Organization Science Vol. 17, No. 1, January–February 2006, pp. 22–44 issn 1047-7039  eissn 1526-5455  06  1701  0022 inf orms ® doi 10.1287/orsc.1050.0157 ©2006 INFORMS Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations Katherine C. Kellogg Organization Studies, MIT Sloan School of Management, E52-544, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, kkellogg@mit.edu Wanda J. Orlikowski Information Technology and Organization Studies, MIT Sloan School of Management, E53-325, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, wanda@mit.edu JoAnne Yates Communications, Information, and Organization Studies, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, jyates@mit.edu I n our study of an interactive marketing organization, we examine how members of different communities perform boundary-spanning coordination work in conditions of high speed, uncertainty, and rapid change. We find that members engage in a number of cross-boundary coordination practices that make their work visible and legible to each other, and that enable ongoing revision and alignment. Drawing on the notion of a “trading zone,” we suggest that by engaging in these practices, members enact a coordination structure that affords cross-boundary coordination while facilitating adapt- ability, speed, and learning. We also find that these coordination practices do not eliminate jurisdictional conflicts, and often generate problematic consequences such as the privileging of speed over quality, suppression of difference, loss of comprehension, misinterpretation and ambiguity, rework, and temporal pressure. After discussing our empirical findings, we explore their implications for organizations attempting to operate in the uncertain and rapidly changing contexts of postbureaucratic work. Key words : knowledge; information technology; new organizational forms; work practices; trading zone; cross-boundary coordination Contemporary scholars have suggested that firms are shifting away from traditional modes of organizing to meetnewdemandsforflexibility,speed,anduncertainty. Child and McGrath (2001, pp. 1139–1140) argue that in our new “postmodern world,” economies are based on “flows of information” rather than on materials. As a result, systems are interdependent across firm bound- aries, performance is disembodied from ownership of assets, production and communication change rapidly, and new power asymmetries arise as control of tangible assets loses influence to control of information. In the context of such economic and organizational shifts, the core competencies of firms become dependent on adap- tive capacity rather than specialized routines (Rindova and Kotha 2001, Stark 2001, Volberda 1996), and on horizontal collaborations of diverse groups rather than vertical chains of command (Barley 1996). This changing context raises an important question for organization theorists—do participants in emerging organizational circumstances use the same processes of coordination and knowledge sharing that are effective in more stable and hierarchical settings? And, if not, how do organizational actors coordinate across bound- ariesinthepostbureaucraticconditionswhereoperations are emergent and fast changing, goods and services are intangibleandinformational,authorityisdistributed,and accountability uncertain? Prior organizational research has yielded valuable studies of cross-boundary coordination and knowledge sharing and the challenges that arise from differences in meanings, norms, and interests. Various approaches have been proposed for dealing with these differences, including transfer mechanisms that rely on a common lexicon and standard protocols, forms of translation that create shared understandings, and transformation pro- cesses that generate integrative knowledge and bound- ary objects (Adler 1995, Bechky 2003b, Carlile 2002, Dougherty 1992, Hansen 1999, Pawlowski and Robey 2004). This research has yielded important insights into cross-boundary interactions and the “artful integrations” (Suchman 1994) often required to accomplish coor- dinated work across structural, cultural, and political boundaries. While useful, this research has largely been con- ducted in traditional hierarchical organizations, such as are found in manufacturing and professional ser- vices industries. Some scholars suggest that these tra- ditional bureaucratic structures—with their routinized repertoires—are increasingly less able to respond effec- tively to new conditions of volatility and virtuality 22