Advertisement

Maintenance schedules as boundary objects for improved organizational reliability

  • Stéphanie TillementEmail author
  • Jan Hayes
Original Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Organizations that manage complex technologies use planning in various forms to determine priorities and structure work with the goal of controlling both production and system reliability. In addition to this purely functional view of planning, there is a social dimension that also has important system safety implications. Drawing on 53 semi-structured interviews with workers at a nuclear fuel processing plant, this paper addresses the role of the schedule for planned maintenance work. Characterizing the schedule as a boundary object highlights the socio-material dimension of high reliability organizing. It sheds light on the negotiation that takes place at the boundary between five worker groups around the schedule, which allows cooperation without the need for consensus thanks to the interpretive flexibility. Diversity of views is acknowledged, but resolved sufficiently. A ‘reliable’ schedule is one that is accurate enough to facilitate necessary conversations without providing unnecessary constraints. It is a balance between what should be brought to light and what should deliberately be left in the shadows. Yet, the possibility for the schedule to act as a boundary object and to support interdepartmental coordination and organizational reliability depends on organizational and occupational conditions. When managers see the schedule as an object of control, they seek to impose additional standardization. Taken to the extreme, introducing rigidity into the system is aimed at organizational invariance that HRO researchers warn is not the key to reliable operations. The role and legitimacy of planners is also discussed, as a safeguard against the schedule becoming a fantasy plan.

Keywords

Reliability Boundary objects Maintenance Planning Nuclear Schedules 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the RESOH chair who funded this study and especially Stéphanie Gentil who actively contributed to the collection and analysis of empirical data in the field. For their helpful comments and advice, we want to express our gratitude to the members of the RESOH operational committee. Finally, a special thank you goes to our informants at NucCo for their friendship and patience over the last 3 years.

References

  1. Baker J (2007) The report of the BP US Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel. http://sunnyday.mit.edu/Baker-panel-report.pdf
  2. Bechky BA (2003) Object lessons: workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. Am J Sociol 109:720–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourrier M (1996) Organising maintenance work at two American nuclear power plants. J Conting Crisis Manag 4:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourrier M (2002) Bridging research and practice: the challenge of ‘normal operations’ studies. J Conting Crisis Manag 10:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourrier M (2005) An interview with Karlene roberts. Eur Manag J 23:93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bucciarelli LL (1988) Engineering design process. In: Dubinskas FA (ed) Making time: ethnographies of high-technology organizations. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp 92–122Google Scholar
  7. Chang A, Hatcher C, Kim J (2013) Temporal boundary objects in megaprojects: mapping the system with the integrated master schedule. Int J Project Manag 31:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke L (1999) Mission improbable: using fantasy documents to tame disaster. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Corbin J, Strauss A (2014) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  10. Cullen (1990) The public inquiry into the piper alpha disaster. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Gautherau V, Hollnagel E (2005) Planning, control and adaptation: a case study. Eur Manag J 23:118–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes J, Hopkins A (2014) Nightmare pipeline failures: fantasy planning, black swans and integrity management. CCH, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  13. Journé B, Raulet-Croset N (2008) Le concept de situation: contribution à lʼanalyse de lʼactivité managériale dans un contexte dʼambiguïté et dʼincertitude. M@n@gement 11:27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McInerney P (2001) Final report of the special commission of inquiry into the Glenbrook Rail Accident. The Commission, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  15. Milch V, Laumann K (2018) Sustaining safety across organizational boundaries: a qualitative study exploring how interorganizational complexity is managed on a petroleum-producing installation. Cognition Technol Work 20:179–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0460-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mintzberg H (1994) The rise and fall of strategic planning: reconceiving roles for planning, plans and planners. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Oswick C, Robertson M (2009) Boundary objects reconsidered: from bridges and anchors to barricades and mazes. J Change Manag 9:179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Princetown University Press, PrincetownGoogle Scholar
  19. Roe E, Schulman PR (2016) Reliability and risk: the challenge of managing interconnected infrastructures. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Schulman PR (1993) The negotiated order of organizational rationality. Adm Soc 25:353–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schulman PR (2012) What in high reliability organizations (HRO) research might be useful in transmission planning? In Solan D, Wilson E, Kirschen D, Hargrave T, Lichtenstein B, Schulman P, Marcus A, Koehler D, Bearg L (eds) Regional electricity transmission planning in the west: workshop proceedings. Energy Policy Institute, pp 50–70. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2269403s
  22. Star SL (2002) Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: working on the fringes. Scand J Inf Syst 14:6Google Scholar
  23. Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:601–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertibrate zoology. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Starbuck WH, Farjoun M (2005) Organization at the limit: lessons from the Columbia disaster. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Trompette P, Vinck D (2009) Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 3:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vaughan D (1996) The challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Weick KE, Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm Sci Q 38:357–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2015) Managing the unexpected: assuring high performance in an age of complexity. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Windischer A, Grote G, Mathier F, Martins SM, Glardon R (2009) Characteristics and organizational constraints of collaborative planning. Cognition Technol Work 11:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yakura EK (2002) Charting time: timelines as temporal boundary objects. Acad Manag J 45:956–970Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IMT Atlantique, LEMNA, UBLNantes cedex 3France
  2. 2.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations