The Minimum Viable Boundary Object (MVBO): A Heuristic for the Threshold of Translational Stability in Heterogeneous Collaboration Networks

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/2300-1690.28.06

Keywords:

Minimum Viable Boundary Object (MVBO), Science and Technology Studies (STS), Actor-Network Theory (ANT), boundary objects, managing knowledge across boundaries, micro-mechanisms of translational failure, translational stability, critical failure studies

Abstract

The article proposes the Minimum Viable Boundary Object (MVBO) as a heuristic for the threshold of translational stability in heterogeneous collaboration networks. It starts from the premise that failure constitutes a normal operating condition of contemporary organisations functioning under neoliberal calculability. The theoretical contribution positions MVBO within the frameworks of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT), drawing on the concepts of boundary objects, boundary-negotiating artefacts, and knowledge management across epistemic boundaries. The heuristic enables early identification of micro-mechanisms of translational failure, reframing failure as an analytically productive moment of network work. The proposed concept is derived from findings of the author’s study on the social dimension of the TCRact project’s failure. The article concludes by outlining implications for research in STS and ANT and for design and implementation practices in complex organisational settings.

Author Biography

Łukasz Nowak, Ardigen, Kraków, Poland

Łukasz Nowak, mgr. inż. Moje zainteresowania naukowe koncentrują się wokół krytycznych studiów nad porażką w perspektywie socjologii wiedzy, w szczególności w kontekście studiów nad nauką i technologią (STS), teorii aktora-sieci (ANT), antropologii organizacji oraz etnografii laboratoriów. Interesuje mnie także biologia zorientowana na dane (data-centric biology) oraz praktyki (w tym infrastruktury) wytwarzania danych w biomedycynie. Pełniąc rolę COO w Ardigen odpowiadam za rozwój zespołów wspierających firmy farmaceutyczne w odkrywaniu nowych terapii, głównie w obszarze onkologii i chorób neurodegeneracyjnych – z wykorzystaniem sztucznej inteligencji (AI). Tym samym, w działaniu zawodowym, łączę perspektywy STS oraz ANT, teorii strukturacji i analizy ramowej z praktyką organizacyjną, starając się operacjonalizować wglądy badawcze w skuteczniejszą współpracę interdyscyplinarną. W centrum tych badań stoi krytyczne ujęcie porażki jako immanentnej, wytwarzanej i podtrzymywanej w praktykach konstrukcji, wpisanej w nowoczesne organizacje wytwarzające wiedzę w warunkach neoliberalnych reżimów działania.

References

Abriszewski, K. (2012). Poznanie, zbiorowość, polityka: Analiza teorii Aktora-Sieci Bruno Latoura. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych Universitas.
View in Google Scholar

Afeltowicz, Ł. (2012). Modele, artefakty, kolektywy: Praktyka badawcza w perspektywie współczesnych studiów nad nauką. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. doi:10.12775/978-83-231-5670-3
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.12775/978-83-231-5670-3

Akrich, M. (1992). The De-scription of technical objects. W: W. E. Bijker & J. Law (red.), Shaping technology / building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (ss. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
View in Google Scholar

Barbera, F., & Jones, I. R. (2024). Introduction: Failed! The sociological analysis of failure, Sociologica, 17(3), 1–5. doi:10.6092/issn.1971-8853/18960
View in Google Scholar

Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor, Organization Science, 14(3), 307–339. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162

Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001

Callon, M. (2014). Wprowadzenie do socjologii translacji. Udomowienie przegrzebków i rybacy znad zatoki Saint-Brieuc (M. A. Chojnacka, Tłum.). W: E. Bińczyk & A. Derra (red.), Studia nad nauką i technologią: Wybór tekstów (s. 289–330). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK.
View in Google Scholar

Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries, Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094

Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as “epistemic objects”, Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30. doi:10.1177/0170840608083014
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608083014

Firestein, S. (2016). Failure: Why science is so successful. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
View in Google Scholar

Firestein, S. (2023). How science fails successfully. W: A. Mica, M. Pawlak, A. Horolets i P. Kubicki (red.), Routledge international handbook of failure (ss. 416–421). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429355950-35
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429355950-35

Gądecki, J., Afeltowicz, Ł., Morawska, I., & Anielska, K. (2023). How to study infrastructure: Methodological remarks in the context of the pandemic and its impact on city design, Avant, 14(2), 1–24. doi:10.26913/avant.2020.03.20
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.26913/avant.2020.03.20

Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. W: W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. Pinch (red.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (ss. 51–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
View in Google Scholar

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039681

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
View in Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2010). Splatając na nowo to, co społeczne. Wprowadzenie do teorii Aktora-Sieci (A. Derra & K. Abriszewski, Tłum.). Kraków: Universitas. (Oryginalne wydanie opublikowano w 2005)
View in Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2013). Technologia jako utrwalone społeczeństwo (Ł. Afeltowicz, Tłum.), Avant. Pismo awangardy filozoficzno-naukowej, 4(1), 17–48. doi:10.12849/40102013.0106.0002
View in Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2014). Dajcie mi laboratorium, a poruszę świat (K. Abriszewski & Ł. Afeltowicz, Tłum.). W: E. Bińczyk & A. Derra (red.), Studia nad nauką i technologią: Wybór tekstów (s. 139–180). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
View in Google Scholar

Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (2020). Życie laboratoryjne: Konstruowanie faktów naukowych (K. Abriszewski, P. Gąska, M. Smoczyński & A. Zabielski, Tłum.). Warszawa: Narodowe Centrum Kultury.
View in Google Scholar

Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity, Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393. doi:10.1007/BF01059830
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059830

Lee, C. P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 16(3), 307–339. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5

Leonelli, S. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226416502.001.0001

Malpas, J., & Wickham, G. (1995). Governance and failure: On the limits of sociology, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 31(3), 37–50. doi:10.1177/144078339503100304
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339503100304

Mica, A., Pawlak, M., Horolets, A. i Kubicki, P. (2023). FAIL! Are we headed towards critical failure studies? W: A. Mica, M. Pawlak, A. Horolets i P. Kubicki (red.), Routledge international handbook of failure (s. 3–22). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429355950-2
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429355950-2

Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration, Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664

Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828494

Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001

Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
View in Google Scholar

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York, NY: Crown Business.
View in Google Scholar

Robinson, F. (2001). The invention of the minimum viable product. SyncDev. https://syncdev.com/minimum-viable-product/ [dostęp online: 15.10.2025]
View in Google Scholar

Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39, Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

Star, S. L. (2016a). The structure of ill-structured solutions. W: G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. E. Clarke & E. Balka (red.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (ss. 243–256). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10113.003.0016

Star, S. L. (2016b). The ethnography of infrastructure. W: G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. E. Clarke & E. Balka (red.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (ss. 473–488). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10113.003.0030

Timmermans, S. & Berg, M. (1997). Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols, Social Studies of Science, 27(2), 273–305. doi:10.1177/030631297027002003
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631297027002003

Timmermans, S. & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization, Social Studies of Science, 40(5), 641–656. doi:10.1177/0306312710373180
View in Google Scholar

Timmermans, S. (2016). Introduction: Working with Leigh Star. W: G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. E. Clarke & E. Balka (red.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (ss. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10113.003.0002

Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226346960.001.0001

Downloads

Published

2025-11-26

How to Cite

Nowak, Łukasz. (2025). The Minimum Viable Boundary Object (MVBO): A Heuristic for the Threshold of Translational Stability in Heterogeneous Collaboration Networks. Władza Sądzenia, (28), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.18778/2300-1690.28.06

Issue

No. 28 (2025)

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.