Visual Representations as Carriers and Symbols
of Organizational Knowledge
Alice Comi
Università della Svizzera Italiana, IMCA institute
Via G. Buffi 13
CH-6904 Lugano (Switzerland)
+41(0)586664632
alice.comi@usi.ch
Martin J. Eppler
University of St. Gallen, =mcm institute
Blumenbergplatz 9
CH-9000 St. Gallen (Switzerland)
+41(0)712243490
martin.eppler@unisg.ch
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we conceptualize visual representations (e.g.,
sketches, CAD drawings, and prototypes) as µartifacts of know-
ing¶ serving the purposes to share, transform, and symbolize or-
ganizational knowledge. First, we propose a comprehensive def-
inition of visual representations by integrating insights from the
literature domains of knowledge management and organizational
culture. Building on the reviewed literature, we then develop a
conceptual framework that articulates the visualization process
in terms of a cyclical pathway between the for m ats (e.g., from
sketches to prototypes) and the functions (e.g., from knowledge
sharing to knowledge symbolization) of visual representations.
After suggesting managerial recommendations for the use of
visual representations in organizational knowledge management,
we conclude our paper by pointing out the limitations of the cur-
rent literature, and by suggesting directions for future research
on visual knowledge management.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
M.0, M.4, M.8
General Terms
Management, Design, Human Factors, Theory.
Keywords
Visual representations, boundary objects, symbolic artifacts,
conscription devices, organizational culture, knowledge man-
agement, knowledge visualization, visualization software, de-
sign engineering.
1. INTRODUCTION
A prime objective of knowledge management is to make
knowledge visible , and therefore more accessible, tangible and
valuable to members of an organization. As suggested by Eppler
and Burkhard [8], the emerging field of knowledge visualization
examines the use of visual representations to improve
knowledge management at the individual, team, and organiza-
tional levels. In this paper, we use the term visual representa-
tions to designate all the graphic means used to construct, share,
and transform knowledge in organizational settings .
We structure our paper as follows: First, we provide a definition
RI?YLVXDO?UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV?E\?GUDZLQJ?RQ?:K\WH?HW?DO?¶V?[29, 30]
concept of visual fluidity. We then discuss different theoretical
perspectives on visual representations, making an attempt to
bridge the concepts of boundary objects and sy m bols ± as devel-
oped in the literature streams on knowledge management and
organizational culture. On the one hand, the literature on
knowledge management ± and knowledge visualization in par-
ticular ± has focused primarily on functional aspects, such as the
advantages and disadvantages of different formats for visual rep-
resentation [2, 9, 22]. On the other hand, the literature on organ-
izational culture has interpreted visual representations as sy m –
bolic artifacts , namely as µvisual reifications¶ of organizational
values and assumptions [6, 13, 24].
By integrating different theoretical perspectives, we intend to
provide a comprehensive conceptualization of visual representa-
tions that takes into consideration functional, material, and sym-
bolic components. We thus develop a conceptual framework that
articulates the visualization processes occurring during interac-
tions among organizational actors. In particular, we describe the
visualization process in terms of a cyclical pathway between the
for m ats (e.g., from sketches to prototypes) and the functions
(e.g., from knowledge sharing to knowledge symbolization) of
visual representations.
To illustrate our conceptual framework, we focus on the organi-
zational domain of design engineering ± a broad term that co-
vers multiple disciplines such as building, mechanical, and
product engineering. In design engineering, visual representa-
tions are central to the work activity and represent the outcome
of a knowledge-intensive process. Therefore, this domain is par-
ticularly suitable for the purposes of understanding visual repre-
VHQWDWLRQV?DV?µDUWLIDFWV?RI?NQRZLQJ¶??:H?EHJLQ?E\?SURSRVLQJ?D?
typology of visual representations used in design engineering,
and we subsequently present an illustrative case of visualization
practices in such a domain.
Finally, we discuss the managerial implications of our conceptu-
al framework and ± recognizing the increasing relevance of
computer support in a variety of domains ± we provide recom-
mendations for improving the use of visualization software. We
conclude our paper by pointing out the limitations of the current
literature, and by suggesting possible avenues for future re-
search.
2. DEFINITIONS AND THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON VISUAL REPRE-
SENTATIONS
2.1 Which Visual Representations? µFluid¶
versus µFrozen¶ Visuals
With a few exceptions [8, 9, 29, 30], scholars have used the term
µYLVXDO? UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ¶? LQ? D? EURDG? VHQVH?? QHJOHFWLQJ? LPSRUWDQW?
differences between visualization types. Among the few excep-
tions, Eppler and Burkhard [8] acknowledge that visual repre-
sentations may serve different functions , depending on the for-
m at used for representing knowledge. Whyte et al. [29] further
suggest to GLVWLQJXLVK?EHWZHHQ?µIOXLG¶?DQG?µIUR]HQ¶?YLVXDO?for-
mats: Fluid visuals are dynamically altered throughout the dis-
cursive practice, whereas frozen visuals remain unchanged while
being discussed by organizational participants. However, the
GLVWLQFWLRQ?EHWZHHQ?µIOXLG¶?DQG?µIUR]HQ¶?LV?QRW?DEVROXWH??EXW?Ua-
ther is a matter of degrees, with grey zones in between the ex-
treme ends of the continuum. Furthermore, practitioners can en-
JDJH?LQ?WKH?DFWLRQV?RI?µIUHH]LQJ¶?DQG?µXQIUHH]LQJ¶?YLVXDO?formats
to pursue diverse purposes in their work activity [29]. For ex-
ample, D?µWDONLQJ?VNHWFK¶?GUDZQ?VLPXOWDQHRXVO\?E\?WZR?RU?PRUH?
HQJLQHHUV?PD\?EH?IUR]HQ?LQWR?D?µTXLFN?DQG?GLUW\¶?SURWRW\SH?? L?H???
a prototype that is not created from precise design specifications
but rather is assembled from provisionary materials to approxi-
mate the final product) [17]. While fluid visuals are more suita-
ble for framing problems and exploring solutions, frozen visuals
enable keeping a legitimate record of, and winning commitment
to the negotiated solutions [29]. In the next paragraphs, we pro-
ceed by reviewing theoretical perspectives on visual representa-
tions, as elaborated in the literature domains on knowledge man-
agement and organizational culture. As we will see below,
knowledge scholars have defined visual representations as
boundary objects, while organizational scholars ± in particular
symbolic interpretivists ± have favored a symbolic perspective
on visual representations.
2.2 Visual Representations as Boundary Ob-
jects
According to Star and Griesemer [27], boundary objects are ro-
bust enough to maintain a common identity across knowledge
domains, yet plastic enough to adapt to the needs and constraints
of the diverse actors employing them. As exemplified by Fuji-
mura [12], the concept of gene can be understood as a boundary
object, for carrying common meaning across biology, pharmacy,
and finance, while also receiving idiosyncratic connotations in
each discursive arena. Being weakly structured in common use,
and strongly structured in individual use, boundary objects facil-
itate knowledge integration across different work practices [27].
Drawing on the seminal work by Star and Griesemer [27], Car-
lile [3] distinguishes three types of boundary objects: First, re-
positories (e.g., cost databases) supply a common set of data,
therefore working as reference points for coordinating different
activities. Second, standardized for m s and m ethods (e.g., engi-
neering change forms), provide a shared format for discussing,
and solving problems across functional departments. Third, ob-
jects, m odels, and m aps DUH?³VLPSOH?RU?FRPSOH[?UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV?
that can be observed and then used across different functional
VHWWLQJV´ [3]. In particular, m aps ± broadly defined as Gantt
charts, process maps, and workflow matrices ± help clarify the
knowledge differences and dependencies among organizational
functions. According to Carlile, objects, models, and maps ± and
hence visual representations ± are the only category of boundary
objects that enable not only to share, but also to negotiate differ-
ent understandings. In effect, in order to apply and transform the
knowledge used at a boundary, individuals must be able ³to
draw on , alter , or m anipulate the content of a boundary object´
[3] ± a function supported by objects, models, and maps.
Whereas Carlile [3] suggests that ³sketches, assembly drawings,
prototype assemblies, mock-ups, and computer simulationV´ all
support knowledge sharing and transformation, Henderson [18]
argues that fixed drawings ± such as computer aided designs ±
are too rigid in order to work as boundary objects. In her studies
on design engineering, Henderson proposes to consider only
flexible drawings as boundary objects or, in her words, as µcon-
scription devices¶ ± a term that captures the interactive nature of
visual elements used in collaborative processes [16-18].
While we acknowledge that fluid visuals ± by virtue of their
greater malleability ± are more apt for transforming knowledge
at a boundary, we refrain from categorically excluding frozen
visuals from the definition of boundary object. For example,
CAD drawings can be co-constructed in collaborative settings,
and interaction with prototypes may enhance knowledge by
means of providing a sensorial experience. Moreover, the dis-
tinction between frozen and fluid formats is rather nuanced, and
the processes of freezing and unfreezing are strictly intertwined
in a continuous cycle. As we will discuss below, we nevertheless
recognize that frozen visuals, such as clean drawings, computer
designs, and final prototypes, results out of the process of
knowledge sharing, and hence are more suitable to embody, rep-
resent and sy m bolize the collective knowledge of organizational
actors.
2.3 Visual Representations as Symbolic Ob-
jects
In the literature on organizational culture, visual representations
are usually classified within the broad categories of artifacts and
sy m bols . According to Schein [26], artifacts are grounded in
values and assumptions, and represent the most visible, tangible,
and audible aspects of organizational culture. Organizational
culture can be explained with an iceberg metaphor: On the sur-
face are artifacts, below artifacts lie values (i.e., guiding princi-
ples) and at the basis are assumptions (i.e., taken-for-granted
beliefs). As an example, Yakura [31] argues that visual artifacts
such as PowerPoint SUHVHQWDWLRQV? ³FDUU\? FXOWXUDO? FRGHV? WKDW?
FRPPXQLFDWH?DQG?UHLQIRUFH?YDOXHV?DQG?DVVXPSWLRQV´??
Apparently similar to artifacts, sy m bols are defined as anything
that points to a higher-level concept or meaning [15]. Eisenberg
and Riley [6] and Gioia [13] provided an exhaustive record of
organizational symbols, including visual representations such as
charts, images, and metaphors. While symbols and artifacts are
indistinguishable as regards their physical forms [15], symbols
are loaded with, and carry on meaning. In other words, symbols
are not merely representations of values and assumptions, but
also means of sensemaking and sensegiving [4, 15, 25]. As re-
ported by Hatch [15], Cohen [4] argued that symbols ³do more
than merely stand for or represent something else … they also
allow those who employ them to supply part of their meaning´.
In her study on the dynamics of organizational culture, Hatch
[15] further clarifies the distinction and the inter-connection be-
tween artifacts and symbols, by introducing the concept of pro-
spective and retrospective symbolization. At first, organizational
actors can engage in prospective sy m bolization by loading an
DUWLIDFW¶V?literal meaning (e.g., a mahogany desk) with a higher-
level meaning (e.g., social status) that reaches beyond, and sur-
rounds the material domain. In turn, organizational actors can
engage in retrospective sy m bolization , by re-constructing the
artifact as a physical object on the basis of their symbolic
memory. Hatch [15] IXUWKHU?DUJXHV?WKDW?³DUWLIDFWV?PXVW?EH?WUDQs-
lated into symbols if they are to be apprehended as culturally
VLJQLILFDQW?REMHFWV??HYHQWV?RU?GLVFRXUVHV?«?DOWKRXJK?DOO?DUWLIDFWV?
can be symbolized, not all will be, at least not all times and
SODFHV??IRU?DOO?RUJDQL]DWLRQDO?PHPEHUV´??
Building on our literature review, we argue that frozen visuals
are more likely to carry symbolic meaning, being the product of
collective sensemaking, and reflecting the shared experience of
organizational actors. Fluid visuals, by contrast, are employed in
the process of collaborative interaction, and are flexibly manipu-
lated for the co-construction of meaning. As we will discuss be-
low??+DWFK¶V?[15] concept of prospective and retrospective sym-
bolization parallels :K\WH?HW?DO?¶V?[29] notion of freezing and
unfreezing. In turn, these coupling concepts lay the ground for
the development of an integrative framework where visual rep-
resentations are conceived as both boundary and symbolic ob-
jects.
3. AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK OF
VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS
In the previous section, we have described visual representations
through the theoretical perspectives of knowledge management
and organizational culture. In this section, we propose an inte-
grative conceptualization of visual representations, by bridging
the notions of boundary and symbolic objects. In doing so, we
also attempt to capture the dynamics of visualization in organi-
zational settings by articulating the processes of freezing and
unfreezing, prospective and retrospective symbolization of visu-
al representations (Figure 1).
As shown in Figure 1, we suggest a cyclical pathway between
boundary and symbolic objects, occurring through iterative pro-
cesses of freezing and unfreezing, prospective and retrospective
symbolization. At first, visual representations are co-created in
interaction, and serve the primary purposes of sharing and trans-
forming knowledge across boundaries. As suggested by Carlile
[3], visual representations act as boundary objects , enabling ac-
tors to negotiate their knowledge for the co-development of
shared understanding. Since the process of knowledge transfor-
mation at a boundary requires to interactively draw on, alter, or
manipulate objects, we argue that fluid visuals , such as sketches,
are most suitable to act as boundary objects . Towards the end of
their interaction, participants will refine, and formalize their
shared knowledge into frozen visuals, such as clean drawings
( freezing process ). At the same time, participants will load the
final object with symbolic meaning, and will elaborate symbolic
memories of their collaborative interaction ( prospective sy m bol-
ization ). As mentioned above, frozen visuals are more likely to
work as sy m bols , since they embody the collective meaning de-
veloped by organizational actors. During subsequent interac-
tions, physical contact with the frozen materials may provide
further insights, and require participants to revert to fluid visuals
in order to renegotiate, and refine their common understandings
( unfreezing process ). At this stage, actors are likely to give more
emphasis to the physical components of the visual object, there-
by engaging in a process of retrospective sy m bolization . In this
conceptual framework, visual representaWLRQV?FDQ?EH?VHHQ?DV?µDr-
WLIDFWV?RI?NQRZLQJ¶?± an expression we borrow from Ewenstein
and Whyte [10] ± since they are carriers and at the same time
sy m bols of organizational knowledge. In the next section, we
illustrate our conceptual framework by making reference to de-
sign engineering, and suggesting possible applications to other
knowledge-intensive domains.
4. VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS IN
WORK PRACTICES
4.1 A Typology of Visual Representations in
Design Engineering
In this paragraph, we propose a classification of the types of vis-
ual formats used in design engineering, ordered from the most
(i.e., sketches), to the least fluid (i.e., prototypes). As classifica-
tion principle, we therefore adopt the concept of visual fluidity
[29], or (as alternative terms for the same idea) modifiability
[19], flexibility [18], or viscosity [14].
S ketches . Sketches are hand-drawings assisting the primary pur-
poses of knowledge exploration, externalization, and refinement
[18, 30]. As pointed out by Eppler and Pfister [7]??³VNHWFKLQJ?
can be considered as a tool of thought that enables the mind to
FDSWXUH? WKLQJV?ZKLFK? DUH? LQ? IOX[? DQG? LWHUDWLYHO\? UHILQH? WKHP´??
Therefore, sketches are used to try out new ideas, to compare
DOWHUQDWLYHV?DQG??PRVW?LPSRUWDQWO\??WR?FDSWXUH?µIOHHWLQJ?WKRXJKWV¶?
on paper [21]. In design engineering, a distinction is made be-
tween conceptual and technical sketching [11]: The conceptual
sketch ± as an external fixation of ideas ± is used to guide non-
verbal thinking, and to provide the early specification of the de-
sign concept. The technical sketch (Figure 2) reproduces the
form and function of the final product, and is used in a subse-
quent stage of the design process to direct a draftsman in making
a finished drawing. While sketches are often drawn for individu-
al thinking, several authors document the collaborative use of
sketches [7, 11, 17, 21, 28]. Talking sketches ± co-constructed
by engineers passing one pen back and forth [17] ± are used to
clarify, discuss, and negotiate complex aspects of the design
concept [11, 21, 28]. By virtue of their collaborative and infor-
mal mode, talking sketches enable participants to engage in an
RSHQ?GLDORJXH??DQG?WR?DFWLYHO\?OLVWHQ?HDFK?RWKHU¶V?YLHZSRLQW?
Unfreezing
Retrospective symbolization
Freezing
Prospective symbolization
Fluid visuals
Boundary
Object
Symbolic
Object
Frozen visuals
Figure 1. An integrative framework of
visual representations as artifacts of knowing
Figure 2. Technical sketch of a four-storey building: A rela-
tively fluid visual (Source: [1]).
CAD drawings . CAD (i.e., computer-aided design) is the use of
computer technology for the detailed drawing of physical ob-
jects (e.g., buildings, products, machines). While sketches focus
on relatively few issues at a time, CAD drawings can encompass
multiple layers of complexity, and are usually integrated with
computerized data bases [1, 18]. CAD drawings present differ-
ent formats, from two-di m ensional , plain representations to
three-di m ensional , highly realistic renderings (Figure 3). 2D and
3D CAD software are often used in combination: The first ena-
bles the designer to actually draw the object from technical
sketches, and the second to show how such an object will ulti-
mately look like. Being nearly perfect representations of the fi-
nal product, CAD drawings are fixed in nature, and can be de-
ILQHG? DV? WKH? ³RIILFLDOO\? UHFRJQL]HG? FDUULHUV? RI? GHVLJQ? LQIRr-
PDWLRQ´?[18]. However, CAD drawings present little materiality,
at least in comparison to prototypes, and can therefore be modi-
fied with a certain easiness, by means of either hand-drawn
notes or computer-made revisions. With an example from the
architectural practice, Bendixen and Koch [1] QRWH??³’XULQJ?WKH?
briefing [with the client], a storey of a building can be added or
deleted through a few CAD operations. Since the negotiations
DUH?RQ?DQ?µDSSHDUDQFH?OHYHO¶?RI?WKH?EXLOGLQJ??WKLV?FDQ?EH?GRQH?
swiIWO\?«?ZLWKRXW?ORVLQJ?VXEVWDQWLDO?DPRXQW?RI?GHVLJQ?ZRUN´??
CAD drawings ± especially 3D ± thus seem to be particularly
suitable in an advanced phase of the project work, when the core
concept has already been developed and only needs to be re-
fined.
Figure 3. 3D CAD drawing of a four-storey building: A rela-
tively frozen visual (Source: [1]).
Prototypes . Prototypes are three-dimensional representations of
the final product (e.g., building), and can thus be considered as
physical models. As pointed out by Henderson and Law [17,
20], prototypes are frozen materials, with the exception that
working parts can be cut to make the object slightly smaller. In
order to actually manipulate the prototype, designers must revert
WR?SDSHU?UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV??LQ?D?µPHWDPRUSKLF?G\DG¶?EHWZHHQ?Rb-
ject and paper [17]. Within the broad category of prototypes, we
can nevertheless identify different degrees of fluidity, as sug-
JHVWHG?E\?+HQGHUVRQ¶V?[17] distinction between quick and dirty
versus pre-production prototypes . In any case, the very interac-
tion with a plastic object provides actors with affordances for
envisioning changes, refinements, and improvements to the final
SURGXFW??,Q?WKH?ZRUGV?RI?+HQGHUVRQ??³WKH?SURWRW\SH?LV?ERWK?WKH?
source of old knowledge, and a vehicle for generating new
NQRZOHGJH´?[17].
4.2 An Illustrative Example of the Integra-
tive Framework
An example adapted from Henderson [17] may be useful to il-
lustrate our integrative framework of visual representations as
µartifacts of knowing¶: Henderson observed an engineering pro-
ject carried out at a company manufacturing high-precision min-
iature lenses. In this project, the designers were requested to cre-
ate an innovative medical instrument to be used by surgeons to
implant tiny lenses into the human eye. In the following para-
JUDSKV??ZH?UHYLVLW?+HQGHUVRQ¶V?FDVH?VWXG\?WKURXJK?WKH?FRQFHSWu-
al lenses offered by our integrative framework.
As reported by Henderson, the first documentation of design
ideas emerged from µsketching conversations¶ between a techni-
cian, a drafter, and the project engineer. The importance of the
first set of drawings was expressed by a consultant in mold in-
jection techniques: ³$s soon as the first sketches are shown to
another pair of eyes, suggestions for changes start. Ideas ex-
pressed only verbally can be forgotten, but once they are made
specific through concrete depiction they gain in stature´. The
first sketches helped organize the team interaction, while also
FODULI\LQJ?WKH?GHVLJQHUV¶?LGHDV?ZLWK?UHVSHFW?WR?WKH general vision
of management and other departments. This narrative shows
how fluid visuals (i.e., sketches) work as boundary objects , by
facilitating the construction of shared meaning across functional
boundaries.
After several iterations from sketches to drawings and back, a
pre-production prototype was assembled to simulate the appear-
ance, and the functioning of the final product. At this stage, the
visual material had already undergone a major trajectory of
transformation, and become stable in a fixed format. The proto-
type went through a series of trials in order to be compliant with
the highest standards for use in medical practice. At the same
time, advocates and adversaries alike ± among them investors,
lawyers, and surgeons ± had to be convinced about the viability
RI?WKH?ILQDO?SURGXFW??,Q?+HQGHUVRQ¶V?ZRUGV??the prototype en-
tered ³the competitive world of corporate capitalism in a role
that is a mix of political organizer, heroic survivor of innumera-
ble trials, and recruiting sergeant´??This account illustrates the
process of freezing , whereby fluid visuals (i.e., sketches and
drawings) are turned into frozen visuals (i.e., pre-production
prototype). At the same time, Henderson suggests that the proto-
type was loaded with symbolic meaning, taking on the political
connotation of a consensus and network builder ( prospective
sy m bolization ).
In the conclusive section of her narrative, Henderson describes a
further metamorphosis of the visual material: ³When members
attended the meetings, their introduction to the prototype ap-
peared successful « However, as members went back to their
own departments, other interests took higher priorities, and
problems arouse in the transition from the prototype to product.
As the design concepts remain unmalleable when molded into
plastic, designers had to return to paper representations to access
the flexibility of sketches´? This account illustrates the process
of unfreezing visual representations from frozen to fluid formats,
and at the same time suggests how organizational actors gained
an increased awareness of the material components of visual
artifacts, through a process of retrospective sy m bolization .
4.3 Further Applications
While our case illustration is focused on the domain of design
engineering, the conceptual framework in Figure 1 is applicable
to a variety of work practices. In fact, the cyclical pathway be-
tween fluid and frozen visuals ± and the associated processes of
prospective and retrospective symbolization ± applies to all
knowledge-intensive activities. In project management, the con-
ceptual sketch of a timeline can be iteratively refined by organi-
zational participants, and ultimately frozen into a Gantt chart to
be included in a business report. In business planning, entrepre-
neurs FDQ? MRLQWO\? GLVFXVV? DQG? GHVLJQ? WKH? FRPSDQ\¶V? EXVLQHVV?
model, starting with a conceptual sketch and ending with a pol-
ished drawing to be used for communication with venture capi-
talists (freezing process). If venture capitalists request revisions
to the comSDQ\¶V?EXVLQHVV?PRGHO??WKH?HQWUHSUHQHXULDO?WHDP may
revert to fluid visuals for capturing, and incorporating additional
elements into the business model design (unfreezing process). In
the freezing process, the business model design is likely to be
loaded with symbolic connotations, being the object of intense
discussions and possible conflict among the members of the en-
trepreneurial team. In the unfreezing process, the business model
design is progressively decomposed into its building blocks,
therefore reassuming a pragmatic and material connotation. In
addition, the entrepreneurs may use visualization tools to facili-
tate business planning, very much like engineers use CAD soft-
ware as a support to the design process. As an example, the
business model canvas (Figure 4) by Osterwalder and Pigneur
[23] is a visual template showing the constitutive elements of a
business model. This hands-on tool can be printed out on a large
poster and filled with post-it notes and board markers in a busi-
ness meeting context.
Figure 4. The business model canvas (Source: [23])
As a visual representation, the business model canvas represents
an intermediary degree of fluidity: On the one hand, a relatively
frozen background provides a graphic setting for knowledge
mapping. On the other hand, relatively fluid items are interac-
tively mapped by organizational participants within such a set-
ting. The business model canvas may be used also in combina-
tion with electronic support ± e.g., loaded as a file in a visualiza-
tion software or used as an application on an electronic tablet ±
therefore acquiring a more frozen aspect in its final, printed ver-
sion.
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Conclusion
In this paper, we have developed a conceptual framework of
visual representations in work practices, by integrating the theo-
retical perspectives of organizational culture and knowledge
management. At first, we have proposed a definition of visual
formats, by introducing :K\WH?HW?DO?¶V?[29] distinction between
fluid and frozen visuals. Afterwards, we have described visual
representations through the theoretical lenses of boundary and
sy m bolic objects . Therefore, we have developed an integrative
conceptualization which takes into consideration both the mate-
rial, and the symbolic meaning of visual representations. Draw-
ing on the concepts of freezing and unfreezing [29], and on the
notions of prospective and retrospective sy m bolization [15], we
have proposed a dynamic model to articulate the material, and
symbolic transformations of visual representations throughout
collaborative processes. Finally, we have illustrated our concep-
tual approach by proposing examples from diverse work practic-
es, most notably design engineering. Although our paper re-
mains conceptual in nature, in the next section we derive a few
managerial implications and recommendations for the use of
visualization software. We conclude by pointing out the limita-
tions of the current literature, and suggest avenues for future re-
search on visual representations DV?µDUWLIDFWV?RI?NQRZLQJ¶.
5.2 Managerial Implications
The application of our integrative framework should increase
managerV¶ sensitivity to the political and symbolic connotations
of visual representations. In this regard, managers should know-
ingly use frozen visuals to secure the commitment of supporters,
and to prevent political maneuvering on the part of detractors.
As suggested above, in the transition from fluid to frozen the
visual integrates layers of knowledge, and at the same time be-
comes a political actor by virtue of its definitive shape. Howev-
er, managers should not abuse the persuasive power of frozen
visuals to garner political support. Rather, they should strive for
balanced decision-making, by enabling organizational actors to
get access, and give shape to fluid visuals.
Furthermore, the application of our conceptual framework may
lead managers to fine-tune their use of visual representations,
and in turn to increase the productivity of their work practices.
As an example, meeting facilitators should use fluid visuals dur-
ing the initial stages of a collaborative negotiation, and promote
the transition to frozen visuals only when the participants have
reached common understanding and consensus. While a few it-
erations between fluid and frozen visuals may be unavoidable, a
premature shift to frozen materials may be time consuming, and
increase the risk of power conflict among participants.
Finally, our conceptual work has implications for improving
software support: In design engineering, the early use of CAD
software may provoke premature commitment to an imperfect
product, and produce a waste of time ± given the need to revert
to fluid visuals, re-conceptualize the design features, and build
consensus around the revised design [16, 17]. In business meet-
ings, visualization software is often used during the initial stages
of a collaborative project, yet the software functionalities may at
times be too rigid to facilitate brainstorming, team building, and
shared understanding. Moreover, the background templates pro-
vided by visualization software ± as the business model canvas
in Figure 4 ± may induce participants to neglect topics that are
not displayed on the template labels. In effect, pre-fabricated
templates provide an affordance to fill out empty categories,
therefore inducing team members to jump into the task at hand,
without taking the time to go through a more open reflection
process [5]. As software is becoming increasingly relevant in a
variety of work practices and tends to be used throughout all the
stages of a collaborative project, it is important to integrate both
freezing and unfreezing mechanisms in the software design, and
to provide users with guidance in the selection of ready-made
templates. For example, Visio has a layering functionality
whereby the user can freeze previous layers, and fluidly add fur-
ther layers. The software package of lHW¶V?IRFXV?KDV?D?VFUHHQVKRW?
functionality, which works as a freezing mechanism whereby
the user can capture a given moment in time. In the design of
CAD systems, a real challenge consists of integrating fluid visu-
alization ± such as the sketching activity ± to support concept
development. While sketching packages are already available,
CAD systems still have a long way to go before they can repro-
duce the naturalness of pen and paper sketching. Nevertheless,
the integration of design activities in a software environment
would enable users to combine the immediacy of freehand
sketching with the advantages of storage facility, faster search,
durability and permanence offered by computer support.
5.3 Limitations and Directions for Future
Research
In this paper, we have made an attempt to integrate different lit-
erature streams, namely organizational culture and knowledge
management, including the emerging field of knowledge visual-
ization. We have seen the potential of integrating them, since we
have recognized the limitations of both the theoretical perspec-
tives, and the possibility of developing a more comprehensive
view on the same object of study. On the one hand, the literature
on knowledge management and visualization has largely ne-
glected the sy m bolic connotations of the visual artifacts used in
collaborative settings. On the other hand, the literature on organ-
izational culture has emphasized the symbolic component of
visual artifacts, while also recognizing the need to appreciate
their material dimension [15]. Even so, this literature stream has
failed to consider visual representations as a distinct type of or-
ganizational symbols, and to appreciate the functional i m plica-
tions of using different visual formats. Therefore, visual repre-
sentations have been inserted within broad categories, together
with completely different symbols ± such as dress codes, actions
and non-actions, and corporate stories [13]. Not surprisingly, the
literature on organizational culture ± and symbolic interpre-
tivism in particular ± has completely neglected differences in the
fluidity, or m alleability of visual materials. While we have made
an attempt to bridge the two literature streams around an integra-
tive definition of visual representations, we acknowledge the
limitations of our conceptual work, and accordingly point out
directions for future research:
First, our integrative framework is purely conceptual, and needs
to be refined through empirical research on the use of visual rep-
resentations in collaborative settings. Therefore, future research
should address the following questions: When do boundary ob-
jects become symbolic objects and vice versa? What are the in-
between states that such objects take during the transformation
process? Given the in-depth nature of the subject under study,
and considering the developmental stage of our conceptual
framework, we believe that qualitative, ethnographic methods ±
such as participant observations ± are most suitable for empirical
research.
Second, our re-reading of the case study by Henderson [17] sug-
gests that organizational symbols are far from receiving a unique
interpretation, and may be loaded with contradictory meanings.
While boundary objects enable the construction of a shared un-
derstanding across boundaries, the use of symbols seem to be
associated with power conflict . This may be the case, because
the rigidity of the visual material used in symbolic objects gives
less room for collaborative re-negotiations of meaning. We be-
lieve that this topic ± i.e., the linkage between symbolic objects
and power conflict, versus the linkage between boundary objects
and consensus seeking ± deserves further consideration, both in
terms of conceptual refinement and empirical observation.
Finally, whereas the integrative framework has a wide applica-
bility, the typology of visual representations is somewhat idio-
syncratic to the domain taken into consideration ± in our case,
design engineering. Interested scholars may consider extending
our work, by applying our conceptual approach to other do-
mains. In Section 4.3, we have suggested further applications to
the domains of project management and business planning, but
the broad domains of arts, business, and science are all valid test
EHGV? IRU? WKH? VWXG\? RI? YLVXDO? UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV? DV? ³DUWLIDFWV? RI?
knowLQJ´?
6. REFERENCES
[1] Bendixen, M. and Koch, C. Negotiating visualizations in
briefing and design. Build. Res. Inf., 35, 1 (2007), 42-53.
[2] Bresciani, S. and Eppler, M. J. The Risks of Visualization: a
Classification of Disadvantages Associated with Graphic Repre-
sentations of Information. In Schulz, P. J., Hartung, U. and Kel-
ler, S. eds. Identität und Vielfalt der Ko mm unikations-
wissenschaft. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Konstanz (Ger-
many), 2009, 165-178.
[3] Carlile, P. R. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Bounda-
ries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organiza-
tion Science, 13, 4 (2002), 442-455.
[4] Cohen, A. P. The sy m bolic construction of co mm unity.
Tavistock Publications & Ellis Horwood Ltd, London, 1985.
[5] Comi, A. and Eppler, M. J. Assessing the Impact of Visual
Facilitation on Inter-Organizational Collaboration: an Experi-
mental Study. Journal of Universal Computer Science, (forth-
coming).
[6] Eisenberg, E. M. and Riley, P. Organizational symbols and
sense-making. In Goldhaber, G. M. and Barnett, G. A. eds.
Handbook of organizational co mm unication. Ablex, Norwood,
NJ, 1988, 131-150.
[7] Eppler, M. J. and Pfister, R. S ketching at Work: Visual Prob-
le m S olving and Co mm unication. =mcm institute, University of
St. Gallen, St. Gallen, CH, 2010.
[8] Eppler, M. J. and Burkhard, R. A. Visual representations in
knowledge management: framework and cases. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 11, 4 (2007), 112-122.
[9] Eppler, M. J. and Platts, K. W. Visual Strategizing: The Sys-
tematic Use of Visualization in the Strategic-Planning Process.
Long Range Plann., 42, 1 (2009), 42-74. DOI=DOI:
10.1016/j.lrp.2008.11.005.
[10] Ewenstein, B. and Whyte, J. K. Visual representations as
µDUWHIDFWV?RI?NQRZLQJ¶??%XLOGLQJ?Research and Information, 35,
1 (2007), 81-89.
[11] Ferguson, E. S. (QJLQHHULQJ?DQG?WKH?0LQG¶V?(\H??MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
[12] Fujimura, J. Crafting science: Standardized packages,
ERXQGDU\?REMHFWV??DQG?³WUDQVODWLRQ´??,Q?3LFNHULQJ??$??HG?? S cience
as practice and culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1992, 168-211.
[13] Gioia, D. A. Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking. In Sims,
H. P. ed. The thinking organization. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
1986, 49-74.
[14] Green, T. R. G. Cognitive dimensions of notations. In Sut-
cliffe, A. and Macaulay, L. eds. People and Co m puters V. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1989, 443-460.
[15] Hatch, M. J. The Dynamics of Organizational Culture. The
Academy of Management Review, 18, 4 (1993), pp. 657-693.
[16] Henderson, K. On Line and On Paper: Visual Representa-
tions, Visual Culture and Co m puter Graphics in Design Engi-
neering. MIT Press Inside Technology Series, 1999.
[17] Henderson, K. The Political Career of a Prototype: Visual
Representation in Design Engineering. Soc. Probl., 42, 2 (1995),
pp. 274-299.
[18] Henderson, K. Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases:
Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary
Objects in Design Engineering. Science, Technology, & Human
Values, 16, 4 (1991), pp. 448-473.
[19] Hundhausen, C. D. Using end-user visualization environ-
PHQWV?WR?PHGLDWH?FRQYHUVDWLRQV??D?µ&RPPXQLFDWLYH?’LPHQVLRQV¶?
framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 16, 3
(2005), 153-185. DOI=DOI: 10.1016/j.jvlc.2004.11.002.
[20] Law, J. The Olympus 320 Engine: A Case Study in Design,
Development, and Organizational Control. Technology and Cul-
ture, 33, 3 (1992), pp. 409-440.
[21] McGown, A., Green, G. and Rodgers, P. A. Visible ideas:
information patterns of conceptual sketch activity. Des Stud, 19,
4 (1998), 431-453. DOI=DOI: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00013-
1.
[22] Nicolini, D. Studying visual practices in construction.
Building Research and Information, 35, 5 (2007), 576-580.
[23] Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. Business m odel genera-
tion. BusinessModelGeneration.com, 2010.
[24] Ott, J. S. The organizational culture perspective.
Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, 1989.
[25] Rafaeli, A. and Worline, M. Symbols in organizational cul-
ture. In Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderolm, C. P. M. and Peterson,
M. F. eds. Handbook of organizational culture & cli m ate. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000.
[26] Schein, E. H. Organizational culture and leadership.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985.
[27] Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. Institutional Ecology,
‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Profession-
als in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc.
Stud. Sci., 19, 3 (1989), pp. 387-420.
[28] Tovey, M., Porter, S. and Newman, R. Sketching, concept
development and automotive design. Des Stud, 24, 2 (2003),
135-153. DOI=DOI: 10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00035-2.
[29] Whyte, J. K., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M. and Tidd, J. Visual
practices and the objects used in design. Building Research and
Information, 35, 1 (2007), 18-27.
[30] Whyte, J., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M. and Tidd, J. Visualiz-
ing Knowledge in Project-Based Work. Long Range Plann., 41,
1 (2008), 74-92. DOI=DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2007.10.006.
[31] Yakura, E. K. Considering Visual Artifacts in IT Cultures.
