empirical paper also contributed
to make concrete theoretical insights in this area which many time remained very abstract
in past studies.
It follows that boundary objects should be not considered as natural nor controllable but
rather as strategic tools on which the company could act to improve the effectiveness of its
business relationships both in a digital and physical world. This would imply the need to
understand specific roles in a company, i.e., who has the responsibility for the management
of boundary objects and which skills characterize this role in terms of communication,
marketing, and design capabilities.
The study also highlights that more and more companies are investing in attempts to
represent and display boundary objects; in other words, they try to make them less
intangible, also due to the importance of representing ideas and concepts in a way
that fosters efficient and effective understanding. Connected to this point, companies should
get closer to the stream of research on information design and data visualization.
Information design can be increasingly important in the future in order to assign a shape to
information, so that they can be straightforwardly understood, shared, and modified by
interacting parties.

References
Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 123-167.
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity, Westview,
Boulder.
Araujo, L. and Kjellberg, H. (2015), “Forming cognitions by investing in a form: frequent flyer
programs in US air travel post-deregulation (1981-1991)”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 48 No. 2015, pp. 68-78.
Araujo, L., Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.E. (2003), “The multiple boundaries of the firm”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1255-1277.
Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P. (2002), “Managing business-to-business customer relationships
following key contact employee turnover in a vendor firm”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 2,
pp. 83-101.
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1991), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge, Penguin, No. 10.
Boland, R.J. Jr and Tenkasi, R.V. (1995), “Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of
knowing”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 350-372.
Bowker, G.C. and Star, L.S. (1999), Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Burr, V. (2003), Social Constructivism, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Carlile, P. (2002), “A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product
development”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 442-455.
Carlile, P. (2004), “Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing Boundary
knowledge across boundaries”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 555-568. between
Carlile, P. and Lucas, W. (2003), “Taking care of complex boundaries: knowledge and boundary physical and
activities on technology development teams”, working paper, Sloan, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
digital
Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996), Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research
Strategies, Sage Publications, Inc.
Cohen, S.G. and Gibson, C.B. (2003), “In the beginning: introduction and framework”, Virtual Teams 233
That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness, pp. 1-13.
Czarniawska, B. (2004), Narratives in Social Science Research, Sage.
Dougherty, D. (1992), “Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms”,
Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 179-202.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002), “Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 553-560.
Dubois, A. and Gibbert, M. (2010), “From complexity to transparency: managing the interplay between
theory, method and empirical phenomena in IMM case studies”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 129-136.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T. (2011), “Expanding understanding of service exchange and
value co-creation: a social construction approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 327-339.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989a), “Agency theory: an assessment and review”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-74.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989b), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M. and Ye, Y. (2005), “Beyond binary
choices: integrating individual and social creativity”, International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, Vol. 3 Nos 4-5, pp. 482-512.
Gadde, L.E. and Håkansson, H. (2001), Supply Network Strategy, Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, NY.
Gadde, L.E., Huemer, L. and Håkansson, H. (2003), “Strategizing in industrial networks”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 357-364.
Gensler, V. and Liu-Thompkins, W. (2013), “Managing brands in the social media environment”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 242-256.
Gherardi, S. (2011), “Organizational learning: the sociology of practice”, Handbook of Organizational
Learning and Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, pp. 43-65.
Gibbert, M. and Välikangas, L. (2004), “Boundaries and innovation: special issue introduction by the
guest editors”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 495-504.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of
California Press.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gummesson, E. (2003), “All research is interpretive!”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 18 Nos 6/7, pp. 482-492.
Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L.E., Snehota, I. and Waluszewski, A. (2009), Business in Networks,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Halinen, A., Medlin, C.J. and Törnroos, J.Å. (2012), “Time and process in business network research”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 215-223.
Halinen, A., Salmi, A. and Havila, V. (1999), “From dyadic change to changing business networks: an
analytical framework”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 779-794.
Hawkins, M.A. and Rezazade M., M.H. (2012), “Knowledge boundary spanning process: synthesizing
four spanning mechanisms”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 10, pp. 1800-1815.
IMP Hodgkinson, G.P. (2015), “Reflections on the interplay between cognition, action and outcomes in
12,2 industries and business markets: what have we learned so far and where might we go next?”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 48, pp. 12-25.
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M. (2014), “The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation:
a service system perspective”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 247-261.
Jarzabkowski, P.A., Lê, J.K. and Feldman, M.S. (2012), “Toward a theory of coordinating: creating
234 coordinating mechanisms in practice”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 907-927.
Klimbe, C., Grenier, C. and Goglio-Primard, K. (2010), “Innovation and knowledge sharing across
professional boundaries: political interplay between boundary objects and brokers”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30, pp. 437-444.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), “What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning”, Organization
Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 502-518.
Kotlarsky, J., van den Hooff, B. and Houtman, L. (2015), “Are we on the same page? Knowledge
boundaries and transactive memory system development in cross-functional teams”,
Communication Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 319-344.
La Rocca, A. and Snehota, I. (2011), “Knowledge in use when actors interact in business relationships”,
IMP Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 79-93.
Levina, N. and Vaast, E. (2005), “The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice:
implications for implementation and use of information systems”, MIS Quarterly, pp. 335-363.
Madhok, A. and Tallman, S.B. (1998), “Resources, transactions and rents: managing value through
interfirm collaborative relationships”, Organization Science, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 326-339.
Marheineke, M., Habicht, H. and Möslein, K.M. (2016a), “Bridging knowledge boundaries: the use of
boundary objects in virtual innovation communities”, R&D Management, Vol. 46 No. S3,
pp. 1084-1094.
Marheineke, M., Velamuri, V.K. and Möslein, K.M. (2016b), “On the importance of boundary objects for
virtual collaboration: a review of the literature”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1108-1122.
Medlin, C.J. and Törnroos, J.Å. (2014), “Interest, sensemaking and adaptive processes in emerging
business networks—an Australian biofuel case”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43
No. 6, pp. 1096-1107.
Miranda, S.M. and Saunders, C.S. (2003), “The social construction of meaning: an alternative
perspective on information sharing”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 87-106.
Mouzas, S. and Henneberg, S.C. (2015), “Inter-cognitive representations in business networks”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 48, pp. 61-67.
Mouzas, S., Henneberg, S. and Naudé, P. (2008), “Developing network insight”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 167-180.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Evolutionary theorizing in economics”, The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23-46.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press.
Okhuysen, G.A. and Bechky, B.A. (2009), “10 coordination in organizations: an integrative perspective”,
Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 463-502.
Peñaloza, L. and Venkatesh, A. (2006), “Further evolving the new dominant logic of marketing: from
services to the social construction of markets”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 299-316.
Perry-Smith, J.E. (2006), “Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual
creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 85-101.
Perry-Smith, J.E. and Shalley, C.E. (2003), “The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic social
network perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2015), “Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: an integrative Boundary
framework and research implications”, International Journal of Research in Marketing. between
Rampersad, G., Quester, P. and Troshani, I. (2010), “Managing innovation networks: exploratory physical and
evidence from ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology networks”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 793-805. digital
Rowley, T.I. and Moldoveanu, M. (2003), “When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-and
identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization”, Academy of Management Review, 235
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 204-219.
Schrage, M. (1999), Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate, Harvard
Business Press.
Schurr, P., Hedaa, L. and Geersbro, J. (2005), “Interaction episodes as engines of relationship change”,
Proceedings of the Annual 21st IMP-Conference, Rotterdam.
Shams, S.R. and Kaufmann, H.R. (2016), “Entrepreneurial co-creation: a research vision to be
materialised”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1250-1268.
Snehota, I. and Hakansson, H. (Eds) (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge,
London.
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989), “Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects:
amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39”,
Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 387-420.
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R.J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P.P. and Nenonen, S. (2016), “Actor engagement
as a microfoundation for value co-creation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8,
pp. 3008-3017.
Taillard, M., Peters, L.D., Pels, J. and Mele, C. (2016), “The role of shared intentions in the emergence of
service ecosystems”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 2972-2980.
Törnroos, J.Å., Halinen, A. and Medlin, C.J. (2017), “Dimensions of space in business network research”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 61, pp. 10-19.
Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006), “Value-based differentiation in business relationships: gaining and
sustaining key supplier status”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 119-136.
Verganti, R. (1997), “Leveraging on systemic learning to manage the early phases of product
innovation projects”, R&D Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 377-392.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Vol. 3, Sage.
Wenger, E. (2000), “Communities of practice and social learning systems”, Organization, Vol. 7,
pp. 225-246.
Wengraf, T. (2001), Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured
Methods, Sage.
Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research Design and Methods, 5th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 282.

Further reading
Gibbert, M., Hoegl, M. and Valikangas, L. (2014), “Introduction to the special issue: financial
resource constraints and innovation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 197-201.
Gibson, C.B. and Cohen, S.G. (Eds) (2003), Virtual Teams that Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual
Team Effectiveness, John Wiley & Sons.
Glynn, M.A. (1996), “Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational
intelligences to innovation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 1081-1111.
Henneberg, S.C., Mouzas, S. and Naudé, P. (2006), “Network pictures: concepts and representations”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 3/4, pp. 408-429.
McKinsey on Marketing and Sales (2014), “Five facts: ‘how customer analytics boosts corporate
performance’ ”, research report.
IMP Medlin, C.J. (2004), “Interaction in business relationships: a time perspective”, Industrial Marketing
12,2 Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 185-193.
PWC (2014), “Analisi PWC su dati Eurostat e Istat”, Presentazione Istituzionale.
Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2016), “Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: an integrative
framework and research implications”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 93-106.
236 Rullani, E., Sebastiani, R., Corsaro, D. and Mele, C. (2015), Intelligenza Relazionale: Nuove idee
per l’economia dei servizi, Franco Angeli, Milan.
Sales Management Association (2017), “Investment in salesperson skill development”, research report.
Salesforce (2016), “State of the art on digital marketing”, research report.

Corresponding author
Daniela Corsaro can be contacted at: daniela.corsaro@iulm.it

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com