The Minimum Viable Boundary Object (MVBO): A Heuristic for the Threshold of Translational Stability in Heterogeneous Collaboration Networks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/2300-1690.28.06Keywords:
Minimum Viable Boundary Object (MVBO), Science and Technology Studies (STS), Actor-Network Theory (ANT), boundary objects, managing knowledge across boundaries, micro-mechanisms of translational failure, translational stability, critical failure studiesAbstract
The article proposes the Minimum Viable Boundary Object (MVBO) as a heuristic for the threshold of translational stability in heterogeneous collaboration networks. It starts from the premise that failure constitutes a normal operating condition of contemporary organisations functioning under neoliberal calculability. The theoretical contribution positions MVBO within the frameworks of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT), drawing on the concepts of boundary objects, boundary-negotiating artefacts, and knowledge management across epistemic boundaries. The heuristic enables early identification of micro-mechanisms of translational failure, reframing failure as an analytically productive moment of network work. The proposed concept is derived from findings of the author’s study on the social dimension of the TCRact project’s failure. The article concludes by outlining implications for research in STS and ANT and for design and implementation practices in complex organisational settings.
Downloads
References
Abriszewski, K. (2012). Poznanie, zbiorowość, polityka: Analiza teorii Aktora-Sieci Bruno Latoura. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Universitas.
Afeltowicz, Ł. (2012). Modele, artefakty, kolektywy: Praktyka badawcza w perspektywie współczesnych studiów nad nauką. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. doi:10.12775/978-83-231-5670-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12775/978-83-231-5670-3
Akrich, M. (1992). The De-scription of technical objects. W: W. E. Bijker & J. Law (red.), Shaping technology / building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (ss. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barbera, F., & Jones, I. R. (2024). Introduction: Failed! The sociological analysis of failure, Sociologica, 17(3), 1–5. doi:10.6092/issn.1971-8853/18960
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor, Organization Science, 14(3), 307–339. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162
Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001
Callon, M. (2014). Wprowadzenie do socjologii translacji. Udomowienie przegrzebków i rybacy znad zatoki Saint-Brieuc (M. A. Chojnacka, Tłum.). W: E. Bińczyk & A. Derra (red.), Studia nad nauką i technologią: Wybór tekstów (s. 289–330). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK.
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries, Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as “epistemic objects”, Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30. doi:10.1177/0170840608083014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608083014
Firestein, S. (2016). Failure: Why science is so successful. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Firestein, S. (2023). How science fails successfully. W: A. Mica, M. Pawlak, A. Horolets i P. Kubicki (red.), Routledge international handbook of failure (ss. 416–421). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429355950-35 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429355950-35
Gądecki, J., Afeltowicz, Ł., Morawska, I., & Anielska, K. (2023). How to study infrastructure: Methodological remarks in the context of the pandemic and its impact on city design, Avant, 14(2), 1–24. doi:10.26913/avant.2020.03.20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26913/avant.2020.03.20
Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. W: W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. Pinch (red.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (ss. 51–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039681
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2010). Splatając na nowo to, co społeczne. Wprowadzenie do teorii Aktora-Sieci (A. Derra & K. Abriszewski, Tłum.). Kraków: Universitas. (Oryginalne wydanie opublikowano w 2005)
Latour, B. (2013). Technologia jako utrwalone społeczeństwo (Ł. Afeltowicz, Tłum.), Avant. Pismo awangardy filozoficzno-naukowej, 4(1), 17–48. doi:10.12849/40102013.0106.0002
Latour, B. (2014). Dajcie mi laboratorium, a poruszę świat (K. Abriszewski & Ł. Afeltowicz, Tłum.). W: E. Bińczyk & A. Derra (red.), Studia nad nauką i technologią: Wybór tekstów (s. 139–180). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (2020). Życie laboratoryjne: Konstruowanie faktów naukowych (K. Abriszewski, P. Gąska, M. Smoczyński & A. Zabielski, Tłum.). Warszawa: Narodowe Centrum Kultury.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity, Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393. doi:10.1007/BF01059830 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059830
Lee, C. P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 16(3), 307–339. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5
Leonelli, S. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226416502.001.0001
Malpas, J., & Wickham, G. (1995). Governance and failure: On the limits of sociology, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 31(3), 37–50. doi:10.1177/144078339503100304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339503100304
Mica, A., Pawlak, M., Horolets, A. i Kubicki, P. (2023). FAIL! Are we headed towards critical failure studies? W: A. Mica, M. Pawlak, A. Horolets i P. Kubicki (red.), Routledge international handbook of failure (s. 3–22). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429355950-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429355950-2
Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration, Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0664 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828494
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Robinson, F. (2001). The invention of the minimum viable product. SyncDev. https://syncdev.com/minimum-viable-product/ [dostęp online: 15.10.2025]
Star, S. L. & 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, 19(3), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Star, S. L. (2016a). The structure of ill-structured solutions. W: G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. E. Clarke & E. Balka (red.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (ss. 243–256). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10113.003.0016
Star, S. L. (2016b). The ethnography of infrastructure. W: G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. E. Clarke & E. Balka (red.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (ss. 473–488). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10113.003.0030
Timmermans, S. & Berg, M. (1997). Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols, Social Studies of Science, 27(2), 273–305. doi:10.1177/030631297027002003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631297027002003
Timmermans, S. & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization, Social Studies of Science, 40(5), 641–656. doi:10.1177/0306312710373180
Timmermans, S. (2016). Introduction: Working with Leigh Star. W: G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. E. Clarke & E. Balka (red.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (ss. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10113.003.0002
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226346960.001.0001
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
