<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Christine A Halverson</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&quot;Yeah, the Rush Ain&#039;T Here Yet &quot; Take a Break&quot;: Creation and Use of an Artifact As Organizational Memory</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS&#039;03)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">dcog</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">expertise sharing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information maintenance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information reuse</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge artifacts</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">resource evolution</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">socio-technical resources</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">trajectories of use</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">01/2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">113.2–</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;important to understand how things become adopted as memory resources in organizations. In this paper, we describe the genesis and use of an artifact that became a memory resource for a wide range of activities. We discuss how the creation and use of the rush cheat sheet (RCS) and its associated representations at Dallas Ft. Worth TRACON brought together information and expert knowledge across organizational boundaries. Multiorganizational information became synthesized in a composite that could be used as a resource by the contributing organizations, acting as a boundary object. However, it is multiple representations of the same data that enable it to be so used. Using distributed cognition theory, we examined the conditions under which data transforms from an internal resource to a boundary object; speculating about domain generalization.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ackerman, Mark S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Halverson, Christine A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reexamining Organizational Memory</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communications of the ACM</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">dcog</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition theory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">field study</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">organizational memory</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">58–64</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Reconceptualizing how an interpersonal memory—particularly one including people and technology—may be defined.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;After nearly 10 years of research, “organizational memory” (OM) has become overworked and confused. Burdened by a practical wish to reuse organizational experience, researchers have often ignored critical functions of an organization’s memory in order to focus on only a few methods for augmenting memory. It is time for a reexamination.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this article we step back and investigate where memory exists currently within an organizational setting, rather than focusing on potential technical enhancements. In order to accomplish this we study OM within a telephone helpline that answers human-resource questions at a well-established Silicon Valley company&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>