Boundary Objects - s-as-p.orgs-as-p.org/system/files/conferences/Thomas et al - powe… · Web...
Transcript of Boundary Objects - s-as-p.orgs-as-p.org/system/files/conferences/Thomas et al - powe… · Web...
Warning count() Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in homehttpdvhostssap-inorghttpdocsincludesbootstrapinc on line 659thornyuml thornyumlyumlyumlltjumlcopythorn^yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml` iquest0bjbj laquocopycopyByumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlcurrenfff^DPPP4h4|lP(xcedilcedilcedilONsup1kkkkkkk$hYqzPKOcedilcedilD currencedilPcedilkk notcurrenPLRcedilD
ЧspoundxLbpR0lr|LRPLR$ ir7vl$)yumlyumlyumlyuml
Power and Participation in the Production of Boundary Objects Robyn Thomas Cardiff Business School Cardiff UK CF10 3EU Email thomasr4cardiffacuk Tel +44-29-2087-5724 Leisa D Sargent Department of Management amp Marketing University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria 3010 Australia Email lsargent unimelbeduau Tel +61-3-8344-5576 Cynthia Hardy Department of Management amp Marketing University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria 3010 Australia Email chardyunimelbeduau Tel +61-3-8344-3719
Power and Participation in the Production of Boundary Objects Abstract The research on boundary objects emphasizes how they allow actors from different social worlds to reconcile different meanings and produce shared understandings in turn enabling cooperation and the transformation of knowledge Research has also indicated that this process should involve the participation of all the relevant groups in the co-construction of meaning otherwise the designated artifact may fail to become a boundary object-in-use Our study examines how meaning was negotiated in the case of a particular artifact a culture toolkit which was intended to secure cooperation among members from different parts of a telecommunications company in the development and implementation of a new customer-oriented culture By conducting a detailed real time analysis of how the meaning of this designated boundary object was negotiated in a workshop we show how different patterns of participation in negotiating meaning influence whether an artifact becomes a boundary object-in-use Further we show how these patterns of participation arise from the different strategies used by senior managers and their subordinates to exercise power associated with their respective vertical positions Key Words Boundary objects negotiation of meaning power
Introduction Over the last 25 years the concept of boundary object as delineated by Star and Griesemer (1989) and associated with scientific research has transcended its own boundaries becoming employed in the study of areas such as project management organizational learning and knowledge management The concept is attractive to management theorists because it represents an important means of achieving collaboration Boundary objects can be used to solve heterogeneous problems through the way in which they sit in the middle of a group of actors with divergent viewpoints (Star 1988 46) Star amp Griesemer (1989) examined how boundary objects such as specimens maps and fields notes helped to bring about cooperation among professional scientists amateur collectors trappers and university administrators in setting up a museum of vertebrate zoology Since then a wide range of different artifacts have been studied Gantt charts engineering drawings physical prototypes maps databases accounting systems and computer software for their ability to bring about cooperation in business settings especially among members of different horizontal functions This research emphasizes the importance of meaning ie the boundary object allows actors from different social worlds to reconcile their different meanings and produce shared understandings which in turn enables them to cooperate (Bechky 2003a) This process occurs as diverse groups fill in content and interpretations [of the boundary object] and negotiate as they see fit (Yakura 2002 968) In other words a designated artifact becomes a boundary object-in-use (Levina amp Vaast 2005) only if its meaning is negotiated through a process in which all the relevant groups participate (Star 1988 Star amp Greisemer 1989 Carlile 2004 Sapsed amp Salter 2004) In order to learn more about how the negotiation of meaning affects whether an artifact becomes a boundary object-in-use we conducted a detailed real-time analysis of the negotiations around a designated boundary object The artifact in question was a culture toolkit comprising a brochure video and workshop template and intended to secure cooperation among members from different parts of a telecommunications company in the development and implementation of a new customer-oriented culture Our findings suggest that different patterns of participation among a range of actors in these negotiations help to explain whether an artifact becomes a boundary object-in-use In our case when participation was distributed and a range of participants contributed to the co-construction of meaning which we refer to as processual plasticity the artifact became a boundary object-in-use Our study suggests that this processual plasticity depends upon the use of strategies by both superiors and subordinates in exercising power to influence the negotiation of meaning Depending upon the strategies employed by superiors and subordinates this processual plasticity can be lost Our study makes a number of contributions First it indicates that an artifact cannot simply be designated as a boundary object if it is to be a boundary object-in-use it must be continually worked on by all participants all the time in order to maintain processual plasticity By identifying different strategies used by senior managers and their subordinates we also show how processual plasticity requires senior managers to redress the power advantages embedded in their superior vertical position while middle managers must also exercise or exploit the power associated with their position in the hierarchy In this way we extend the work of Levina and Vaast (2005) to show how a boundary object-in-use results from the interplay between senior and subordinate members and not just the top-down work of designated or informal boundary spanners Second we identify strategies that disrupt processual plasticity and result in meaning becoming reified and show how such strategies can escalate during the course of the negotiations At this point the artifact no longer acts as a boundary object but instead serves as a means of control as senior managers consciously or unconsciously use their position in the hierarchy to undermine the very artifact intended to function as a boundary object In this way our study builds on previous work which has found that the failure of boundary objects is often explained by horizontal functional and occupational power relations ie as a result of competition among functions or departments (eg Bechky 2002b Carlile 2004 Henderson 1998) to show the effects of vertical power relations and direct line authority Finally we build on Carliles (2002 452) work that shows that a boundary object that is effective at one stage can falter when taken to another setting We show how the same artifact can slip in and out of functioning as a boundary object ie an artifact can function as a boundary object-in-use and serve as a means of control depending on the way in which actors participate in the negotiation of meaning The remainder of this paper is structured as follows We first examine the organizational and management literature on boundary objects We then introduce our case study and explain our methods of data collection and analysis Third we present our findings Finally we discuss their implications for research and practice The Emergence and Development of Boundary Objects Research on boundary objects initially examined the way in which scientific work is conducted by diverse groups of actors such as researchers from different disciplines amateur and professional scientists as well as administrators and technicians
Objects methods findings and theories mean different things in these different worlds and as a result different meanings and tensions must be reconciled if cooperation is to ensue Simply put scientific work is heterogeneous At the same time science requires cooperation (Star amp Griesemer 1989 387) The same is true of management which requires collaboration among actors from different groups departments and organizations (Gerson amp Star 1986) Like science management inhabits multiple social worlds and requires intersectional work because new objects and methods mean different things in different worlds [and] actors are faced with the task of reconciling these meanings if they wish to cooperate (Star amp Griesemer 1989 388) For example individuals from different parts of a company may have very different ideas regarding for example who the customer is (Sturdy amp Fleming 2003) what constitutes innovation (Dougherty 1992) or what project deadlines involve (Yakura 2002) Accordingly they create their own representations investing them with meanings that suit their needs and reflect their backgrounds However these representations must be reconciled if individuals are to cooperate (Gerson amp Star 1986) and collective action is to ensue (Hardy Lawrence amp Grant 2005) Boundary objects provide an important means of translating such multiple overlapping but divergent representations in ways that accommodate both diversity and synergy because they inhabit several intersecting social worlds and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them (Star amp Griesemer 1989 393) In this way they provide a locus for communication conflict and coordination (Yakura 2002 968) and create the common ground that leads to shared understandings (Bechky 2003a 326) They allow actors with diverse goals to work together (Briers amp Chua 2001 241-2) and promote the sharing of knowledge in practice between diverse groups (Sapsed amp Salter 2004 1515) Given their potential it is not surprising that boundary objects have sparked considerable interest in areas such as project management and new product development where cooperation among diverse groups is deemed vital The interest in boundary objects is also linked to the growing use of practice-based approaches in knowledge management and organizational learning according to which information is not universal individual and explicit rather it is situated social and tacit (Gherardi 2000 Yanow 2000) Instead of conceptualizing learning as something that goes on inside peoples heads knowledge is produced as actors participate as members of communities of practice (Brown amp Duguid 1991 Lave amp Wenger 1991) collectively making sense of information in ways that enable action (Weick 1995) Boundary objects help in this process by tying together individuals who come from different departments functions or locations Participation and Boundary Objects The artifacts that constitute boundary objects have no intrinsic meaning artifacts are experienced differently by different individuals and differently by the same individuals depending on the time or circumstance (Orlikowski 2000 408)They require interpretation (Yakura 2002) and are brought to life through social interaction among a range of different actors (Briers amp Chua 2001 240) It is this looseness or ambiguity of meaning that enables them to function as boundary objects by allowing different groups to read into them meanings that make sense to them (Bechky 2003a) Boundary objects may provide informational support but denote no intrinsic meaning They are in this sense empty vessels to be filled with whatever is the preferred local beverage Boundary objects facilitate the reading of alternative meanings by different groups (Sapsed amp Salter 2004 1519) In this way boundary objects are plastic enough to adapt to local needs and robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites (Star amp Griesemer 1989 393) they are weakly structured in common use and strongly structured in individual use they are concrete and abstract specific and general and conventionalized and customized (p 408) These tensions enable boundary objects to supply concrete means of representing different functional interests and facilitating their negotiation and transformation (Carlile 2004 559) In other words there must be sufficient convergence of meaning to make the boundary object recognizable to the different groups and able to serve as an effective means of communication across boundaries but at the same time ambiguity and diversity of meaning are also crucial Ambiguity allows different groups to read preferred or familiar meanings into the boundary object making cooperation with other actors appealing while the multiple diverse meanings that come from the involvement of different groups help to generate new knowledge and learning Some form of convergence in relation to these diverse meanings is also necessary to produce the shared understanding and common ground (Bechky 2003a) In this way effective boundary objects establish a shared language for individuals to represent their knowledge provide the means for individuals to learn about their differences and dependencies across a given boundary and facilitate a process of transforming current knowledge (knowledge that is localized embedded and invested in practice) so that new knowledge can be created (Carlile 2002 452-3) Star and Griesemer (1989 412) emphasize that in the case of boundary objects meaning should be collectively negotiated because each social world has partial jurisdiction over the resources represented
by that object In other words for a boundary object to be effective in sharing learning generating knowledge and securing cooperation actors from all the worlds that it is intended to link must be involved (Carlile 2004) If the boundary object is neglected by one of the communities it is intended to bridge it is likely to fail (Sapsed amp Salter 2004) The production of boundary objects therefore depends on distributed participation where meaning is developed through all participants actively taking part in the negotiations around meaning and a connection to or mutual recognition of other participants (cf Handley et al 2006) Widely distributed participation can however be difficult to achieve For example work on communities of practice has noted that some actors may limit the participation of others (Handley et al 2006) and that individuals may even voluntarily constrain their own participation (Roberts 2006) Given that participation in the negotiation of meaning is equally central to the conceptualization of boundary objects our first research question is what different patterns of participation occur in the negotiation of meaning of boundary objects and how do they arise Power and Boundary Objects In advocating the collective negotiation of meaning Star and Griesemer (1989 389) argue that each participant must maintain the integrity of the interests of the other audiences However the negotiation of meaning is widely recognized to be a process in which actors exercise power (Deetz amp Mumby 1990 Hardy amp Phillips 2004) Recent work on boundary objects has also drawn our attention to the need to consider power (Boland amp Tenkasi 1995 Carlile 2002 Levina amp Vaast 2005 Sapsed amp Salter 2004) Henderson (1998 146) notes that because boundary objects can be read in different ways they have political possibilities multiple readings can both facilitate collaborative work and contribute to conflict among collaborators Even the apparent resolution of different meanings does not mean consensus Rather representations or inscriptions contain at every stage the traces of multiple viewpoints translations and incomplete battles (Star amp Griesemer 1989 413) The development and implementation of new knowledge often has negative consequences for other organizational members and therefore the success of a boundary object is linked to political as well as practical skills (Carlile 2004) and boundary objects may be used not purely for technical purposes but also as a means of representing and instigating difference and conflict (Bechky 2003b 724) Most of the empirical work to date has focused on the effects of power related to the horizontal or functional relations among different specialist groups (eg occupations professions and departments) as they compete for control over tasks and knowledge As Henderson (1998 146) has noted in relation to differences between research and development and manufacturing functions Diverse orientations can also potentially lead to out-and-out conflict when readings are based not only on different specialty orientations and background experience but also on departmental politics and distrust Carlile (2004 566) in noting the dominance of one particular form of boundary object attributed it to power and status differentials between marketing and safety functions since the two groups did not occupy politically equal positions in representing their knowledge to each other (Carlile 2004 565) they did not exert the same influence over the boundary object Bechky (2003b) has examined power relations between occupational groups and found that the greater status authority and expertise of engineers in relation to technicians and assemblers led to situations where rather than acting as a boundary object artifacts were used to exercise control over work solidify occupational status and maintain jurisdiction over tasks In being used in organizations boundary objects do not only bridge horizontal or functional boundaries they also bridge vertical ones involving direct line authority For example the particular artifact that is designated to be a boundary object is typically selected by actors who hold positions of power (Levina amp Vaast 2005 341) Henderson (1998) in describing the top-down application of TQM in a call centre noted that politics in the form of management prerogatives can be built into boundary objects with adverse effects on creativity and innovation Revisiting Yakuras (2002) work Sapsed and Salter (2004) argue that while timelines may offer potential as boundary objects because of the different meanings that can be read into them they are also used as a form of managerial control Despite their potential importance vertical power relations between senior managers and their direct subordinates have not so far been studied systematically in the case of boundary objects even though these relational dynamics (Bechky 2003b 749) are likely to influence the nature of participation in the negotiation of meaning and may differ from those associated with horizontal functional relations In addition these relational dynamics are reciprocal and not simply top down Therefore the use of power by both superiors and subordinates must be examined for its effects on the designated boundary object Hence our second research question is do groups draw on vertical power relations to influence the negotiation of meaning of boundary objects and if so how Methods The Case Study Our study concerns the use of boundary object during a company-wide culture change program at UTel a pioneer in licensing open-standard GSMGPRS EDGE and
WCDMA technology to manufacturers of mobile phones and other mobile communication devices At the time of the study UTel employed approximately 1500 employees most of whom were located at the European Head Office with the remainder working in sites in UK Europe Asia and North America The company had been formed in 2001 when it was spun off from being an internal division of GlobalTel a global telecommunications company that was undergoing major restructuring and redundancies at the time as a result of low cost competitors and lower growth in the mobile phone market worldwide As an independent organization UTel changed from being part of a much larger company that made mobile phones for the end-user to one that sold knowledge to mobile phone manufacturers Its success now hinged on the replacement of the existing engineering focus which stemmed from its previous position as a unit that interacted primarily with other divisions within GlobalTel with a customer oriented culture that focused on the new customer no longer the end-user of the phone but other companies who manufactured and sold phones Senior management together with external consultants had devised a cultural change program designed to secure cooperation from employees in building a new or target culture To ensure success [the company] has to make a concerted effort to build a strong company culture [which] also has to take our customers values and expectations into account Everyone has to contribute to create a strong company culture by participating in our new target culture program characterized by global teamwork where all the pieces fit snugly together (company document) The culture program revolved around a series of around 80 workshops that were to be systematically rolled out throughout the company An artifact a culture toolkit which consisted of a brochure a video and a workshop template was integral to each workshop It provided a broad framework for discussing the nature of the new culture and how it was to be implemented The brochure was titled UTels Target Culture involving every employee The target culture was specified in broad terms in relation to four drivers of business success (unity in team work technological innovation excellent customer service and leadership) four shared values (trust empowerment commitment and quality) and the companys mission to make our customers first best and profitable through innovation quality and commitment It emphasized that managers and employees should build a [not the] culture together as part of a team as all employees attended the workshops In this way they could complete the picture of our target culture and how it affects us individually The brochure also stated that another purpose is to agree on action on how the new culture was to be implemented The ten-minute video was of a conversation between the CEO and another senior manager in a question and answer session about the culture change program It explained that the need for a new culture was important and briefly explained the drivers and the values The workshop template provided instructions on how each workshop was to be run They lasted for half a day and involved the following set of activities (a) a presentation of the target culture using the brochure and accompanying video (b) a discussion of the relevance of the target culture to the particular group attending the workshop and (c) exercises to build agreement on actions to be taken to implement the target culture The aims were agreeing the content of the target culture understanding how the target culture affected individual employee and teams agreeing the implementation of the change program An initial round of workshops was held with middle managers from different parts of the company These workshops were led by head office and senior site managers and involved middle managers from different engineering and support staff functions Each of these middle managers was then required to replicate the workshop with their own subordinates using the same culture toolkit to structure activities and discussion of another 80 workshops involving several hundred employees Site Selection We selected this case study for a number of reasons First boundary objects are used to bring about cooperation to create the common ground that leads to shared understandings (Bechky 2003a 326) to ensure coherence and cooperation (Star amp Greisemer 1989 391) and to help actors with diverse goals to work together (Briers amp Chua 2001 241-2) The aim was for the culture toolkit to bring together employees from different levels sites departments and teams to cooperate in the development and implementation of the new culture The CEO was quoted in the brochure I cannot reach this goal on my own and our managers cannot take all the responsibility by themselves Everyone has to contribute to create a strong company culture by participating in our new target culture program If cooperation did not ensue the new culture would be hard to implement Second the culture toolkit was expected to maintain a common identity across sites (Star amp Griesemer 1989 393) in that it was to be used in all the workshops with middle managers who would in turn use it in the subsequent workshops with their subordinates The brochure stated Approximately 80 workshops will be run by local managers In order to run these workshops a culture toolkit will be used In this way it was expected that the culture toolkit would be recognizable to different groups and symbolize a common structure (Levina amp Vaast 2005) through for example the
way the template specified how the workshops were to be run The culture toolkit thus provided a broad framework for the workshop to facilitate discussion over the nature of the new culture and how it was to be implemented Third at the same time as having a common identity boundary objects are weakly structured in common use (Star amp Griesemer 1989 408) They provide informational support but denote no intrinsic meaning so they can generate and accommodate alternative meanings by different groups (Sapsed amp Salter 2004 519) So although the brochure stated that the culture toolkit can be used as a tool to facilitate UTels target culture workshops and to agree on implementation activities the exact nature of the culture and implementation activities was not specified These characteristics add up to an artifact the culture toolkit clearly being designated as a boundary object It was expected to become a boundary object-in-use that would be symbolically incorporated into ongoing dialogue and the practices of diverse fields (Levina amp Vaast 2005 340-1) In this way the culture toolkit would form the basis of the practices of an ongoing series of workshops and in so doing generate discussion and eventually agreement about the nature of the new culture and the activities by which it could be successfully be implemented In Carliles (2002 353) terms it represented an object whereby individuals could represent learn negotiate and alter the current knowledge [in relation to the new culture] and create new knowledge [of the new culture and its implementation] to resolve the consequences identified Data Collection Background information on the culture change program was gathered through the collection of company documents such as reports press releases etc preliminary interviews were conducted and a copy of the culture toolkit was obtained Following this a workshop conducted according to the template in the toolkit was observed by one of the authors recorded and fully transcribed The workshop lasted three hours and was attended by three head office managers two senior managers from the UK plant and 31 middle managers support staff managers and senior software and hardware engineers (who ran project teams) The participants represented a mix of ethnic groups ranged in age from early 30s to mid 40s and were predominantly male (three females were present) A senior site manager from the UK plant started the session by welcoming participants and introducing his superiors from Head Office one of whom provided an overview of the outline and goals of the workshop Another senior manager made a power-point presentation that described his interpretation of the local culture and its strengths and weaknesses followed by a discussion involving participants regarding whether this interpretation was accurate Following a coffee break there was a discussion about the mission statement specified in the brochure and the video was shown Then participants then completed a stopstartcontinue exercise to identify one behavior that was hindering cultural change and needed to be stopped one new behavior that needed to be started and one existing behavior that should be continued the results of which were collected by the head office managers The workshop concluded with a discussion of how to implement the culture change program Semi-structured interviews between 75-105 minutes in length were also conducted with eighteen of the participants within six months of the workshop They were recorded and transcribed verbatim The interviews were principally designed to follow up on the key debates and issues that surfaced during the workshop Interviewees were asked for their views on current culture at the company the need for a customer orientation who they thought the customer was the culture change program workshop and toolkit and the development and future of the company in general Data Analysis Boundary objects are a means of symbolic communication (Star 1988) and as a result the negotiation of meaning is not confined to the form of the specific artifact but also extends to the broader knowledge represented by the artifact For example while Yakuras (2002) study provides evidence of some negotiations over the form of a certain gantt charts these artifacts provided a locus for much broader negotiations among different employees around what they meant for scheduling allocating synchronizing billing and budgeting decisions It was the negotiation of the different meanings of these themes by participants that enabled the gantt chart to act as a boundary object In this study we therefore focused our analysis on two sets of negotiations in the workshop (a) a customer focus as part of the new culture and (b) the implementation of the new culture We selected them for the following reasons First they represented the two key knowledge boundaries (Carlile 2002) that the culture toolkit was expected to bridge insofar as it was intended to establish agreement on the nature and implementation of a new culture Second they were clear priorities They were mentioned in the brochure and the video as important issues requiring cooperation from different parts of the company in the template as specific components to be covered during the workshop and in the opening address of the workshop Third our preliminary analysis indicated that two sets of negotiations differed markedly there appeared to be a greater degree of participation with customer focus than with implementation Thus there was the additional advantage that by comparing these two particular sets of negotiations in more detail we could
pursue transparently observable processes (Eisenhardt 1989 537) related to our interests in participation and power We made a detailed examination of these two sets of negotiations ie the interactions in which the meaning of customer focus and implementation was debated contested andor agreed We first extracted all the instances of talk about customer focus (Appendix 1) and implementation (Appendix 2) from the workshop transcript We placed all the relevant discussion in chronological order and identified who made each individual intervention ie a specific statement or interjection (recorded in the first column of the Appendices) We then tracked how the negotiations over meanings unfolded during the workshop (recorded in the second column of each of the Appendices) by examining (a) the development of different meanings or arguments within the negotiations over time (b) the order or flow of interventions and (c) when and how the negotiations of meaning ended We also noted instances where (d) interventions built on earlier interventions (e) instances of disagreement with earlier interventions (f) instances where different groups engaged with each others meanings in an iterative manner and (g) polarized discussions This analysis is represented in Figures 1 and 2 and these two sets of negotiations are discussed in detail in the findings section Our comparison indicates significant differences in the two sets of negotiations in the one participation is distributed relatively widely and in the other it is not We then returned to the data to try to find out why such a difference existed We found little evidence that the differences were explained by horizontal or functional power relations ie major divisions among different occupational groups In fact the three groups of hardware engineers software engineers and support staff managers seemed to agree with each other much of the time For example in the negotiations around customer focus while a support staff manager initially mentions that a commercial rather than a customer focus is needed [9 in Appendix 1] this is subsequently supported by engineers [20 in Appendix 1] Similarly the three groups were united in their support for implementation to mean specific measurable outcomes We examined the interview transcripts to investigate whether or not participants experiences were consistent with this analysis They also indicated that participants felt that the workshop discussions had enabled the sharing of insights across horizontal boundaries Having accounted for horizontal relations we turned to the analysis of vertical power relations in order to answer our second research question We reexamined the data to conduct a more finely grained analysis of how senior managers (head office managers and senior site managers) and middle managers (software engineers hardware engineers and support staff) intervened in relation to each other and whether this varied between the two sets of negotiations regarding participation patterns in the workshop and how meanings were negotiated As a starting point we used the strategies identified by Bechky (2003a) who describes discounting blocking and rebuffing strategies by engineers to restrict the participation of assemblers as well as the use of challenging by assemblers and by Carlile (2002) who mentions challenging negotiating and proposing new ways of product development We then added deleted and refined the categories in an iterative process as we scrutinized our data and conducted both a top-down analysis (ie how senior managers interacted in relation to middle managers see column 3 in the Appendices) as well as a bottom-up analysis (ie how middle managers interacted in relation to middle managers see column 4 in the Appendices) We identified a discrete number of strategies (discussed in more detail later) employed by the two different groups We then compared how these strategies were used in the two sets of negotiations Findings Participation in Negotiations In the first set of findings we examine the different patterns of participation found in the two sets of negotiations Negotiations around customer focus The meaning of customer focus was negotiated and contested and challenged by the participants during the course of the workshop Four main strands to these negotiations can be observed each relating to a different meaning of customer focus They are (a) who is the customer a discussion that ended prior to the conclusion of the workshop with some agreement over the customer being an external business (b) the nature of the relationship with the customer which ended around a need for honesty although this meaning was taken up and superseded by other discussions around the need for a commercial focus (c) are we customer focused which concluded in general agreement that the UK site was customer focused although again this meaning was superseded by the need for a commercial focus (d) the need for a commercial focus which despite being introduced quite late in the workshop out-lived the other negotiations to reach relative agreement about what a commercial focus entailed In this section we describe these negotiations as summarized in Figure 1 Figure 1 near here At the start of the workshop in the opening address the need to achieve a common understanding of customer focus is introduced by a senior manager Its important that we have a strong UTel culture in this organization to be customer focused we need to actually get a common understanding and hopefully feed back any concerns and issues that may crop up Another head office manager then puts forward a number of
suggestions on how customer focus might be defined and understood in terms of a relationship with the customer [1] At this point a senior manager seeks clarification on who is the customer and whether they are talking about the end-user (the person who buys and uses the phone) or another business (ie the customer is another company that sells the phone) [2] This comment triggers a lively debate among the engineers concerning who is the customer following which one of the head office managers attempts to return to the nature of relationship with the customer one in which the customer is dominant and UTel merely provides advice [3] This triggers another question about who is the customer and if it is a business-to-business relationship how it should be conducted [4] One of the software engineers then challenges the assumption that the UK site is not already customer focused A software engineer asserts I believe that were [local site] customer-oriented I think we are customer focused as an organization and we have been all the way through even in our history I think were a customer-focused organization [5] A debate ensues over whether or not the UK site is more or less customer focused compared to head office resulting in the discussion shifting away from the nature of the relationship with the customer to claims that UK site already is customer focused This claim is disputed by some participants [6] but supported by a senior manager as well as software engineers in particular who emphasize their existing close relationship with their customers During this debate the discussion returns to who the customer is which becomes further complicated as the end-user is equated with business [7] The claim that the UK site is already customer focused reemerges [8] At this point the importance of a customer focus is challenged at a more fundamental level as one of the support staff argues that there is a need for a commercial focus [9] We are very driven by engineers and the technologypeople do get caught up with developing incredible products that are fantastic with loads of features but from a commercial focus arent really needed as an organization were not necessarily as commercially and business focused as we need to be [manager support staff] This comment is followed by a long silence and eventually an engineer attempts to shift the emphasis away from the accusation that they lack a commercial focus by arguing that it is sales and marketing staff who are responsible for the customer [10] but the discussion quickly returns to the need for a commercial focus [11] and that while engineers may be close to the customer this is not helpful unless they have a commercial focus Laughter breaks out at a comment made by a support staff manager that we cant agree on what customer focus is followed by a software engineer asking for a show of hands on who believes that they are already customer focused [12] which sparks off another debate on who is the customer [13] the nature of the relationship and whether the company already is customer focused This discussion around who is the customer initially returns to the earlier dichotomy ie the end-user of the phone or the business that sells the phone It then arrives at a denouement that while they may already be customer focused they could be more so [14] interspersed with a discussion around the nature of the relationship between the company and the customer which should be interactive [15] The debate about who the customer is continues but instead of end-user vs business it switches to internal vs external customers [16] Throughout this discussion the debate that the company is already customer focused reappears with some tempering of the claim that the company is already customer focused [17] All I used to hear from the guys in [another part of the former organization] was those bastards in [the UK site] never tell us anything Theyre secretive they keep it all to themselves they wont talk to us they tell us lies they wont tell us where they are on the project So how does that all fit together [hardware engineer] Another hardware engineer returns to the relationship with the customer questioning whether the customer should be dominant given that they are just as confused in terms of what the markets going to do as we are The debate then centers on whether the customer or company should be dominant [18] Following this debate the video presentation returns to the issue of customer focus defined in terms of an honest relationship [19] After the video the stopstartcontinue exercise is conducted and the need for a commercial focus re-emerges [20] initiated by support staff managers but also supported by engineers A gradual consensus develops regarding the definition of a commercial focus ie as being financially aware and helping the company to be profitable Commercial to me means UTel profitability And it doesnt matter a hell of a lot about customer profitability customer on time customer this customer that and customer the other I have never yet heard an UTel manager say weve got to make a lot of money [support staff manager] By the end of the discussion the group has come to an agreement that a customer focus is less important than the need for a commercial focus Negotiations around Implementation In contrast with the negotiations around customer focus where different groups built on and developed the meanings proposed by others the negotiations around the meaning of implementation were much more polarized with middle managers proposing one set of meanings and senior and head office managers attempting to impose their definition of
implementation on the workshop participants Despite a head office manager initially presenting the workshop as an opportunity to identify the actions required for implementation collectively subsequent contributions to the debate by head office managers were all attempts to fix the meanings of implementation around their predetermined program Here implementation was defined in terms of the next step being a continuation of the workshops to create awareness of the existing culture the outcomes of which were to be decided by Head Office on how to proceed Contrasting with this the engineers tried to fix the meaning of implementation in terms of local actions which require among other things clear direction road maps and time lines Figure 2 near here Figure 2 shows the flows of debate around the meanings of implementation At the start of the workshop a head office manager sets out one of the workshops aim being to arrive at a collective identification of the actions to be taken to implement the culture change program at the local site [1] Fifty minutes later a software engineer picks up the issue of implementation suggesting that it requires a clear direction something which is currently lacking we need to know where were going how we fit in making sure the whole things hangs together [2] A software engineer then suggests that rather than a lack of direction the issue is a lack of information [3] although this is countered by another software engineer as the discussion returns to a lack of direction [4] At this point a head office manager tries to divert the debate by arguing that it is difficult to establish a clear direction [5] Another engineer attempts to press the head office manager for implementation to be defined in terms of the need for direction [6] Some frustration is expressed during this discussion by the engineers As one asks Were having this discussion about [direction] but whats the purchasable point A senior manager attempts to clarify the debate at this point by questioning whether issue they are debating is in relation to implementation being about setting time frames [7] A software engineer returns to the issue of implementation requiring locally agreed direction [8] A senior manager switches the issue to argue that implementation involves an awareness of the culture at the different sites [9] At this point a support staff manager draws attention to the power of Head Office You know its them and us and we always have to do what [Head Office] says The head office manager responds by closing down the debate and attempts to block further challenges by invoking the CEO The mission we have now is to send to [the CEO] and to the management team the actions or the current culture that we identify within each site [The CEO] is very interested in this work We have been running culture workshops now in [the various sites] and he has gone through the material with myself and sometimes with [another head office manager] Now he really wants to see what kind of culture you have here and thats the first step [head office manager] This head office manager then defines implementation in terms of the first step being an increased awareness of the existing culture which is immediately reinforced by another head office manager At this stage the video is shown it defines implementation in terms of the next step which was to involve everyone [10] Following the video a software engineer asks for feedback on whether actions identified in previous workshops were implemented In response a head office manager returns to implementation as collectively identified actions to be taken at the local site [11] Later a software engineer again raises the issue of implementation requiring direction [12] A discussion ensues among the engineers that link direction to long-term costs timescales information and empowerment and the need for road maps However this definition is ignored by a head office manager who returns to implementation as requiring further workshops [13] The discussion among senior managers turns to the culture kit as directives are issued for the specific timing and conduct of subsequent workshops [14] In this way talk is diverted from the need for a clear direction into instructions about the process for conducting future workshops You should have the video I will email you the slides that we presented today [and] the agenda for the three hour meeting that youll have with your staff going through the stop start in the workshops thatll be in your slides instructions on how to run the discussions and also the template for the stop start workshops The templates that we want you to work on are template two and template four those two templates once youve conducted the workshops with your staff I need them in by the end of August So you need to conduct your workshops with your staff by the end of August At the end of August I send all my information to [Head Office] who will make a presentation to [the CEO] Have you got brochures for everyone [senior manager] Later the engineers return yet again to the need for a road map milestones and action plans as a necessary part of implementation [15] At this stage an engineer takes up the definition of implementation as next step not in terms of future workshops or greater cultural awareness as suggested previously by a senior manager but in terms of setting action plans Its just [we need] some plan going forward rather than being an isolated activity the bit thats missing to my mind is what the next steps are We do this but then whats the next step [software engineer] In response to this there is a strong assertion of control (Well what we
[Head Office] have decided is that we will) as a head office manager defines next steps as reports and actions to be decided by Head Office thus contradicting an earlier point that actions are to be collectively identified [16] A hardware engineer returns to the need for a time line [17] while a head office manager returns to the first step being the need to conduct further workshops by August [18] The same manager refers to possible job losses We dont know if youre going to be here in 2003-2004 Yet again a software engineer raises the issue of the need for road maps [19] and again a head office manager defines implementation in terms of a set of activities decided by Head Office [20] This is reinforced by another head office manager who returns to the first step requiring greater cultural awareness emphasizing process rather than activities and setting out instructions for timing reports and noting that decisions will taken by Head Office [21] There is another attempt to define implementation in terms of time lines and success criteria by a support staff manager [22]whats the success criteria Measurement is dismissed as unfeasible by a head office manager (contradicting the earlier video) [23] A hardware engineer returns to the original definition of implementation reminding the participants that it was defined as collective actions to be taken by the local site [24] This is directly refuted by a head office manager thereby contradicting the opening statement at the start of the workshop and the message from the CEO in the video by saying thats not the actions that you should be doing [in the local site] [25] In comparing the two sets of negotiations we see quite contrasting patterns Customer focus is associated with a high degree of participation both middle and senior managers contribute to the construction of meaning Thus the culture toolkit was used to frame a discussion in which a range of managers participated in different arguments relating to the need for and definition of customer focus There is little evidence of domination by senior managers middle managers made three quarters of the total number of interventions and the final meaning ie the need for a commercial focus was the result of a collective negotiation by middle managers rather than being imposed by senior managers Participants regularly built on earlier interventions to develop an understanding of what was a customer focus who the customer was and whether or not they were already customer focused Further these separate meanings built on each other to construct the need for a commercial focus Thus middle managers appear to have contributed to the negotiations of meaning in a participative and distributed set of negotiations Through this distributed pattern of participation the culture toolkit acted as a boundary object-in use helping to transform the knowledge concerning the need for a customer focus and whether there already was one into the need for a commercial focus This can be sharply contrasted with implementation where the evidence suggests that senior managers tried to impose meaning Instead of participants building on earlier interventions there was a far higher incidence of interventions that refuted or challenged opposing meanings Senior managers returned time and time again to the process of implementation (the continuation of the workshops) while middle managers continued to emphasize the need for actions and measurable outcomes There is little evidence of the co-construction of a collective meaning and instead two increasingly polarized meanings were supported by the different groups In this regard tthe culture toolkit failed to act as a boundary object-in-use It may have established a shared language for individuals to represent their knowledge about implementation to each other and it may have provided a way for participants to learn about their differences and dependencies regarding implementation but since neither group was willing to change their meaning of implementation knowledge was not transformed (cf Carlile 2002) Vertical Power Relations and Boundary Objects In the second set of findings we investigate the role played by vertical relations in influencing the two outcomes discussed above We start by identifying the strategies adopted by each group (senior managers and middle managers) to shape meaning We noted 11 strategies used by senior managers and seven strategies used by middle managers (see Table 1) We then examined how these strategies helped or hindered the ability of the culture toolkit to act as a boundary object-in-use Table 1 near here The senior managers used different strategies in the two sets of negotiations With respect to customer focus the dominant strategy was building where senior managers engaged with elaborated and developed meanings proposed by middle managers There was also evidence of frequent affirmation of the middle managers contributions and senior managers regularly sought clarification of middle managers meanings There was only one incident where a senior manager attempted to dismiss the meaning proposed by a middle manager With respect to implementation dominant strategies were stalling statements that suspended or deferred the negotiation of meaning dismissing rebuffing or ignoring alternative meanings proposed by middle managers and the reiteration of meanings proposed by their senior colleagues Senior managers regularly deployed authority by drawing on their position in the hierarchy to silence middle managers invoked hierarchy by referring to the top echelons of the organization to back up their
meaning and in one case used the threat of job losses Finally senior managers reified the artifact by presenting the culture toolkit as having a non-negotiable and fixed meaning in relation to implementation ie it meant the continuation of the workshops and in the form dictated by the culture toolkit and according to the specified deadlines Middle managers used different strategies With respect to customer focus the most frequently used strategy was advancing engaging with elaborating and developing meanings proposed by senior managers Middle managers did challenge meanings offered by senior managers and importantly it was a middle manager who proposed the new meaning of commercial focus which was taken up by other middle (and senior) managers and which survived through to the end of the workshop Middle managers regularly reinforced their meanings and tried to uphold the meanings proposed by other middle managers In contrast implementation was very different There was no evidence of advancing and the most common strategies were reinforcement undermining where middle managers made critical statements of senior managers to discredit their meanings challenging senior managers meanings and upholding the meanings offered by fellow middle managers Finally there were several incidents where senior managers were held to account ie middle managers demanded actions from senior managers that would contradict their proposed meaning of implementation andor questioned a lack of action on the part of senior managers in ways that discredited their meaning The comparison of these strategies provides a number of insights First different strategies have implications for the pattern of participation in the negotiations around the meaning of the boundary object Some strategies appear more likely to be associated with wider participation in negotiations as a result of which meaning is more likely to be collectively constructed common ground established and knowledge transformed eg building advancing affirming clarifying and proposing Other strategies seem to be more likely to be used to constrain participation in negotiations and to impose or entrench a preferred meaning eg stalling dismissing reiterating deploying authority invoking hierarchy threatening undermining and holding to account Some strategies such as challenging reinforcing and upholding may be used both to open up and constrain participation For example if middle managers are to participate meaningfully in the negotiations some challenges may be necessary if new meanings are to emerge in addition upholding and reinforcing may be a way to ensure that a meaning establishes a foothold so that it can subsequently be advanced and built upon Conversely repeated challenges may be used by middle managers to defend or entrench existing meanings while upholding and reinforcing could be a way for middle managers to mount a collective resistance to senior managers meanings Finally some strategies may appear to be associated with opening up participation but are in fact meaningless except within the context of the other strategies eg both sets of negotiation started with an explicit invitation for middle managers to participate but very different participation patterns emerged in the subsequent negotiations Second strategies engage with vertical power relations in different ways Those strategies associated with the collective construction of meaning tended to break down or blur if only temporarily vertical boundaries For example when used by senior managers building affirming and clarifying are important ways to redress the hierarchical differences and to give subordinates a clear voice in the discussions as indicated in the follow up interviews The negotiations about customer focus the workshop had been an opportunity for them to give their two-pence worth (middle manager) and for the management to actually take notice of whats going on in the other sites (senior manager) In contrast many of the strategies associated with constrained participation reinforce and reproduce the power embedded in vertical relations For example when senior managers stalled deployed authority invoked hierarchy and made threats they were both exercising and reinforcing their superior position in relation to their subordinates Again this was commented on in the follow-up interviews as middle managers said how disappointed they felt about their inability to challenge the process of implementation I dont think theres anything I can say or do that would get anything changed in the process and there was no statement in there that said we are going to use the information that you give us and you are going to change things Implementation decisions had been passed down and Head Office wanted to keep control of these activities Middle managers also drew on power related to their position in relation to their superiors For example upholding and reinforcing draws on the group support of other middle managers which cuts across horizontal differences Similarly when middle managers hold account senior managers to account they are turning the greater responsibility of their superiors against them by demanding particular actions or criticizing inaction Discussion and Conclusions We sought to answer two research questions regarding patterns of participation and the influence of vertical power relations The first was what different patterns of participation occur in the negotiation of meaning of boundary objects and how do they arise Our study shows two different patterns of participation One pattern involved a high degree of
participation as both middle and senior managers contributed to the negotiation of meaning and participants regularly built on earlier interventions to develop shared understandings This pattern of distributed participation occurred through an interplay between strategies of building affirming and clarifying by senior managers and on the part of middle managers advancing backed up with the use of challenging reinforcing and upholding Through these strategies the artifact helped to interweave and integrate meanings proposed by different actors into a shared understanding whereby the need for a customer focus was transformed into a need for a commercial focus The second pattern involved constrained participation and was associated with attempts to impose preferred meanings as a result of which the same artifact failed to break down the boundary between two different meanings of implementation Instead polarization occurred as senior managers used a series of strategies to constrain the participation of their subordinates middle managers challenged and undermined senior managers meanings and while they upheld and reinforced their own meanings they failed to advance them The second research question was do groups draw on vertical power relations to influence the negotiation of meaning of boundary objects and if so how Our study shows that vertical power relations are significant in the negotiation of meaning of boundary objects and in complex ways The strategies used by senior managers in relation to customer focus tended to soften or redress their privileged position In addition our findings indicate that subordinates must also exercise power if they are to participate in the co-construction of meaning Strategies such as upholding reinforcing and challenging as long as they are combined with advancing appear necessary if middle managers are to establish new meanings long enough for them to be become meaningful to and be taken up by the larger group including the more senior managers In relation to implementation and in the absence of advancing these same strategies became weapons with which to resist senior managers use of strategies that clearly capitalized on and exploited their superior position in the hierarchy Our study makes four contributions First in using our novel analysis of the real time negotiation of meaning we are able to illustrate how a designated boundary object becomes a boundary object-in-use ie through processual plasticity (involving distributed participation and the co-construction of meaning) In this way we show that it is the practice of negotiating that determines the success of the artifact in becoming a boundary object-in-use We also show how the strategies identified earlier and employed by both senior and subordinate participants help to sustain processual plasticity In this regard we extend Levina and Vaasts (2005) work on the emergence of a boundary object-in-use to emphasize the additional significance of bottom-up strategies by subordinates In other words whether or not an artifact becomes a boundary object-in-use depends upon the interplay between the strategies used by senior and subordinate members and not just the top-down work of designated or informal boundary spanners Our study also shows how the deployment of power by a wide range of participants can bring about the co-construction of meaning cooperation and the transformation of knowledge which conforms to a view which sees power as facilitative ie power is used to achieve collective outcomes (Clegg Courpasson amp Phillips 2006) A second contribution concerns our elaboration of Carliles (2004) point that actors do not necessarily occupy equal positions in representing their knowledge to each other We complement Bechkys (2003b) work which shows how professional and positional power can prevent artifacts from becoming boundary objects-in-use to illustrate the way in which vertical power relations and line authority can impinge upon the ability of artifacts to become boundary objects-in-use Specifically our findings show how power was exercised by senior managers over their subordinates by deploying the authority directly related to their position exercising coercive power through the use of threats using their political access to more senior managers to invoke hierarchy and drawing on their position to stall the negotiation of meaning and dismiss meanings not suited to their tastes Subordinates are not totally powerless in relation to their superiors and can draw on sources of power to resist by for example using group support to reinforce and uphold expertise to undermine and their subordinate position to hold their superiors to account This pattern conforms to a more negative view of power ie the use of power by an actor over another (Clegg Courpasson amp Phillips 2006) Third we also show the complexity involved in assessing whether or not a designated artifact successfully emerges as boundary object-in-use In our case there was both a break though in identifying and securing commitment to the need for a commercial focus in the new culture and a stalemate concerning the actions that should be taken to implement this new culture Thus whether an artifact becomes a boundary object-in-use may not be influenced so much by the characteristics of the artifact eg objects models and maps rather than standardized forms and methods or repositories (Carlile 2002) tangible rather than verbal artifacts (Bechky 2003a) or the use of artifacts with particular visual imagery (Yakura 2002) or even by the particular setting in which the boundary object is located
such as the stage in the process or the participants who are involved (Carlile 2002) Instead the success or failure of a particular artifact may have more to do with the processes whereby its meaning is negotiated It therefore follows that in some cases at least the same artifact can slip in and out of functioning as a boundary object depending on the way in which actors participate in the negotiation of meaning In our case the culture toolkit enabled participants to represent their different knowledge about the existing culture to each other so while senior managers started off by arguing a customer focus was needed middle managers countered that it already existed The toolkit gave them a language and a process with which to represent this different knowledge about the culture and enabled participants to learn about these differences Most importantly it enabled the transformation of knowledge from a customer focus to a commercial focus However this was not the case with implementation where there is no evidence of transformation Thus it appears possible to engage in strategies to encourage processual plasticity in relation to some issues while adopting different strategies that reify the artifact and defend particular meanings in relation to others This makes answering the question of whether a designated artifact has become a boundary object-in-use a rather complex task A fourth contribution is derived from our methodology which could inform practice-oriented approaches more generally In following the practice-based approach advocated by Levina and Vaast (2005 340) by focusing on the ongoing use of an artifact by agents within a specific social context that generates the artifacts social characteristics and gives it meaning we have conducted a detailed real time analysis of the negotiation of meaning in practice In addition to the communities of practice literature there is considerable interest in practice among strategy researchers In the same way as Jarzabkowski (2004) notes that strategies are not something organizations have but something that actors do so too are boundary objects Strategy includes all the work involved with formulating implementing and communicating corporate strategies (Whittington et al 2003 397) and embraces the interactions and interpretations from which strategic activity emerges over time (Jarzabkowski 2003 24) Many of these interactions and interpretations occur in meetings board meetings committees strategic retreats not unlike our workshop Accordingly our methodological approach provides the basis for a detailed interpretive analysis that could be used to unpack complex processes of meaning construction that occurs in settings where knowing and practice are mutually constituted As Orlikowski (2002 252-3) has pointed out knowing cannot be understood as stable or enduring Because it is enacted in the moment its existence is virtual its status provision Our methodology provides one way to show how knowing or in our terms meaning changes over time Our study has a number of practical implications It shows how the processual plasticity associated with a boundary object-in-use requires considerable work and comes from the enactment of strategies that both soften downward power relations and simultaneously toughen upward power relations toughening without softening is likely to lead to confrontation and stalemate while softening without toughening may reflect disengagement and going through the motions (cf Handley et al 2006) Senior managers therefore need to adopt strategies that reduce the impact of downward vertical power relations in negotiating meanings if they genuinely wish to achieve collaboration and transform knowledge We do not suggest that the strategies identified here are the only ones that can be used but they do provide a basis from which managers can start to develop strategies to increase the likelihood that the artifacts do serve their designated function and become boundary objects-in-use Our study also indicates that it is important for senior managers to realize that as subordinates exercise power in order to influence the negotiation of meaning they may not necessarily propose or support meanings that are consistent with the meanings that senior managers have in mind In such cases there may be a tendency for senior managers to push back and reinforce their power position as happened with implementation Our study indicates that this reaction intensified over time and in response to the refusal of middle managers to give way on the meaning of implementation towards the end of the workshop senior managers started to bundle strategies as they sought to dismiss a middle managers contribution make a threat and invoke hierarchy all at the same time The use of strategies to constrain participation and impose meaning may thus emerge as an automatic defense mechanism in response to the use of power or the promotion of particular meanings by subordinates To maintain a boundary object-in-use therefore requires senior managers to surrender some of their control and to face the consequences of potentially unpalatable outcomes arising from the meaning construction of subordinates It also means that senior managers have to create a safe environment in which subordinates feel that they can exercise power without retaliation Our study has a number of limitations First the main focus is a three-hour workshop and while we conducted follow-up interviews we were not able to study what happened in other workshops or the outcome of the culture change program We felt that such a focus was necessary in order to conduct the in-depth finely grained
analysis of the construction of meaning but we realize that it prevented other avenues being explored Second we were only able to interview half of the workshop participants to follow up on the workshop This was due primarily to logistical reasons with some participants being away from site or unavailable due to work pressures at the time when the interviews were scheduled However we noted considerable convergence in the interviews that we did conduct to support our findings Third to simplify the analysis we combined senior managers from head office with those from the local site While our analysis indicates that there was a great deal of agreement among them one can clearly imagine situations where there are divisions among different senior managers It is important therefore to realize that senior managers are not a homogenous group We have successfully extended the understanding of power in relation to boundary objects through our focus on power relations at the micro level There is however a need for future studies of boundary objects to analyze how power relations at the macro level affect boundary objects First future research might include the wider socio-economic climate of capitalist relations (cf Contu amp Willmott 2003) to consider how they influence patterns of participation and the use of power In our case study the workshop took place against a backdrop of major organizational restructuring and job losses for engineers as well as a downturn in the telecommunications industry As a result job insecurity was a continual concern for the middle managers and their participation might have motivated by a desire to present a positive and legitimate identity to senior management and insure against job loss Second future research might consider the influence of power relations in the larger organization and how they are used to structure the negotiation of meaning Participants have to work within the constraints laid down in the way in which the boundary object is set up As Kunda (1991 219) points out management sets the stage provides the rhetoric and reserves the right to the final word in these interpretive struggles Such mobilization of bias constitutes an important use of power (Bachrach amp Baratz 1962) Third it is also important to realize that our study focuses on skilled middle managers in a knowledge intensive firm unskilled blue collar workers may have far less recourse to the strategies employed by our middle managers Therefore future research could examine the different strategies used by lower level employees in relation to collaboration (power to) as well as in the form of resistance (power over) in this case power exercised by subordinates to resist the demands of senior managers To conclude a significant amount of work has examined how boundary objects are used to bridge boundaries in the every day work practices of the organization (Orlikowski 2002) such as the use of boundary objects on the production floor (Bechky 2003a) and ongoing product development (Carlile 2002 2004) Levina and Vaast (2005) have expanded this to the use of boundary objects in projects to introduce new communication technologies Our study opens up the contexts in which boundary objects might be used even further as part of organizational change programs which so far have not attracted much attention Given the pervasiveness of organizational change initiatives and their dependence on cooperation across organizational boundaries it is important for researchers and practitioners alike to understand what enables an artifact to become a boundary object-in-use
References Bachrach P MS Baratz 1962 The two faces of power Am Pol Sci Rev 56 947-52 Bechky BA 2003a Sharing meaning across occupational communities the transformation of understanding on a production floor Org Sci 14(3) 312330 Bechky BA 2003b Object lessons workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction Amer J Soc 109(3) 720-752 Boland RJ Jr RV Tenkasi 1995 Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing Organ Sci 6(4) 350-372 Briers M WF Chua 2001 The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change A field study of an implementation of activity-based costing Acc Org and Soc 26(3) 237269 Brown J S P Duguid 1991 Organizational learning and communities-of-practice Toward a unified view of working learning and innovating Organ Sci 2(1) 40-57 Carlile PR 2002 A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries Boundary objects in new product development Organ Sci 13(4) 442-455 Carlile PR 2004 Transferring translating and transforming an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries Organ Sci 15(5) 555-568 Clegg SR D Courpasson N Phillips (2006) Power and organizations Sage London Contu A H Willmott 2003 Re-Embedding situatedness the importance of power relations in learning theory Organ Sci 14(3) 283296 Deetz S DK Mumby 1990 Power discourse and the workplace reclaiming the critical tradition Communication Yearbook 13 18-47 Dougherty D 1992 Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms Organ Sci 3(2) 179202 Eisenhardt KM 1989 Building theories from case study research Acad Management Rev 14 532-550 Garrety K R Badham 2000 The politics of socio-technical intervention An interactionist view Tech An and Strg Mgt 12(1) 103-118 Gerson EM SL Star 1986 Analyzing due process in the workplace ACM Trans and Office Info Systems 4(3) 257-270 Gherardi S 2000 Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing organizations Org 7(2) 211-223 Handley K A Sturdy R Fincham amp T Clark 2006 Within and beyond communities of practice Making sense of learning through participation identity and practice J Man Studs 43(3) 641-653 Hardy C N Phillips 2004 Discourse and Power D Grant C Hardy C Oswick L Putnam eds Handbook of Organizational Discourse Sage London 219-318 Hardy C T Lawrence D Grant 2005 Discourse and collaboration the role of conversations and collective identity Acad Management Rev 30(1) 1-20 Henderson K 1998 The role of material objects in the design process A comparison of two design cultures and how they contend with automation Sci Tech amp Hum Vals 23(2) 139-174 Henderson K 1991 Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases visual communication conscription devices and boundary objects in design engineering Sci Tech amp Hum Vals 16(4) 448-473 Jarzabkowski P 2003 Strategic practices an activity theory perspective on continuity and change J Man Studs 40(1) 23-55 Jarzabkowski P 2004 Strategy as practice recursiveness adaptation and practices-in-use Org Stud 25(4) 529560 Kunda G 1991 Engineering Culture Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation Philadelphia Temple University Press Lave J E Wenger 1991 Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge University Press New York Levina N amp E Vaast 2005 The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice implications for implementation and use of information systems MIS Quart 29(2) 335-363 Mintzberg H amp Waters J A 1985 Of Strategies Deliberate and Emergent Strategic ManagementJ 6 257-272 Orlikowski WJ 2000 Using technology and constituting structures A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organ Sci 11(4) 404-428 Orlikowski WJ 2002 Knowing in practice Enacting a collective capability in distributive organizing Organ Sci 13(3)249-273 Roberts J 2006 Limits to communities of practice J Man Studs 43(3) 623-639 Sapsed J A Salter 2004 Postcards from the edge local communities global programs and boundary objects Org Stud 25(9) 1515-1534 Star S J Griesemer 1989 Institutional economy translations and boundary objects amateurs and professionals in Berkeleys museum of vertebrate zoology 1907-39 Soc Stud Sci 19(9) 387-420 Star SL 1988 The structure of ill-structured solutions boundary object and heterogeneous distributed problem solving LG Gasser ed Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence Kaufmann San Mateo CA 37-54 Sturdy A P Fleming 2003 Talk as technique a critique of the words and deeds distinction in the diffusion of customer service cultures in call centres J Man Studs 40(4) 753-773 Whittington R P Jarzabkowski M Mayer E Mounoud J Nahapiet J amp L Rouleau L 2003 Taking strategy seriously Responsibility and reform for an important social practice J of Mgt Inq 12(4) 396-409 Weick K 1995 Sensemaking in Organizations Sage Englewood Cliffs Yakura EK 2002 Charting time Timelines as temporal boundary objects Acad Management J 45(5) 956970 Yanow D 2000 Seeing organizational learning Org 7(2) 247-268 Yanow D 2004 Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries Brit J of Mgt 15 S925
Table 1 Strategies of Senior and Middle Managers STRATEGYDESCRIPTION OF INTERVENTION BY SENIOR MANAGERSInvitingStatements which encourage participation by middle managers in negotiation of meaningsAffirmingStatements agreeing with meanings put forward by middle managers ClarifyingQuestions asked of middle managers to open up negotiation of meaningsBuildingStatements which engage with elaborate and develop meanings put forward by middle managersStalling Statements which serve to suspend or defer the negotiation of meaningsDismissingStatements which serve to rebuff or ignore alternative meaningsReiteratingStatements which return to and repeat meanings already proposed by senior managersDeploying AuthorityStatements which contain directives that eliminate meanings proposed by middle managersInvoking HierarchyStatements which refer to superiors in order to justify the elimination of meanings proposed by middle managersThreateningStatements which refer to potential sanctions in order to eliminate meanings proposed by middle managersReifying the ArtifactStatements which invoke the culture toolkit to represent a particular non-negotiable meaning STRATEGYDESCRIPTION OF INTERVENTION BY MIDDLE MANAGERSProposingStatements which introduce a new meaningAdvancingStatements which engage with elaborate and develop meanings proposed by senior managers orand other middle managersChallengingStatement which reject or critique meanings proposed by senior managersUpholdingStatements which express support for meanings proposed by other middle manager ReinforcingStatements which return to and repeat meanings already proposed by middle managersUnderminingStatements which are critical of senior managers in order to discredit their proposed meaningsHolding to accountStatements which demand action from senior managers (or question a lack of action) in way that discredit their proposed meanings
Figure 1 Summary of Negotiations around Customer Focus EMBED PowerPointShow8
Figure 2 Summary of Negotiations around Implementation EMBED PowerPointShow8
Appendix 1 Negotiations around Customer Focus Text from Workshop Negotiation of MeaningInterventions by Senior ManagersInterventions by Middle ManagersSSM1 its important that we have a strong UTel culture in this organization to be customer focused we need to actually get a common understanding and hopefully feed back any concerns and issues that may crop up []The importance of a customer focus is introduced by a senior manager [1]SM invites participation from MMHO2 coming up with solutions for customerssorting out customers problems So being able to help our customers A head office manager offers a range of customer relationships in seeking to define customer focus SSM1 I have a couple of questions for you we talk about the consumer market but our market really is the business-to-business market Its our customers who are the people that are dealing with consumer marketA senior manager asks whether the customer is the end-user vs a business The issue becomes who is the customer [2]HO2 Yes you could say that the consumer market is our customers market so its not our marketSSM1 So yeah the focus from our point of view is much more the business-to-business type sales [] HO1 so its really up to the customer if he wants to put in as you say the game or horoscope or a lap-top synchronization I mean thats for our customers to decide you have to understand the end customer []The head office manager returns to the customer relationship in which the customer is dominant [3] SE1 I wonder if theres an opportunity to re-visit the mission statement I think we should be making sure that our customers are business-to-business customers and we should be fitting in when they want to launch Now when a customer walks through the door he wants to hear that - hes got a date in his mind if we can hit that date - whether its first in the market or not he makes that decision but we should just ensure that we hit their project dates A software engineer asks who the customer is and whether it is another business [4] MM advances SMs meaning HO2 Good point so its in your own time rather than first SM affirms and builds on contribution by MMSE1 Yeah Absolutely Absolutely we get customers at the door if you could say you could get six weeks better then they may drop one function if you can offer it six weeks earlier than any other competitorHO2 Right very good point []SM continues to affirmSE1 I believe that were [local site] customer-oriented I think we are customer focused as an organization and we have been all the way through even in our history I think were a customer-focused organizationA software engineer argues that the UK site is customer focused There is a shift from defining the nature of the relationship with the customer to claims that UK site already is customer focused [5]MM challenges meaning proposed by SMsHE1 I struggle with that one SE1 You struggle with that oneHE1 Because I dont think nowadays were close enough to the customer you know I think when we were GlobalTel it was easy because we actually had customers SSM1 What do you mean by the customers SM seeks clarification over meaningHE1 External customers I think it would have to be to be honest were miles away from the customer and have been for quite a few years now so Id kind of struggle with that A debate follows in which software engineers emphasize their existing close relationship with customer this is disputed by some other participants [6] SSM1 I dont agree with that SM attempts to dismissSE2 Suppose it depends on your point of viewMM upholds meaningSE3 Probably doesSE4 I think certainly from the software environment were very close to customers at the moment I agree with [SE1] on that oneHO2 But maybe you mean different things with customers my interpretation is that when you say customer you mean the end-user The discussion returns to who the customer is [7] SM seeks clarification and builds on MMs contributionSE1 Yeah I think I doHE2 But who is our end-user I mean the case of [X customer] for example or any of the other customers they are our end-user arent theyFurther confusion over who the customer is as end-user is equated with business MMs advance each others meaningsHE3 Absolutely yeah we are a business-to-business organizationSE3 So I think we are focused on our customers needs and how we can address themClaim that UK site already is customer focused reemerges [8]SS2 But you also need to look at the different streams of being customer focused and commercially focused Im not sure that as an organization were necessarily commercially aware The importance of customer focus is challenged instead there is a need for a commercial focus [9]MM proposes new meaningSSM1 Thats a valuable point Some of us need to be more business aware dont weSM affirms and builds on this new meaning SS2 we are very driven by engineers and the technology and some of the phones are geared towards engineers and not-end-users and non-technical people like myself And people do get caught up with developing incredible products that are fantastic with loads of features but from a commercial focus arent really needed So I dont think as an organization were not necessarily as commercially and business focused as we need to be [Long silence] SE5 But its the job of sales and marketing to go out and assess whats the end-users really want in terms of features and feed that backThere is an attempt to shift to emphasis to who is responsible for the customer [10]SSM2 As an organization as were expecting a lot of our engineers and project
managers to be going out to our customers and putting those deals and contracts in place But the engineers who are going out and meeting customers need to be commercially aware They need to be aware of the contracts theyre putting in place and the implications of the contracts because if we dont meet them we annoy our customers and they disappearThe discussion returns to the need for a commercial focus regardless of whether the engineers are close to the customer they still need to be commercially aware [11] SM builds on new meaning SSM1 I dont think thats happening though I dont think were putting engineers in front of customers who arent adequately trainedSS1 I think were in a transitional period at the momentSSM1 So its an issue of customer focusSM seeks clarificationSS2 We cant agree [laughs]Managers admit there is no agreement on what customer focus meansSE1 Can we have just a hands-up Who thinks we are customer focused just [Many hands go up] So were about sort of sixty percent would you say that think we are customer focusedA software engineer returns to his claim that they are already customer focused [12]MM reinforces meaning SE2 I think we have a perception were customer focused [] Other MM uphold this meaningSE1 So I believe that we are customer focused this is my perception that we are customer focused but obviously we need that to improve But it is a value and it is something that we already have in placeHE4 I think its an important point that we are customer focused I think there is some confusion about who the customer isThe discussion returns to who is the customer end-user vs business the claim that the company already is customer focused continues [13]SSM1 I would go further than that we are internally [focused] and when we [deal with] our internal customers we try to deliver that as wellSM builds on MM meaning SE1 Im going to put that [point] down on the board is that all rightMM reinforces his earlier meaningHE4 Yeah sure but I think the whole organization needs to know who the customers are Is it the end-user Is it the operators Is it you know the people were actually selling toSSM1 The people that are actually paying the invoices that we send to them [are] the business-to-business interface Its not Joe Public on the street thats their customer effectively although we need to have an appreciation of whats going on out in the marketSM builds on MM meaning SS3 I think theres confusion in some peoples mindsMM advance SMs meaningSE1 I think its important to recognize that we are still learning how to be a platform provider and you know were not there yet Some tempering of the claim that they are already customer focused with the recognition that they could be more so [14]SE3 I agree I think [SE1] is right here as well The thing is that we are customer focused but just lack a certain number of organizational structural and sometimes procedural elements that would make it work betterHE4 Im a little bit unsure what were talking about when we talk about customer focus are we talking about delivering precisely what our customers are asking for or are we talking about having an interactive discussion with them to understand what the market really wants and setting our mission on that basis I think thats missing having this discussion with a customer and saying well this is what were going to deliver I dont think as an organization weve got that interactive discussion we make lots of promises to all our customers but we dont seem to prioritize things we just promiseDiscussion returns to the nature of the relationship as interactive [15] SE5 As I see it weve got a customer focus for internal and external A lot of people go out and actually talk to the customers and they actually focus on satisfying their customers needs So depending where you are what level you are you have a focus on customer needsThe discussion returns to who is the customer but instead of end-user vs business it switches to internal vs external [16]HE4 I think internally we do have customer focus but I think its this interaction with our external customers that seems to be lackingHE5 Can I chuck another brick into the customer cultural pond and see what happens if I go back two years to when we were bigger All I used to hear from the guys in [another part of the former organization] was those bastards in [the UK site] never tell us anything Theyre secretive they keep it all to themselves they wont talk to us they tell us lies they wont tell us where they are on the project So how does that all fit together [some laughter] []SSM1 What you seem to be saying is theres the internal view which seems to be wonderful and the external view has a slightly different tinge to it More tempering of the view that they believe that are already customer focused but not all (external) customers might agree [17]SM clarifies MM meaning HE5 [I remember] some of the things that used to be said and it was rude I just wondered you know all of a sudden everythings different now isnt it you know and were great with our customers and we tell them everythingMMs continue to advance meaningSE1 No we havent said that youre actually adding to the story arent youSSM1 we may believe were a customer focused organization [but] theres always two sides to a story and we ought to try and get what our customers think of us rather than what we just think ourselves [] SM builds on meaningsHE4 Well Im struggling to find the point of talking to the customers I dont believe the customers have any more idea than we do of where they want to go They
have a kernel of an idea but I think theyre just as confused in terms of what the markets going to do as we are []Discussion shifts back to the relationship but views vary over whether the customer or the company should be dominant [18] SS3 What youre saying is that we should make up our minds and then believe in ourselves []HO2 Thats exactly what we do because our customers have their own ideas about what will be the developments I think its easier when youre ahead of your customers and you can have a decision because then you can act as if you know what youre doing and your customers will be confident []SM affirms and builds on meaningHE5 the customer decides Oh Im not really quite sure if I want that or this or that and were suddenly knocked right off course and that has major implications in terms of our development cycles []HO3 [in video presentation] We talk to the customers the key thing is having good relationships with customers to give them good support to make them feel that we are good suppliers to them we can also talk freely to our customers therefore we can talk about the problems and we can be honest []The video presentation returns to the issue of customer focus defined in terms of an honest relationship [19] SE3 Just one thing on that openness I think its right in respect of platform development [but] we need to be careful about this openness and giving out information - that can be misleading in my view A software engineer questions the value of honesty within the customer focus relationship MM challenges meaningHO1 Good point []SM affirms contributionSE1 So we need to continue our customer focusStopStartContinue Exercise is conductedMM reinforces meaning SS4 I think weve all agreed we need to improve our commercial awareness not our customer focusThe need for a commercial focus rather than a customer focus re-emerges initiated by support staff managersMM reinforces meaning SS2 we need to be more business focused [General agreement yeahs and nodding of heads]MMs start to advance meaningSE6 Whats the interesting thing with all this culture stuff is that there is nothing anywhere about things that matter from our point of view like profitability and and our commercial focus and is also supported by engineers [20]SE4 ExactlyHE4 YeahSS3 And if were going to start anything I would love to see some commercial focusSE1 Is this a start or a continueSS3 Id say START having a commercial focus as I am pretty convinced we dont have oneHE1 Thinking about the meeting last week there were people there from engineering and people from the commercial part and so I think that the people who need to have commercial awarenessSSM3 Certainly from an HR point of view I think we dont have the commercial awareness that we should have There are some managers who are OK but there are some who have no idea about how the money is earned on a project and I dont see that as being commercially focusedSM builds on MMs meaningSS4 Yeah I think we need to decide what we mean by commercial Commercial to me means being about UTel profitability And it doesnt matter a hell of a lot about customer profitability customer on time customer this customer that and customer the other I have never yet heard an UTel manager say weve got to make a lot of moneyA commercial focus is defined as being financially aware and helping the company to be profitable MMs continue to advance meaningsSE1 So START to become aware of the bottom lineSS5 Yes START to become profit focused within UTel [] SE5 I think that if we have an appreciation of what the end user wantsSE6 Its good that our business customers share our vision HE5 that could be very na e we could lose our customer focus by concentrating on what the end user wantsSE5 No I am not saying that we need to find out what is of importance to the end userHE5 I have to say that I totally disagree because I think it was wrong we deliver a product to the people who actually need it we charge them and we move on We do not get embroiled in what we think they needSE7 At the end of the day if they have a choice of platforms and they do [then they can choose]SE1 so have we done that one [Discussion moves on to other matters]The importance of customer focus has now been replaced by the need for a commercial focusFlip chart from exercise states STOP unrealistic time scales START profit focus CONTINUE improve commercial focus SSM2 We should start being profit focused then we also had a slight debate about somebody mentioned that we should probably start getting to grips with end user awareness and have more end user forums and get together and find out what end users want but we didnt all agree on that one We should continue to improve the commercial focus of the organization because if youre long term from a commitment point of view we need to be committed to being more commercial focused Senior manager affirms meaningsHO1 OK
Appendix 2 Negotiations around Implementation Text from Workshop Negotiation of MeaningInterventions by Senior ManagersInterventions by Middle ManagersHO1 So Im here today of course to start the implementation of our target culture program another purpose is of course to build global commitment and agree on actions to support the target culture And were here today to learn more about your current culture in [the local site] but also together to identify actions that you can take here in [the local site] to support the target culture []A head office manager states implementation of the culture change program begins with the workshop implementation is defined in terms of actions to be collectively identified that can be taken at the local site [1]SM invites participation from MMSE1 I think one thing thats missing [from the implementation of the culture change program] is that we need to know where were going how we fit in making sure the whole things hangs together Thats a big concern really A software engineer defines implementation [2] MM challenges SMs meaningSSM1 Do you agreeSM seeks clarificationSE2 I cant see how it adds upAnother MM challenges meaningSSM1 That we have a lack of future direction or informationSE2 I think its more to do with information Another software engineer suggests that implementation is lacking information [3]SM seeks clarificationMM continues to challenge meaningSE1 I dont think it is information actually I dont think anyone knows [where we are going] []The first software engineer returns to directionMM reinforces meaningSE3 I think until we make up our own mind [about where we are going] we are actually not very flexible Well maybe we can transfer some of those elements [from a project] down into a more general This is what were going to do This is what we can deliverDiscussion returns to lack of direction more direction will make implementation easier [4] HO2 The problem is that its not easy its much harder A head office manager presents direction as being difficult [5] SM dismisses meaningSE3 I didnt say it was easyMM undermines SMs meaningHE1 Do you feel that we are [easily] knocked right off course and that has major implications in terms of our development cycles programs etc etc etc I mean if we can have a kernel a solid internal idea of what we need and were going get this and were going to get thatMM reinforces meaningHE2 But what is the purchasable point there [HE1] Were having this discussion about [direction] but whats the purchasable point A hardware engineer returns to definition of implementation as lacking direction [6]SE1 It [the companys direction] is a slightly hidden agenda [laughter] MM undermines SMs meaningSSM2 But isnt [HE2] really saying how do we [manage] time frames A senior manager asks whether hardware engineer means time frames [7] SM seeks clarificationHE2 Thats the essence yeahSSM2 And its quite clearSE1 I think we need to know where were going at [local site first] []A software engineer returns to need for direction at the local site [8]MM reinforces meaningHO1 What were trying to do is to identify what kind of culture do we have in [Head Office] what culture do we have in [different sites in different countries] because this system is an ongoing process and we really must identify at each site what kind of culture current culture we haveA head office manager refers to need for awareness of culture at different sites [9] SM stalling of meaning SSM2 But are you saying we should ask if the [Head Office] guys have problems with usA senior manager suggests finding out what the Head Office thinks of the local site SM1 Yeah thats a good point and I think SS1 [But] you know its them and us and we always have to do what [Head Office] saysThe value of doing this is questioned by a support staff managerMM undermines SMs meaning SM1 The mission we have now is to send to [the CEO] and to the management team the actions or the current culture that we identify within each site [The CEO] is very interested in this work We have been running culture workshops now in [the various sites] and he has gone through the material with myself and sometimes with [SM2] Now he really wants to see what kind of culture you have here and thats the first step A head office manager repeatedly invokes CEO to define implementation in terms of the first step which is awareness of culture including at this site this is reinforced by another head office managerSM dismisses MM invokes hierarchy and stallsSM2 I think that there are a lot of things that can be done the first step we need to take this and create awareness hold these discussions create a common language to get the tools to move forward []The video is shown CEO I think it [the culture change program] starts with communicating clearly to make really clear what you mean what you think is the new culture The next step is to involve everybody through the workshops Video ends []The video defines implementation in terms of the next step which is to involve everyone and to involve measurement [10]HO1 when youre conducting the workshop with your employees you should discuss what key drivers you have in your team Its also interesting to hear what strengths you have [at the local site] but we dont have time to go through that today but you will have instructions in the culture toolkit on how to work with the different exercises I dont know do you think we should go through the shared vision now [SM2] The head office manager defines implementation in relation to process SM reifies the
artifact invokes hierarchy HO2 I think weve covered it fairly wellHO1 Its gone through fairly well in the video we dont need to go through them Do we have the brochure SSM1 Its in the culture kitHO1 Its in the culture kit OK were going to divide you into three groups now and youre going to work with two different templates []SE1 I wondered whether you had any feedback on the previous stuff [about what actions came out the exercise at previous workshops] A software engineer asks for feedback on whether previous actions were implementedMM undermines SMs meaningHO1 Yes of course we saw and talked about all these actions But it is now more that we want you to help us identify actions that the organisation should take We have another template [for an exercise which is] more into what kind of actions could you take in [the local site] to support the target culture [ ]The head office manager returns to implementation as defined in terms of collectively identified actions to be taken at local site [11]SM reiterates meaning and reifies the artifactSE1 Sorry Do we need to start actually defining where we are going start telling people here what were aim to be doing where were goingwhat their contribution is [] A software engineer returns to definition of implementation in terms of lack of directionMM reinforces meaningSS1 [We need to] start defining where were going start defining long-term costs []A discussion ensues linking direction to long term costs [12]MMs uphold each others meaningsSS2 We felt we were going very similar to what [SE1] said we should stop setting unrealistic time scales people need to know that they can achieve whats been put in place Implementation linked to timescales SE1 to feel empowered people need to have the information they need to know where to go to be able to move on and feel empoweredempowerment and information SS2 I still think theres a problem with people in UTel not actually understanding whos responsible for what areas Empowerment How do we empower our engineers we need to delegate more we employ engineers to do a job so let them just get on and do it thats really important also better road mapsand road maps HO1 you came up with very good actions What do you think [turning to SSM2] If we let all employees in [local site] go through these exercises [templates] here in the workshop do you think you could work with the results to make improvements in [local site] Head office manager returns to implementation as further workshops [13] SM reiterates meaning and reifies the artifactSSM2 I think the idea of this was to try and take this further into the organization with the line managers and they can have a group to deal with [in subsequent workshops] and maybe we can provide some of the material that goes with it Directives for timing and conduct of subsequent workshops are issued by senior managers with reference to the culture toolkit [14]SSM1 You should have the video Also I will email you the slides that we presented today [and] the agenda for the three hour meeting that youll have with your staff going through the stop start in the workshops thatll be in your slides instructions on how to run the discussions and also the template for the stop start workshops The templates that we want you to work on are template two and template four those two templates once youve conducted the workshops with your staff I need them in by the end of August So you need to conduct your workshops with your staff by the end of August At the end of August I send all my information to [Head Office] who will make a presentation to [the CEO] Have you got brochures for everyoneSM stalls and reifies the artifactSE2 Does this include contractorsSSM2 No its just permanent staffSM dismissesSS2 Why not contractors Weve got to work together we havent got that manyMM challenges SMs meaningHO1 If you want more brochures to give your contractors thats fine but the results I want are from permanent staff some of our contractors have been with us a long time so I have no problems with you going through basics with the contractors but not spending a three hour workshop with them []SM dismisses reifies the artifact and uses authorityHE3 Is this a priorityMM undermines SMs meaningSSM1 I think its important to note that your responsibilities as team leaders group managers are not just engineering responsibilities this is part and parcel to your responsibilities [SSM2] says it has to be done Any questionsSM uses authority invokes hierarchySSM2 Dont leave it till the end of August before you do it it would be nice to have some done beforehand so []SM uses authority HE4 Whats the context of this work we do this work we give the results back by the end of August and then there isnt really a road map of what actually happens weve done two of these workshops now and nothing has really happened has a result of it So what physical stuff is going to happen as a result of doing these workshops Whats going to happen Engineers return to need for road map milestones and action plans [15]MM reinforces meaning and holds SM to accountSE1 For example at the end August is there going to be a presentation to hear what the issues were so everyone knows what they are that would be one milestone and the next one is knowing what happened [at Head Office] Another one could be what action plans are going to be agreed by whatever Its just [we need] some plan going forward rather than being an isolated activity the bit thats missing to my mind is what the next steps are We do this but then whats the next stepMM holds SM to accountHO1 Well what we
[Head Office] have decided is that we will of course receive the report with the actions from each site and the management team in [Head Office] will also decide what kind of actions we will agree on and work on during the next coming year So you will have a report you will have a presentation during the next meeting [at Head Office] A head office manager defines next steps as reports actions will be decided by Head Office (contradicting earlier point that actions will be collectively identified) [16]SM dismisses invokes hierarchy and stallsHE5 Is there some sort of time line or something there must be some time line were working toA hardware engineer returns to the need for a time line [17]MM reinforces meaning and holds SM to accountHO1 I tried to show with the picture here [flip chart with process on it] we have the target up here and we are here today The first step is to try to [understand] the different current cultures within the organization today and the goal is to create one company one culture but its also an ongoing process so we are going to work with the culture Were going to of course put the target culture into a lot of different activities We dont know if youre going to be here in 2003-2004 But we have a goal to create work as one company with one culture and were today and this is the road that were going to take So the end of August is the first step The head office manager returns to implementation defined in terms of the first step which is to conduct the remaining workshop (by August) also mentions possible job losses [18] SM reiterates meaning dismisses request for timeline stalls and threatens SE4 we need to present that road map to the team before we get into thisA software engineer returns to need for road map [19]MM reinforces meaningHO1 we [Head Office] have a project plan describing this in more detail what kind of activities we will take in the future But its also important not to talk too much about the future what we are going to do as the next step We have a big challenge to work with this for the moment and were not going to start up a lot of different activities because I dont think we have the time or the possibility to go through different activitiesThe head office manager returns to definition of activities as decided by Head Office [20] SM reiterates meaning dismisses invokes hierarchy and stallsHO2 I think the first step is really to create an awareness about [the] culture and creating some common language and shared values were sort of creating a tool to move forward And then as [SM1] says what will happen in August is that the result the outcome of all the different workshops will be compiled into an analysis a report that will be presented to the [head office] management in which [SSM2] and I are part of And then there will be decisions taken about what the next step isAnother head office manager returns to implementation as the first step which is culture awareness repeats instructions for timing implementation defined in terms of a report decisions to be taken by Head Office [21]SM reiterates meaning stalls and invokes hierarchy SE5 I think actually the question is baSE4 on [HE2] question before whats the success criteria A software engineer defines time lines in terms of success criteria [22]MM upholds MMs meaningHO2 Im not sure its possible to put down an objective metric or measure where you determine whether youve succeeded or not []This is challenged by a head office as infeasible [23]SM dismisses meaningHE2 Can I make a suggestion for something we could do locally when we brief our individual groups could each manager then take for example three or four of the actions and say right Im now going to implement these within my teamThen at least were showing some results from this exerciseA hardware engineer returns to original definition of implementation as actions to be decided by the local site [24]MM holds SM to accountHO1 thats not actions that you should be doing [in the local site] This is directly refuted by a head office manager (contradicting the opening statement) [25]SM uses authority
Robyn Thomas would like to acknowledge the support of the UK Economic and Social Research Councils Advanced Institute of Management in funding this research award number RES-331-25- 3009 for fellowship funding received during the period of this research The name of the company and other details have been disguised GSM - Global system for mobile communication GPRS General packet radio system EDGE Enhanced data rates for global enhancement WCDMA Wideband and code- division multiple access The form of the artifact may not therefore be particularly important For example early atlases of the brain served as a means of communicating across clinical and research worlds even though they in fact described no brain (Star 1988 49) Similarly (Star amp Greisemer 1989 410) give the example of the use of a species as a boundary object which in fact described no specimen We found no evidence of negotiations over the form of the culture toolkit We therefore went on to consider the negotiation of what the object means in the given context (Levina amp Vaast 2005 340) Individuals are coded according to their group membership which included head office managers who worked out of the European headquarters senior managers at the local site and three groups of middle managers software engineers hardware engineers and support staff (eg HR finance sales amp marketing) The numbers in square brackets provide a cross reference to Figure 1 and Appendix 1 The numbers in square brackets provide a cross reference to Figure 2 and Appendix 2 To simplify the analysis head office managers and senior site managers were categorized as senior managers and engineers hardware engineers and support staff were combined into one group of middle managers As such the strategies that we have identified are necessarily deliberate they may also be emergent (cf Mintzberg 1985) Different terminology is deliberately used to distinguish interventions by senior managers from interventions by middle managers in order to facilitate the analysis Left axis numbers refer to time ie minutes after the commencement of the workshop the light dashed arrows indicate the order of interventions which are numbered the bold arrows indicate the development of the different meanings The phrases at bottom of the figure refer to the different meanings proposed and developed during the workshop Left axis numbers refer to time ie minutes after the commencement of the workshop the light dashed arrows indicate the order of interventions which are numbered the bold arrows indicate the development of the different meanings The phrases at bottom of the figure refer to the different meanings proposed and developed during the workshop HO= head office manager SSM= senior site manager SS = support staff manager SE = software engineer HE = hardware engineer SM = senior manager (includes HOs and SSMs) MM = middle managers (includes SEs HEs and SSs) The number beside each participant indicates the order in which the person first participates in the discussion HO= head office manager SSM= senior site manager SS = support staff manager SE = software engineer HE = hardware engineer SM = senior manager (includes HOs and SSMs) MM = middle managers (includes SEs HEs and SSs) The number beside each participant indicates the order in which the person first participates in the discussion and is not necessarily the same individual as in the negotiations around customer focus PAGE PAGE 1 PAGE PAGE 40 gtMNs D F ^
`
p
y
+ F G not micro 0pcedil ۷ vofVofoofVoofVfV hfrac12aJh] khfrac126aJh] khfrac12aJ
h] khfrac12hfrac12CJOJQJ^JaJhhfrac12aJ
hnehfrac12hfrac12
hyen[hfrac12hyen[hfrac12OJQJaJhyen[hfrac12OJQJ hmLhfrac12OJQJaJmH
sH
jhyen[hfrac120JOJQJUaJhyen[hfrac12OJQJaJhdeg(hfrac12CJOJQJaJhdeg(hfrac12CJgtAOgs|degplusmnsup2 B W X paraparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparaparapara$
0` Pdeg1$7$8$H$a$gdfrac12
0` Pdeg1$7$8$H$gdfrac12dgdfrac12raquo thornthornthornthornX Y g curren reg frac12 D E F yumlfrac34sup1acuteacutesup1sup1laquoacutebrvbargdfrac12` gdfrac12gdfrac12gdfrac12
0` Pdeg1$7$8$H$gdfrac12$
0` Pdeg1$7$8$H$a$gdfrac12thornyuml 5ltIJPYmicropararaquo+4N`a)BtthornO` frac12paraparaparapoundhfdhfrac126aJhfdhfrac12aJ
hfdhfrac12
hJhfrac12
hTUhfrac12hThfrac12aJ
hThfrac12 hfrac12aJhhfrac12aJhfrac12hhfrac12aJh] khfrac12aJltltJu$Y$]11yuml4j6 AAordfF(R0R RKWthornWgdfrac12gdfrac12`gdfrac12gdfrac12gdfrac12$a$gdfrac12)-18Sabru G$Y ordmltA_o3yeng u ]lmmiddotsup1$plusmnplusmnplusmnplusmnplusmnumlumlumlh2hfrac12aJhgIhfrac12aJhhfrac12aJ hfrac126aJh9hfrac126aJhpoundhfrac12aJhlhfrac12aJhfrac12
h2hfrac12 hfrac12aJhhfrac12aJgt$+KfjlaquonotY=$E$[$$]$^$f$i$t$v$$$$ frac14frac12copy(ordf(O)P)centpound+ +0B-sup1ˬˬˬˬˬˬˢˬhThfrac126aJhumlUhfrac12aJmH sH hMhhfrac12aJhhfrac12aJhThfrac12aJh _hfrac126aJhcedil5brvbarhfrac12aJhhfrac126aJ hfrac12aJhhfrac12aJ---0-D-H---- --5QSnotacute4hjA0B0M0[0b0c0w0x000yen0plusmn0X2Y2r2w22yen2micro2cedil2frac122thorn2yuml23thorn455 555i667s7777para7ordm7
hpoundhfrac12humlUhfrac12mH sH hfrac12
hThfrac12humlUhfrac12aJmH sH hThfrac12aJ hfrac12aJNordm7frac147]8l88888pound8not8Z9yuml9$amp7ltc thornmltnlt=D=s=gtgtOgtgtgtZifrac14yumlsectAAcedilumlѨѨѨ hfrac12 6aJhOrhfrac126aJ
h7hfrac12h7hfrac12aJhumlamphfrac12aJhreg(hfrac12aJ
hreg(hfrac12hfrac12hThfrac126aJhsup3hfrac12aJhpDhfrac12aJhThfrac12aJ hfrac12aJAA AAAAnotADBKBZB[BcBvBwBB C C9CHCCmicroCcedilCD DDD4DDUDthornDyumlDEthornEcopyFordfFG GGfGjGwGlaquoGGdegGsup1GraquoG)HHIIsup3sup3 鬣poundpound 霣㣜pound
hhfrac12hhfrac12aJ
humlUhfrac12
hNENGNINRNUN^NNOOOGOVOPP
EdSdnddegdfrac14deee=eeordmecurrenfyenfiquestf
gbghgjgxgyg~ggg)hhhhhpoundh i iEiSi[isup1ifrac34ijjjcurrenjyenjordfjlaquojraquojk4kBkfrac34middotdegdegmiddotsect 栗secthHhfrac12aJhumlUhfrac12aJmH sH hThfrac12aJ
h[frac14hfrac12
hordfhfrac12hOqhfrac126
hsup1hfrac12hordm[hfrac12aJ
hhfrac12humlUhfrac12mH sH
hThfrac12 hfrac12aJhfrac12
hebhfrac129BkCkVkYkbkkkpoundksup2ksup3kxlthornlmm=mFmKmgmmdegmnMnacuten4p`p|pordfpmiddotp q1qIqgqvqwqqqsup1qr$r(rrRrTrhrrdegrpararssĻraquoraquo 䳻umlsup3umlsup3umlsup3umlsup3umlraquoraquoumlsup3umlsup3umlsup3raquohThfrac12^JaJhfrac12^JaJhThfrac12aJ
humlfhfrac12hmacrhfrac12aJ
hmacrhfrac12hordfhfrac12aJ hfrac12aJhfrac12hHhfrac12aJh6hfrac12aJBsRs`ssusuvuuu vvvv8vgtvTvUvYvZv`vhvvviexclvlaquovwwww9wwKwNw_w`wawfwyy7y acuteymicroyparayraquoyzmiddotDmiddotXmiddotdmiddothmiddotkmiddotmiddotmiddotordmmiddotJcedilUcedilhcedil|cedilbrvbarcedilordmcedilthorncedilsup1sup1degsup1sup2sup1ѹ ۹ordmordmmordmoordmordmordmiexclordmordfordmsup2ordmacuteordmsup1ordmʺкyumlordmraquo|raquoraquoplusmnraquocedilraquoлһ frac14laquothornfrac141frac145frac14Hfrac14Ifrac14^frac14cfrac14gfrac14hfrac14qfrac14vfrac14frac14frac14degfrac14˼frac12frac12
hR hfrac12hThfrac126hfrac12mH sH hhfrac12mH sH
h]
ordfhfrac12
hThfrac12hfrac12Pfrac12+frac124frac125frac12Gfrac12Ifrac12Mfrac12Nfrac12yfrac12frac12frac12frac12frac12frac12sup1frac12yacute˽thornfrac12rfrac34thornɾraquoiquestfrac14iquest Sdbrvbarsectsup2middot
9BfhsectALOV[bcfisup2 sup1
h|hfrac12
hhfrac12
h=dhfrac12
hhfrac12
hR hfrac12hThfrac126hfrac12
hThfrac12Pfrac12˲frac12˲uml ۲ frac12sup2frac12˲frac12
hs[Zhfrac12 hfrac126hs[Zhfrac126hOrhfrac126aJhThfrac12hlthThfrac12mH sH hfrac12mH sH hfrac12^J
hThfrac12hThfrac12^Jhfrac12hIyumlhfrac126aJ hfrac12aJhIyumlhfrac12aJ hfrac126aJ6qtvw EMWY `laquoraquoYobrvbarsup3thornthorn thorn thorn(thorn8thorncurrenthornyumlyuml^yumlmyuml~yumlcopyordfACHISTXcdcedilplusmnplusmnhqOhfrac12hRhfrac12aJhChfrac12aJ
h2hfrac12h9hfrac126hChfrac126
hhfrac12
hChfrac12
hRhfrac12 hfrac12aJhfrac12Fdeqrsup30G|O 8 D ` o q sect S~iexclDz7F middot5em~frac34middotmiddotdegcopycent
hRhfrac12
hPhfrac12
hsup1hfrac12
hyenhfrac12
h_hfrac12
hhfrac12
hThfrac12
h[whfrac12h9Fhfrac12aJhhfrac12aJhhfrac126aJ hfrac12aJ
hhfrac12
hqOhfrac12hfrac12~currenO frac12TV OhqVW microIyenuml|curren $$a$l$z$ampsup1sup3sup1sup3sup1sup3currencurrencurren ښ sup3 hshfrac12aJhfrac12aJmH sH
hThfrac12h Cparahfrac126 hfrac12aJhthornhfrac12aJjhfrac120JU
hhfrac12
hthornhfrac12
h+hfrac12
hhfrac12hRhfrac12OJQJ^J
hRhfrac12hfrac128ampamp-amp6amp8ampsectampumlampcopyampP_eo)))2)frac12t+++wpoundraquofrac12iquestY-b-c-e-q- r-frac14microfrac14microfrac14microfrac14microlaquocentcentcentcentcent
hKhfrac12hhfrac125aJhsecthfrac126aJhmicroHhfrac12aJhKhfrac125aJ hfrac126aJhKhfrac126aJhKhfrac12aJh0~Ihfrac12aJ
hohhfrac12
hhfrac12 hfrac12aJhhfrac12aJhfrac12
hshfrac124s-N01t1thorn12_3c45-67B89ordm93Ucurrenxgdfrac12 ampgdfrac12ehjpqr+56Almd0g0i0p0r0011111111-1L1M1d1t1thorn1ordmordm ordm մordm yenխ yenacuteacuteacute hQrhfrac126aJh~2hfrac12aJhhfrac125 hfrac126hsecthfrac126 պպ
hTUhfrac12 hfrac12aJhThfrac125aJ hfrac126aJhThfrac126aJhThfrac12aJhThfrac12aJmHsHhmicroHhfrac12aJhhfrac125 aJ2thorn12b2x2z2|23=33A3D3M3R3S3U3_324U4V4c4u4v4para4middot4raquo4frac144frac1245)5L5Y5q5r5iquestmicroiquestmicroiquestsh7hfrac126hfrac12
hbrvbar)hfrac12 hfrac12aJhThfrac125hThfrac126
hThfrac12hhfrac125hsecthfrac126hfrac126]aJhThfrac126]aJ
hTUhfrac12 hfrac126aJhThfrac125aJhThfrac126aJhThfrac12aJhIhfrac12aJ-r5s5u5x5555555 666yen6sect6copy6not6micro6para6ordm6frac146frac3467777O7X7Z7d7j7k7n7q7s7u7y77 7sup378888+880828385888A8B8sect8iquestϲumlsup2umlsup2Ͽ
hfhfrac12hThfrac125aJhfrac126]aJhThfrac126]aJ hfrac12aJhThfrac126aJhThfrac12aJ
h+[hfrac12hfrac12h7hfrac125
hbrvbar)hfrac12h7hfrac126 hfrac126sect8uml8copy8laquo8reg8deg8micro8para8cedil8raquo899)9+9-999K99uml9sup29cedil9sup19frac349 239=ABH 2JKUplusmnsup1iexcl
hDhfrac12h~2hfrac125h7hfrac125h7hfrac126
hbrvbar)hfrac12hThfrac126aJhThfrac12aJ
hamp-hfrac12hQrhfrac12
hQrhfrac12hQrhfrac126h$_hfrac125h$_hfrac126
h$_hfrac12
hfhfrac12hDhfrac125hfrac12 hfrac126hDhfrac126thornltamplt0lt1ltgtlt ltKltLltXlt^ltaltbltfltglthltiltpltrltltyenltsectltumlltcopyltlaquoltregltacuteltmicroltparaltcedillt+=3===gt==O=frac12ҹsup2sup1ordfordfҒ~hThfrac125aJhThfrac126aJhThfrac12aJ
h+[hfrac12h7hfrac125h7hfrac126
hbrvbar)hfrac12hfrac12hNhfrac126]aJhfrac126]aJ hfrac12aJhNhfrac12aJhDhfrac125
hDhfrac12 hfrac126hDhfrac1260rltO=gtsup2=AABBampBUB $Ifgdfrac12amp$a$gdfrac12gdfrac12 currenxgdfrac12ampgdfrac12O=g=uml=gtgt gtgt gtgtgtgt gtpoundgt iexclcentpoundyenplusmnsup2thornjklqtwycopymicroAAsup1plusmnnotplusmnnotplusmnnotsup1currensup1hT hfrac126]aJhamphfrac125 hfrac126hamphfrac126
hfhfrac12hfrac12 hfrac126aJhumlUhfrac12aJhThfrac125aJhThfrac126aJ hfrac12aJhThfrac12aJhIhfrac12aJAA A)AAA- A0AFAGAmAqArAsAAAAABBB$BBampB5BUBVBsup1degŰsectsectsectdegdegňoeehbrvbar hfrac12aJhreg microhfrac125aJjhfrac120J5UaJ hfrac125aJhfrac12
hThfrac12h3hfrac125aJh3hfrac126]aJhfrac126]aJh3hfrac12aJhhfrac125aJ hfrac12aJhThfrac125aJhThfrac12aJhThfrac126aJhT hfrac126]aJhfrac126]aJ$UBVB_BmiddotB $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 la VB^B_BparaBcedilBCCCCWCYCaCbCfrac34CDD_D`DiquestD-EEAEBEplusmnEsup3EiquestE(F)FFFkFlFFF FumlFcopyFcedilF
GGGGGGGGH0HiexclHcentHregHmacrHIȾȾȾmicrohrhfrac12aJhregmicrohfrac125aJ hfrac125aJ hfrac126aJhraquo$hfrac12aJhsecthfrac12aJhpAhfrac12aJhbrvbar hfrac12aJ hfrac12aJGmiddotBcedilBC $Ifgdfrac12ykdj$$Iflyuml not cedil t yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laCCCXC $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml yumlyuml44 laXCYCbCiquestC $Ifgdfrac12ykd0$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laiquestCD $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laDDD_D $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 la_D`DlD $Ifgdfrac12ykdD$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyuml yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laE $Ifgdfrac12ykd $$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laEEBEsup2E $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lasup2Esup3EiquestE)F $Ifgdfrac12 ykdX$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 la)FFFF $Ifgdfrac12ykdacute$$Iflyuml not cedil t yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laF FcopyF $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml yumlyuml44 la G $Ifgdfrac12ykdl$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 la GGGG $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laGGG $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laAH $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyuml yumlyumlyumlyuml44 laAHBHNHcentH $Ifgdfrac12ykd$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 la centHpoundHmacrHI $Ifgdfrac12ykd8$$Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laIIIyenI $Ifgdfrac12ykd$ $Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 laIIIIcurrenIbrvbarIsectIumlImacrIdegIthornIyumlIJJJ J8J9JJJUJVJWJXJYJZJzJJJJJmiddotordfiexclƘha hfrac125aJhAhfrac125aJhThfrac126aJjhDDcedilhfrac12UaJj hfrac12 CJUVaJhThfrac12aJhghfrac12aJjLhDDcedilhfrac12UaJj hfrac12CJUVaJjhfrac12UaJjhThfrac120JUaJ
hThfrac12hfrac12
hrhfrac12 hfrac12aJhbrvbar hfrac12aJ$yenIbrvbarIsectIJYJZJJJmicroJ|ttog^^^ $Ifgdfrac12amp$a$gdfrac12gdfrac12$a$gdfrac12$a$gdfrac12ykd$ $Iflyuml not cedil tyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumldampyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 la JJmicroJKLLL LL(L6LLLALmicroL MMMMM MpoundMcurrenMNNN+NNNNNbNgNiN7O9Ocedil iexcliexclregiexclcedil|iexcl hyhfrac12aJhծ ոոոաա Յ Ahfrac120JltCJaJhAhfrac120J6CJaJhAhfrac120JCJaJhfrac120JCJaJhAhfrac126aJhAhfrac12aJmH sH hfrac12aJhAhfrac12aJ hfrac125aJhAhfrac125aJ jhAhfrac120J5UaJ0LLALEplusmnkdthorn$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml $Ifgdfrac12ALBLacuteLmicroLMMMNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd $$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlMMgNhNiNNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdfrac14$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumliNjNNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml1O5O6O7O8O9ONEEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdz$ $Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml9OOPPxPyPzPPNEEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdY$ $Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml9OcedilOsup1OPDP^PsPyPP|PSQTQ4R9RJR^RbRcRwRRR RcurrenRRordmRraquoRfrac14Rfrac12RthornRyumlRS SS$S(SS+SthornSyumlST TT$TT2T8T9Tacutenotpoundnotnotnotnotnothhfrac120J6aJhAhfrac120J6aJhAhfrac120JaJhfrac120J6aJhfrac120JaJhAhfrac12 gtaJmH sH hfrac12aJmH sH hAhfrac12aJmH sH hAhfrac120JltCJaJhAhfrac126aJ hfrac12aJhAhfrac12aJ2P| PJRR RiexclRraquoRfrac14RNEEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd8$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14Rfrac12R)SSNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlS+SthornSyumlSNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlSTTTTTTLCCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd $$Ifl Շ
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml9TTTPTVTbTcT$UUsup1UV$VampVIVKVWWWampW4WAWCW=X]XXXXXmicroXparaXthornXyumlXY YYordmnotordmordmĞordmordmordm ĺxordmhhfrac120J6CJaJhhfrac120J6CJaJhhfrac126aJhAhfrac120J6CJaJhu0hfrac120J6CJaJhfrac120JCJaJhAhfrac12 0JCJaJhAhfrac126aJ hfrac12aJhAhfrac12aJhAhfrac120JaJhOihfrac120JaJTkCkDkEkSkUkVkkkkkumlkliexcllsectlumllcopylmmm8o9op-p4p5p6peqxqregqWrYrmsnsfrac34frac34 ҳfrac34frac34hAhfrac126aJhu0hfrac120J6CJaJhfrac120J6CJaJ hfrac12aJh`hfrac120J6CJaJhAhfrac120J6CJaJhfrac12 0JCJaJhAhfrac120JCJaJhAhfrac12aJ=iiOiPiQitiNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumltiuij-jjjNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd Ifl$$ڢ
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlj0jkkTkUkVkNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdsup1pound$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlVkWkkkkumlkNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdcurren$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlumlkcopyk-llsectlumllcopylNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdwyen$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlcopylordflmmmmNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdVbrvbar$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlmm3p4p5p6pNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd5sect$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml6p7pKqNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkduml$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlVrWrXrYrNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlYrZr1t5t6t7t8tNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdҩ$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlns6t8t9t=tuuLuRuSuTuUuu_ujukulumuRvSvdvkvtvuvwwwwyenwcopywsup2wsup3wacutewyHyOyQysup2yacuteymiddotЪМ ЀЀh$gthfrac120J6CJaJhu0hfrac120J6CJaJhAhfrac120JltCJaJhu0hfrac120JCJaJhfrac120J6CJaJhAhfrac120J6CJaJhfrac12 0JCJaJhAhfrac126aJ hfrac12aJhAhfrac120JCJaJhAhfrac12aJ28t9tRukulumuNEEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdplusmnordf$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlmunuQvRvSvuvNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdlaquo$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumluvvvNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdonot$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlwwwwsup3wacutewNEEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdN $$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlacutewmicrowNyOyPyQyNEEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd-reg$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlQyRy yplusmnysup2ysup3yacuteyNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd
macr$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlacuteymicroyNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml_s~J~L~M~o~t~copy~ordf~ -~middot~KLMNQ[degparanotparanot paraӇyӇhu0hfrac120JltCJaJhAhfrac12aJhu0hfrac120J6CJaJh hfrac12aJmH sH hfrac12aJmH sH hAhfrac12aJmH sH hAhfrac126aJ hfrac12aJhAhfrac12aJhfrac120JCJaJhAhfrac120JltCJaJhfrac120J6CJaJNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdʰ$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml z|NEEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdcopyplusmn$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml~M~copy~ordf~NEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdsup2$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlNEEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdgsup3$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlMNeNEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdFacute$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlef67ONEEEE $Ifgdfrac12plusmnkdmicro$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlsect67DNOPordfnot ordmʀˀsup1raquoȁɁʁ ց 1245ځہ ѹmacriexclmacrsup1ѕkhAhfrac120JCJaJhIehfrac12aJh$gthfrac120J6aJhfrac120JaJhAhfrac120JltaJhj$Hhfrac120J6CJaJhfrac12 0JCJaJhAhfrac120JltCJaJhAhfrac126aJhAhfrac12aJ hfrac12aJhIehfrac12aJhAhfrac12aJhAhfrac12]aJOPylaquonot ˀLCCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdpara$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlˀsup1ordmraquoLCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlraquofrac14ɁʁˁLCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdʷ$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlregyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml فځ LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdcedil$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml 1234ځہ LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdsup1$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml45]^_`LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdsordm$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml5]^`aordmraquofrac12frac34| plusmnsup3acuteɅ^hlm~ AEligņNP_a79acuteordf hAhfrac120JltCJaJhIehfrac12aJhoArhfrac120J6CJaJhAhfrac126aJh߅ Ahfrac12]aJh$gthfrac120J6CJaJhfrac120JCJaJ hfrac12aJhAhfrac120JCJaJhAhfrac12aJhAhfrac12aJ4`aordmraquofrac14frac12LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdVraquo$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyuml[yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlfrac12frac34|~LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd9frac14$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlsup2sup3LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdfrac12$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlsup3acuteklmLCCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdyumlfrac12$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlAEligĆņLCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlņƆyumlLCCCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdſ$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyuml
yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlMNOPLCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kduml$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlPQLCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlLCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdn$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml^_`aLCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdQ$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlab6789LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd4$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml9 LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml9 0BDEEcircŊƊNJȊɊcopyordflaquoordmfrac14ˌΌ Ռ ڌی wnh`h(hfrac125 hfrac12aJhThfrac12aJhAhfrac120J6CJaJhfrac120J6CJaJh3whfrac12aJmH sH hAhfrac12 aJmH sH hfrac12aJmH sH hAhfrac120JltCJaJh3whfrac12aJhAhfrac126aJhAhfrac12aJ hfrac12aJhAhfrac120JCJaJh Ahfrac12aJ iexclBCDLCCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlregyumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlDEgEcircĊŊLCCCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlŊNJȊɊordflaquoCsup3kd$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml $Ifgdfrac12Ό LCCCC $Ifgdfrac12sup3kdpound$$Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyumlfrac14yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml $LG$Ifgdfrac12lyuml$a$gdfrac12ampgdfrac12sup3kd ڌی $Ifl
yumlyumlyumlyuml(yumlfrac14laquo- 7Yu t
yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml 7WXyz~)7Ppcurrenraquoȏ ߏ
$=gtBRV[ilmpyen λβΨΞΕΞ hfrac126aJhhfrac12aJhSFQhfrac126aJhhfrac126aJh(Fhfrac12 Ի ԻԻԻaJhhfrac126aJh1
hfrac12aJ hfrac12aJhhfrac12aJ jhhfrac120J5UaJ hfrac125aJhhfrac125aJ8 7Xyz
6parakdi$$Ifl
yuml 7cK t
yuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml$Ifgdfrac12lyuml 6parakd$$Ifl
yuml 7cK t
yuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml$Ifgdfrac12lyuml =gt6parakd$$Ifl
yuml 7cK t
yuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml$Ifgdfrac12lyumlgtRSklm6parakd $$Ifl
yuml 7cK t
yuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml$Ifgdfrac12lyumlmacrdeg6parakd$$Ifl
yuml 7cK t
yuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml$Ifgdfrac12lyuml macrdegacuteltJdow|yen macrdegsup3DEGJT]^_bz OcircĔŔƔɔ3ltACFPWXZ[^56paraordmĖordmplusmnumlh+hfrac12aJhSFQhfrac12aJhsecthfrac12aJh hfrac126aJhSFQhfrac126aJ hfrac126aJhhfrac12aJhhfrac126aJhhfrac12aJ hfrac12aJBt6parakd $$Ifl
yuml 7cK t
yuml76yumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml44 lapyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyumlyuml$Ifgdfrac12lyumltmacrdegF6parakdlaquo$$Ifl