Network-centricity: hindered by hierarchical anchors

ABSTRACT

Network-centricity is a concept under consideration as a useful paradigm for complex organizational operations, combining the strengths of bureaucracy with the innovative possibilities afforded by the ongoing explosion of information and communication technologies. Network-centric work (NCW) is that in which the activities associated with work are conducted via informal selfdirected networks of people, occurring within an environment enabled by technological and organizational infrastructure. NCW cuts across boundaries within and between organizations and engages participants with more regard for their expertise and motivation than their formal roles. Network-centric organizations embrace NCW alongside bureaucracies oriented to providing the resources and articulating the vision to which the NCW is to be oriented. Network-centricity is motivated by a desire for rapid adaptation and flexibility to changing circumstances. However, in an ethnographic study of a distributed team deployed by a large corporation seeking to benefit from a network-centric approach, we found that the work of the distributed team was hindered by some team members "anchoring" to bureaucratic work practices instead of supporting network-centric practices. We identify several such anchor points and the ways in which they impeded network-centric work.

REFERENCES

• 1: Alberts, D. S., J. Garstka, et al. (1999). Network-Centric Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority. Washington, DC, National Defense University Press.
• 2: Nathan Bos , N. Sadat Shami , Judith S. Olson , Arik Cheshin , Ning Nan, In-group/out-group effects in distributed teams: an experimental simulation, Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, November 06-10, 2004, Chicago, Illinois, USA [doi>10.1145/1031607.1031679]
• 3: Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• 4: James Callaghan, Inside Intranets and Extranets: Knowledge Management and the Struggle for Power, Palgrave Global Publishing, 2002
• 5: Cebrowski, and Garstka, J. (1998). Network-centric warfare: Its origin and future. Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute. January, 1998. Available at http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles98/PROcebrowski.htm
• 6: Davidow, W. H. and M. S. Malone (1992). The virtual corporation: structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. New York, Harper Collins Publishers.
• 7: DiMaggio, P. (2001). The Futures of Business Organization and Paradoxes of Change. In The Twenty-First-Century Firm: Changing economic organization in international perspective. Princeton U Press: 210--244.
• 8: Gerardine Desanctis , Peter Monge, Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations, Organization Science, v.10 n.6, p.693-703, June 1999 [doi>10.1287/orsc.10.6.693]
• 9: Victor M. González , Gloria Mark, Managing currents of work: multi-tasking among multiple collaborations, Proceedings of the ninth conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, p.143-162, September 18-22, 2005, Paris, France
• 10: Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360--1380.
• 11: Heckscher, C. C. and A. Donnellon (1994). The Postbureaucratic organization: new perspectives on organizational change. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.
• 12: Herbst, P. G. (1976). Alternatives to hierarchies. Leiden, M. Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.
• 13: Charlotte P. Lee , Paul Dourish , Gloria Mark, The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure, Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, November 04-08, 2006, Banff, Alberta, Canada [doi>10.1145/1180875.1180950]
• 14: Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Five: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• 15: Bonnie A. Nardi , Steve Whittaker , Heinrich Schwarz, NetWORKers and their Activity in IntensionalNetworks, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.11 n.1-2, p.205-242, 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1015241914483]
• 16: Nohria, N. and J. D. Berkley (1994). The Virtual Organization: Bureaucracy, Technology, and the Implosion of Control. The Post-bureaucratic organization: new perspectives on organizational change. C. C. Heckscher and A. Donnellon. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 108--128.
• 17: Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involvement in Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly <b>50</b>: 100--130.
• 18: Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: a sociological view. London, Tavistock Publications.
• 19: Pirolli, P. and S. Card (1999). Information Foraging. Psychological Review 106(4): 643--675.
• 20: Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• 21: Weber, M., G. Roth, et al. (1978). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, University of California Press.
• 22: Weick, K. E. and K. H. Roberts (1993). Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357--381.
• 23: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, N.Y., Cambridge University Press.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.1 Project and People Management

General Terms:
Human Factors, Management

Keywords:
distributed team, distributed work, network-centric organizations, network-centric work, network-centricity, virtual team