Marlot Kuiper

233 importance of studying ‘materiality’ is widely acknowledged (e.g. D’Adderio, 2008, 2011; Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001; Howard-Grenville, 2005; Turner & Fern, 2012). studies that put artefacts at the centre of analysis remain remarkably rare (see D’Adderio 2008; 2011 for an exception). In the remainder of this chapter, I will discuss some of the key findings regarding artefacts. 7.6.1 “The artefact” does not exist I started this chapter from artefacts that ‘represent the checklist rule’. These artefacts provide sufficient starting points, as they are relatively easy to observe (D’Adderio, 2011). I soon realized however, that this was easier said than done, as I found out that there was no such thing as ‘the artefact’ that represented the checklist. In chapter 5, I concluded that there’s no such thing as ‘the checklist’, in terms of guiding principle (ostensive). In addition to this, for two main reasons I can now say there’s no such thing as ‘the artefact’. There is no such thing as ‘the artefact’ (1) because of a plurality of artefacts and (2) because of the dynamic nature of artefacts. First, ‘the artefact’ does not exist, because it actually is ‘the artefact s ’. Because of a plurality of artefacts that model the routine, I introduced the notion of an artefactual arrangement. Studying artefactual arrangements inherently becomes relational, as not all artefacts influence behaviour in the same way or through the same mechanisms. Cacciatori (2012, p. 1559) claimed that “we have to look at the emergence of systems of artefacts rather than at individual artefacts in isolation.” The idea of affordances proved helpful in understanding how different artefacts steer behaviour in different ways. The different artefacts in the arrangement model the same routine, but have different properties, and thus different possibilities for action. The observations showed how we can only see affordances as a relational matter. The whiteboards in Plainsboro for example, were introduced as an addition to the arrangement (digitalized checklist, posters). Despite this artefact did afford some actions the others didn’t (taking the checklist to the surgical table), the perceived possibilities for use remained rather limited, as it did not afford a major use that the digital artefact already did allow for: registration. Different abstract ideas of what the checklist is (plurality on the ostensive dimension as described in chapter 5) can be complicated by a plurality of artefacts. With multiple representations of the checklist rule, affording different possibilities for action, the question “What is the checklist?” becomes all the more complicated. 7