Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips

Organization Science

V ol.17,No.1,January–February2006,pp.3–21 issn1047-7039 eissn1526-5455 06 1701 0003

inf orms

?doi10.1287/orsc.1050.0149

?2006INF ORMS

Gaffers,Gofers,and Grips:Role-Based Coordination

in Temporary Organizations

Beth A.Bechky

Graduate School of Management,University of California,Davis,Davis,California95616,babechky@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,

T emporary organizations are known to provide?exibility for industries that rely on them,but we know little about their implications for how work is accomplished and coordinated.In this paper,I propose that common portrayals of temporary organizations as ephemeral and unstable are inaccurate:Temporary organizations are in fact organized around structured role systems whose nuances are negotiated in situ.This paper analyzes one type of temporary organization,?lm projects,exploring the way in which roles both organize immediate work and maintain continuity across different projects. On each?lm set,role expectations are communicated through practices of enthusiastic thanking,polite admonishing,and role-oriented joking,which enable crew members to learn and negotiate role structures.Two important structural character-istics of?lm projects provide the organizational context within which coordination takes place:interorganizational career progression and projects as temporary total institutions.By showing how these structural elements and role enactments sup-port one another,this work generates a more complete understanding of the conditions that affect coordination,including role duration,expectations of future interaction,and visibility of work.

Key words:coordination;roles;temporary organizations

It is6a.m.when I arrive in Rittenhouse Square for the ?rst scene of the shoot,as instructed by the location man-ager.Two people with their hoods up against the pouring rain are waiting at the edge of the pavement in front of a seafood restaurant:a woman on her cell phone and a tall man with a walkie-talkie in his hand.As I intro-duce myself,two trucks pull up to the curb and with a quick apology,the location manager and her assistant head off in opposite directions—one toward the trucks to tell them where to park,the other into the restau-rant to talk with the owner.The back of the truck opens and purposeful-looking people equipped with headphones pour out.“Watch your back!”someone yells at me as they pass by,carrying wheeled equipment carts,lights and directors’chairs into the restaurant.

A day later,they have?nished?lming the commer-cial,and I comment to the location manager,“Yesterday morning seemed amazingly orderly for the?rst day of shooting.”“We only have two days to do it,”she replied,“We need to get things done right away.”(Excerpted from ?eld notes,March17–18,2000).

The above excerpt characterizes an important prob-lem for temporary organizations:On what basis can they organize swiftly to accomplish their work?Temporary organizations try to capitalize on the specialized skills of their members,while keeping costs of coordination to a minimum.These organizations bring together a group of people who are unfamiliar with one another’s skills,but must work interdependently on complex tasks (Goodman and Goodman1976).Accomplishing such tasks in the face of signi?cant uncertainty and extreme

time constraints reinforces the importance of coordina-tion mechanisms(Menger1999).

The activities of temporary organizations have attracted attention as contingent and temporary forms of work have become more common.While industries such as theater and construction have a longstanding history of organizing on a temporary basis(Goodman and Goodman1972,1976;Eccles1981),more recently project-based organizing has become prevalent outside of these?elds(Peters1992,Kanter1989,Jones1996). This has spurred increased interest in how these systems operate,mostly focused on their temporary nature.In these views,temporary organizations are characterized as?exible,discontinuous,and ephemeral;they require “swift trust”on the part of their members to make up for the limitations of working in the organizational equiva-lent of a“one-night stand”(Christopherson and Storper 1989,Peters1992,Meyerson et al.1996).

Temporary organizations contrast with traditional hier-archical organizations as they are governed through net-works of relationships rather than by lines of authority (Powell1990,Jones et al.1997).Thus,coordination across?rms in these networks relies more heavily on social mechanisms such as reciprocity,socialization,and reputation(Jones et al.1997).However,as Powell(1990, p.327)suggests,“we know very little about the phe-nomenology of work”within these organizations,which raises questions about“how people cope with circum-stances in which control is not direct and immediate,and conformity to well-established administrative routines not guaranteed.”An investigation of the actual practices 3

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations 4Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

of coordination in temporary organizations would not only help us understand the implications of this form for the work of its members,but also provide insight into how coordination is achieved more generally in settings with few formal organizational structures.

In this paper,I examine a particular type of temporary organization,?lm sets,which require that their members coordinate complex interdependent activity under severe time pressure.I propose that the portrayal of tempo-rary organizations as ephemeral,unstable systems that require swift trust is inaccurate:In fact,these organi-zations are organized around enduring,structured role systems whose nuances are negotiated in situ.I?nd that what drives coordination in these temporary orga-nizations and maintains continuity across projects is the negotiated reproduction of role structures—the mutual reinforcement of the generalized role structure and repeated enactments of these roles on speci?c sets.An ethnographic analysis of four sets demonstrates that for temporary organizations in the?lm industry,the interac-tion that occurs while individuals enact roles on a partic-ular project both coordinates work activities on a given set and sustains role expectations beyond the con?nes of the set.

Coordination in Temporary Organizations Temporary forms of organizing are not new.However,as contingent organizing has become more common,aca-demic interest in temporary organizations has grown. Scholars point to a rise in the use of contingent and temporary employment(Belous1989,Davis-Blake and Uzzi1993).Although contingent work has always been a feature of our employment system,it is only recently that we have seen the spread of such arrangements to professional work such as engineering and law(Polivka 1996,Kunda et al.2002).Such changes in the nature of the employment relationship are likely to in?uence workplace organization.For example,some suggest that the division of labor is increasingly shifting away from hierarchical lines of organization(Barley1996,Vallas and Beck1996,Zetka2003).This raises questions about the implications of temporary organization for the coor-dination and control of work.

Much of our current understanding of coordination of highly complex,interdependent activity is rooted in the premises of organizational design(Heath and Staudenmayer2000).These theories argue that?rms organize in response to uncertainty in both task and environment.With greater uncertainty,?rms shift away from coordinating via formal organizational structures such as rules,schedules,and division of labor,and move toward the use of interpersonal coordination mechanisms such as liaisons or informal communication(March and Simon1958,Thompson1967,Galbraith1973).Thus, as temporary organizations face high levels of task and environmental uncertainty,they would be expected to rely on interpersonal processes rather than depend on formal structures.

While theories of organization design are suggestive, there is little empirical evidence showing how coordina-tion happens in temporary organizations,mostly because few organizational scholars have systematically exam-ined the internal functioning of temporary organizational forms(Meyerson et al.1996,Powell1990).Those who have studied temporary organizations focus primarily on the?exibility they afford for?rms or industries.For instance,to contend with environments that are com-plex and variable,temporary organizations have been found to reduce costs and control risk through the?uid movement of specialized personnel(Christopherson and Storper1989,Faulkner and Anderson1987).Instead of training,supervision,and formal rules and hierarchy, temporary organizations rely on short-term workers with the requisite ability and experience to perform the tasks assigned to them(DeFillippi and Arthur1998,Faulkner and Anderson1987).

Consistent with organization design’s premise that high uncertainty results in less use of formal structure, by focusing on?exibility these analyses depict tempo-rary organizations as having little structure.Temporary organizations are short lived:People change positions frequently across these?uid projects,providing career opportunities(Baker and Faulkner1991).Thus,tempo-rary organizations are thought to engender mobile and boundaryless careers(Jones and DeFillippi1996).Con-currently,some authors maintain that temporary orga-nizations are therefore ephemeral and unstable(Kanter 1995),lacking formal or normative structure(Meyerson et al.1996).

However,recent studies of careers in industries with few organizational boundaries challenge the notion that a lack of formal organizational structures implies an absence of structure or constraint.Studies of high-technology contracting,for instance,illustrate that ?exibility in employment from the?rm or industry perspective requires individuals to assemble indepen-dent career structures.While many contractors prize their mobility,they also perceive such work as uncer-tain and insecure,and structure their social networks accordingly—building the reach and range of their con-tacts in order to acquire future jobs(Barley and Kunda 2004).Workers’careers are therefore constrained by their ability to build networks of relationships and to maintain their reputations in those networks(Jones 1996).Additionally,the labor market itself provides constraints on workers(Gunz et al.2000),as both contractors and employers create cognitive boundary mechanisms.Zuckerman and his colleagues analyzed actors’careers in Hollywood,for instance,and showed that actors who are typecast,sticking with the same genre of work,have more success obtaining future

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS5

employment(Zuckerman et al.2003).Typecasting, although not a formal structure,is a signi?cant constraint on the careers of such individuals.Boundaryless careers, therefore,encompass structures that in?uence the work experiences of temporary workers.

Further,studies of team-based organizational struc-tures indicate that organizational?exibility does not nec-essarily occasion unstructured work organization.For example,although self-managed teams lack the con-trols of bureaucracy and hierarchy,they tend to develop alternative control mechanisms.With these less cen-tralized control tactics,normative control constrains and structures the behavior of team members(Smith 1997,Prechel1994,Barker1993).In the self-managed groups that Barker(1993)studied,for instance,the move away from hierarchical lines of authority did not cre-ate unstructured,ephemeral groups,but instead created groups whose value-based work ethic turned gradually into a strong source of normative rules.

Taken together,these studies of work imply that while temporary organizations may provide?exibility from an industry standpoint,the stylized view of tempo-rary organizations as unstructured at the level of the work is inaccurate.Even?exible systems have means of organization,constraint,and control,and a closer look at the work organization of temporary projects is needed to further understand its implications for the coordination of the work itself.While temporary organizations lack the permanent structures such as stable rules and hier-archies that we associate with bureaucratic mechanisms for coordination,they have both industry structures and emergent practices that coordinate and control activity. By specifying such practices,we can learn more about the processes of coordination that operate in the absence of permanent organizational structures.

One mechanism for coordination suggested in the organizational literature is a clear role structure,as illus-trated in studies of high-reliability organizations that require careful coordination of complex,interdependent activity in order to avoid catastrophic or highly costly errors.Authors in this tradition argue that members of aircraft carrier crews(Weick and Roberts1993),?re-?ghting brigades(Weick1993),and emergency response teams(Bigley and Roberts2001)use the role structure to organize their behavior in relation to one another.These groups develop a shared view of their world,and by attending carefully to one another’s behavior,can orga-nize to prevent error.

However,while suggesting the bene?ts of a clear role structure,the theories developed in these stud-ies frequently presuppose that such a structure already exists in the minds of the participants.For example, Weick(1993)describes the disastrous consequences of the disintegration of the role structure in the Mann Gulch?re,but he does not explore how these roles had been enacted prior to the?re.Similarly,in emergency response teams occupants switch between roles with “well-de?ned expectations and reporting relationships”(Bigley and Roberts2001,p.1287).In high-reliability settings,deep socialization or familiarity among partici-pants is assumed to create the role structure.Thus,while roles are understood to help coordinate activity,little attention has been paid to the practices by which roles are created and enacted.

An alternative conception of how roles might coor-dinate activity is suggested by the recent focus in organization theory on explanations of organizing that involve both structure and the agency of individuals. These authors argue that structure and action are inter-related,and thus a thorough explanation of organiza-tional activity should be both grounded in the practices of work(Barley and Kunda2001)and also take into account the structures that are created and recreated through those practices(Feldman and Pentland2003). For instance,following a structurationist perspective, recent analyses of organizational routines describe rou-tines not as?xed programs or rules,but as patterns of action that emerge in the context of organizational structures(Pentland and Rueter1994,Feldman and Pentland2003).Similarly,Birnholtz et al.(2004,p.15) demonstrate how organizational regeneration is accom-plished through a set of practices that become a“coher-ent system”they call“organizational character.”These and other practice-oriented examinations of organiza-tions(Orlikowski2002,Carlile2002)thus implicate an approach to coordination that analyzes how structure and action interrelate in accomplishing the work.

A structurationist approach suggests that to understand how roles might function as coordination practices,role structures cannot be taken as given,but must be viewed in light of the actions taken by people who occupy these roles.Fortunately,a well-established sociological liter-ature on role theory provides such a processual under-standing of how roles work,focusing on the interplay between role structure and role enactment.Roles repre-sent expectations associated with social positions,and therefore can facilitate continuity of behavior over time. At the same time,roles can be loosely and dynamically structured,as expectations are negotiated in interaction. This conception of roles as both negotiated and able to structure expectations over time offers a way to under-stand the process by which roles enable coordination in temporary projects.

A Role-Based Approach to Coordination

Roles are the basic units of socialization that provide continuity in organizations(Goffman1961b),and a the-ory of roles,as Turner suggests,provides an“under-standing of why different patterns of social organizations emerge,persist,change,and break down”(1986,p.360). Two streams of role theory,the structural and the inter-actionist,provide different approaches to role analysis.1

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations 6Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

From a structural perspective,a role is a bundle of tasks and norms,the behaviors that are expected of those who occupy a position in a social structure(Hughes1958, Linton1936,Biddle and Thomas1966).Structural role theory focuses on the ways in which role expectations, arising from norms and demands from other role occu-pants and audiences,constrain and circumscribe indi-viduals’behavior.Interactionist approaches to roles,in contrast,focus on the ways individuals can construct and reconstruct social arrangements through role-taking;role structures are a general framework,but individuals enact their own roles in relation to particular others(Turner 1986).

Both conceptions of roles offer insight into how work is organized in the absence of permanent structures and rules.One way to integrate the two approaches is to adopt a negotiated order perspective on roles. This perspective,most clearly articulated in the work of Strauss and colleagues(Strauss et al.1963,Strauss1978, Stelling and Bucher1972),argues that social order is repeatedly reconstructed through interaction and nego-tiation(Strauss et al.1963).Structures and processes are interpenetrated:“structural arrangements exist in and through processes that render those structures opera-tive”(Maines1982,p.278).Most analyses of negoti-ated order,while arguably more focused on interaction (Day and Day1977),examine the structural context that constrains,enables,and is created and changed by such interaction.For instance,Strauss et al.(1963)investigate the rules and administrative structure on the psychiatric ward as well as the working arrangements of doctors, administrators,and nurses,pointing out how these rules alternately guide behavior and are ignored,are drawn on for in?uence over others,and are reappraised in light of the pattern of working arrangements.

The interplay of structural context,role structure,and role enactment is similar to the administrative struc-ture,rules,and working arrangements described above. Entrants to a role?nd expectations about their identity as well as resources with which to negotiate it(Handel 1979).They interact with others who also have expecta-tions about each role within the system.However,while roles provide some normative expectations,individual de?nitions of these roles can be ambiguous or vague (Turner1986).Further,although many aspects of these role expectations are socially shared,they are individ-ually held,leaving room for negotiation in enactments. These enactments and individuals’understandings of the role structures also need to be understood in light of the organizational context within which the roles are created and recreated.

Because roles are enacted in particular situations,but conceptions of roles are held abstractly beyond those situations,they provide a constructive way to frame notions about how temporary organizations work.In the absence of formal rules and permanent organizational structures,role structure and negotiation create the order needed for coordination.Below,I describe the process by which role expectations and enactments provide a continuous yet negotiated way to coordinate the work in one type of temporary organization,?lm projects.Fol-lowing a negotiated order approach to roles,I consider two important structural characteristics of?lm projects that represent the organizational context within which coordination takes place:interorganizational career pro-gression and projects as temporary total institutions.This context,in which members are isolated in a work world that strongly socializes them to enthusiastically embrace their roles,provides participants with an understanding of general role structures on?lm sets.However,such role structures are provisional,in?uenced and main-tained by participants’behavior on each set.Thus,I ana-lyze the interactive practices of coordination on the set, detailing how thanking,admonishing,and joking pro-vided a means for learning,negotiating,and generalizing role structures.Relating how these elements of structure and enactment mutually support one another generates a more complete understanding of the conditions that affect coordination,including role duration,expectations of future interaction,and visibility of work.

Methods

Research Sites

In the spring of2000and the spring of2001,I con-ducted an ethnographic study of four?lm projects:two movies,a music video,and a commercial.Film pro-duction projects are an opportune setting for examin-ing coordination in temporary organizations.The work is highly interdependent,and the organizations that pro-duce?lms are both temporary and time constrained. Because the projects are temporary,the members of the organization begin the project with relatively less knowledge of one another’s abilities or personalities than people in more traditional organizations.2However,the interdependence of the work requires coordination of an immediate and real-time nature.These pressures create dilemmas that make coordination on?lm sets a com-pelling dynamic for study.

The four projects I studied were of differing duration, focus,and location.The?rst three projects were?lmed in Philadelphia,where I obtained access through an informant in the city’s Film Of?ce.Alo,3my?rst project, was a commercial for a long-distance telephone com-pany with a production crew of50people,that?lmed in several days.Murder Mansion was an independently funded horror?lm with a budget of approximately$2 million.Shooting lasted?ve weeks with a crew of about 50members.Immediately following,I worked on a rap music video,Playaz Ball,for the duration of both pre-production and shooting,which took?ve days with35 crew members.The following spring,I spent six weeks

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS7

on location with Talk to the Animals in New York City. In contrast to the smaller-budget,nonunion projects in Philadelphia,this Hollywood studio?lm,with a budget of over$100million,had a unionized crew of175mem-bers from both coasts,working in two units.On all four projects,I gathered data from participant observation, interviews,and documents.

Participant Observation.I was a full-time participant on all three Philadelphia sets,working every day as a production assistant(PA),which entailed such duties as going on runs for supplies,running copies,locking up locations,and generally helping out in the depart-ments through which I rotated(including of?ce,loca-tions,wardrobe,electric,grip,property,and sound).4As a production assistant,my incessant note taking on small pads went relatively unnoticed,as it is not unusual for those just starting out in?lm production to be very eager to learn.I typed up expanded?eld notes every night after leaving the set.On the set of Talk to the Animals,the stu-dio,citing liability concerns,would not permit me to for-mally participate.Therefore,I was an observer in such departments as camera,wardrobe,grip,and visual and aerial effects;I also informally assisted the of?ce pro-duction crew when asked.For a more detailed descrip-tion of the research sites and my participation,please see Appendix1.

Interviews and Documents.During downtimes in the work process,which were frequent and some-times lengthy,I spontaneously interviewed many of the members of each crew.In addition to the unstruc-tured,informal interviews that regularly occurred while I was observing the work,I interviewed several other informants without direct connections to the projects I observed.These included two local production man-agers in Philadelphia,several independent producers and crew members in Los Angeles and New York,and sev-eral studio executives.These interviews served to expand my understanding of hiring and career issues in the?lm industry and their impact on the work on the set. Another important source of data was the written material that the crew used to support and perform their work.The documents included call sheets(the daily schedules),crew lists,scripts,sides(the daily scripts), shooting schedules(the listing of scene order for the remaining days of production),and directions to the location.Finally,I supplemented my?eld work with archival industry perspectives.In addition to my sub-scription to Variety magazine,I read insider accounts of the industry(Dunne1969,Goldman1983,Bart1999) and viewed movies about?lmmaking,such as Living in Oblivion,State and Main,and the HBO series Project Greenlight.

Analysis

I followed a grounded-theory approach of compari-son and contrast(Glaser and Strauss1967,Strauss and Corbin1990)in analyzing the data.This approach entailed an iterative process of theoretical sampling, comparing and contrasting examples from the data to build theoretical categories,which were then compared and interrelated to form the basis for this paper.I ana-lyzed data and adjusted categories periodically through-out the?eldwork to con?rm the test categories and further focus my study.These categories were also re?ned through discussions with both colleagues and informants.By the third project,I had con?rmation of particular patterns of interaction that were evident in the role enactments on all the sets.I then pursued a fourth,much larger,project to ensure that such patterns were representative of the behavior of individuals on big-budget studio?lms as well.No signi?cant new cat-egories emerged during the course of this project,which indicated that theoretical saturation had been reached (Glaser and Strauss1967).

At the end of the?eld work,I reanalyzed?eld notes and the memos I had produced during the study to fur-ther clarify what interactive practices seemed important to coordination.This focus on coordination led to an analysis of three types of practices—thanking,admon-ishing,and joking—which seemed central to the process of learning role expectations.Once I selected these role-based interactions as the core practices,I analyzed these categories in relation to the structural context of the ?lm industry to determine what conditions led to these particular forms of interactive practices.For instance, I was struck by the repeated gratitude and overwhelming politeness demonstrated in interaction.I delved into the causes of such politeness,noticing that it occurred even in the presence of obvious mistakes and potentially dam-aging problems.5I not only analyzed how these behav-iors were likely to in?uence role expectations,but also noted the elements of the structural context that would create conditions that were likely to result in such behav-ior.Here,I begin with a description of this structural context,and describe how the conditions contribute to crew members’understanding of the generalized role structure.This role structure is one necessary element of coordination in temporary projects.The other equally important element,depicted in the following section,is the process of role enactment,in which roles are clari-?ed and re?ned by?lm crew members as they go about their work.Finally,I analyze the conditions that link the structural context to the practices as they are enacted on ?lm sets.

Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Structural Context for Role-Based Coordination on Film Sets

Role-based coordination entails the daily enactment by crew members of a generalized role structure that allows

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

8

Organization Science 17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

for continuity as well as negotiation of roles on each ?lm set.While a visible generalized role structure is a necessary backdrop for coordination,such coordina-tion is accomplished through the interactions between crew members,in which tasks are accomplished and role expectations are clari?ed.A negotiated order approach to roles necessitates an understanding of the structural context that frames this interplay of role structure and enactment.Two important structural elements of the ?lm industry are the structure of the career progression and the nature of the temporary project itself.Both career structure and project characteristics in?uenced how roles were enacted and how role structure was developed and maintained.The career progression provided the contin-uing context for crew members to understand and gener-alize the role structure,while the institutional nature of ?lm sets enabled strong social pressures that guided role enactment.This context created conditions of intensive and visible short-term interaction with an expectation of repeated interactions in the future,and this in?uenced the form of public interactions between crew members.Interorganizational Career Progression.Historically,job roles in the ?lm industry evolved through long-time convention and the establishment of union rules.These roles developed during the studio era as ?lm production departmentalized (Silver and Ward 1992)and the division of tasks became increasingly special-ized.In 1946the Hollywood below-the-line production unions negotiated a “Basic Agreement”with the Asso-ciation of Motion Picture Producers that set the basis of employment for production workers (Amman 1996).This agreement fashioned work rules and job categories Figure 1Roles on a Film Set (A Representative Subset;Space Prohibits a Listing of All Crew Members)

for production workers in Hollywood,and,while it did not directly govern the ?lm industry elsewhere,it did shape the structure of ?lm production jobs in the rest of the country.Productions vary as to the strictness of their adherence to union rules:Tasks that would be divided among several individuals such as a grip,electrician,and property assistant on one set might be performed by just one property assistant on another (Kawin 1992,p.290).By the late 1980s,a shift to nonunion production on independent ?lms increased ?exibility in these job cat-egories (Cooper 1988).However,while these roles are less tightly circumscribed than in the 1950s,the histor-ical conventions institutionalized by union rules served to establish the basic role structure in the ?lm industry.Career advancement in the ?lm industry occurs between projects,as opposed to within one organiza-tion (Bielby and Bielby 1999,Jones 2002,Faulkner and Anderson 1987).The system of jobs or positions is tem-porarily enacted on each project,and there is no move-ment beyond the initial assignment of a role.A general picture of the roles in a ?lm production organization and their relationships is presented in Figure 1.This role structure,which is relatively consistent across ?lms,is rather strictly organized by department,with a thin upper hierarchy,and a pool of production assistants at the bot-tom.The shaded boxes represent roles that are a bit more ?uid in tasks and in relationships to others.For example,the reporting relationships of the above-the-line mem-bers (those who appear in the opening credits,such as the director)are dependent on the skills and personalities of the individuals on each set.The roles of the produc-tion assistants are also more ?uid;they are not always tied to a particular department.

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS9

In addition to their lack of mobility across roles on a project,the production crew are likely to stay in their roles on the project for the duration of the shoot.Firing is not frequent in this industry,particularly at the top of the crew hierarchy.Key crew members bring both equip-ment and other crew with them when they are hired; production managers prefer to hire those they know will do a professional job,and are hesitant to hire strangers. The?lm industry is noted for its skewed distributions of participation;while a majority of both above-and below-the-line participants only have one?lm to their credit, those who are successful tend to engage in repeated partnerships(Faulkner and Anderson1987,Jones1996, Zuckerman2004),participating in projects with people with whom they feel comfortable.

For instance,Don,the unit production manager of Talk to the Animals,was very unhappy with the performance of the gaffer(the head of the electric department)on the set,whom he had hired on the recommendation of sev-eral other New York production managers.He could not hire his?rst few choices for the gaffer position because they were already working on other projects.However, as Don pointed out,“I can’t?re him,because I need his equipment,and we’re already halfway into the shoot,so it’d be too dif?cult to get someone else at this point.But I am never going to work with this guy again.”Don’s is a typical production manager’s dilemma:The pool of available people he wants to hire is small,and the conse-quences of?ring a key crew member are severe in terms of cost and lost productivity.

While an individual serves in only one role on a par-ticular project,on the next project he or she may move to another role.This is particularly true early in their careers,when crew members are?guring out which role best suits them.For example,John,the sound mixer on Murder Mansion,mentioned to me that he had worked with a grip(a person who does mechanical and con-struction work),Sam,on a previous project.Sam came highly recommended by the director as a boom operator (the sound person who carries an overhead microphone), so John hired him.However,on the drive over to the location,John discovered that Sam had never operated a boom before.Sam’s previous job with this director was in craft service(food and beverage provision).Thus,in the span of six months,Sam had worked in the craft service,sound,and grip departments.

This example typi?es the experience of many early-career crew members,who begin their careers as members of the undifferentiated mass of production assistants.As production assistants work on more projects,they assist different departments.It is very dif-?cult to get jobs in the?lm industry,so aspiring crew members will accept practically any position offered to them when they are?rst starting out.Additionally,to succeed on a?lm crew one needs to be a self-starter and volunteer to do as many tasks of as many types as possible.In their career progression,they then work upward in the hierarchy toward the position in which they are most interested.As Debby,a production assis-tant in the electric department on Murder Mansion, told me:

I got hired as a PA,and I started bugging the right peo-ple[in the electric department]right away.I asked Bill (an electrician),“Is there anything I can do for you?”

I wrapped a cable;he thought it would take45min-utes but I came right back.Then he asked me if I could gel lights.When I said yes,he let me do that also.And so I’ve been working with the electric department the whole time.

Because of early-career mobility,by the time indi-viduals settle into a particular role,they have expe-rienced intense socialization through a progression of many other roles(Jones1996).This makes the role structure more visible to all crew members—they have crossed roles by assisting in a variety of functions,and learned not only the expectations for that role,but also how the roles in the organization relate.As role theory suggests,roles are enacted in response to the roles of others(Turner1978,Turner1986).Thus,crew mem-bers learn the expectations for particular roles by enact-ing different roles,interacting with others,and watching others perform their roles.This also allows crew mem-bers to get a sense for the patterns of relations between roles.The interorganizational career progression there-fore creates a generalized role structure that provides crew members with an understanding of the function of each position that generalizes across projects.In the words of Mark,the?rst AC(assistant camera operator) on Talk to the Animals:

These systems have been established for years;there are clear lines of communication.When I get on a show,if I need something moved,I know to go to transpo;the medics,the food,the systems are in place to take care of every need.And they are the same from show to show. They are like jump rope rhythms,passed off from child to child.

As Mark’s metaphor suggests,the generalized role struc-ture that is communicated from project to project both contributes to coordination and helps provide the con-tinuity within which crew members accomplish their work and undertake their roles.Because of their career experiences as they advance across projects,?lm crews develop the understanding of this structure that helps them to coordinate their activities.

Film Sets as Temporary Total Institutions.In addi-tion to the in?uence of the career structure,the insti-tutional nature of?lm projects also forms a structural context that encourages particular practices of coordi-nation on?lm sets.For an understanding of role-based coordination it is analytically useful to think about each project not just as a temporary organization,but as

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations 10Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

a temporary total institution.As Goffman(1961a,p.xiii) describes,total institutions are“places of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time,together lead an enclosed,formally administered round of life.”Although they exist only for short periods of time,in many other ways?lm production organiza-tions exhibit the characteristics of total institutions. Film sets are both physically and temporally isolated from the outside world(Goffman1961a).Many?lm shoots take place in hard-to-reach,isolated locations (e.g.,Castaway,a?lm in which the crew,lugging their equipment in waterproof containers,had to be rowed in small boats to the island for the shoot).Further,even those?lms that are shot in the middle of large cities are physically removed from everyday urban activity.The crew obtains city permits to block off streets,buildings, and parking spots,and the production pays people to leave their homes,of?ces,shops,and places of worship for the duration of the?lming.During the actual?lm-ing,crew members are stationed at the perimeter of the shoot to make sure that no“bogeys”(noncrew or cast members)are allowed on the set.

The temporal structure of?lm production work,par-ticularly on location,is also separated from the work per-formed by much of the surrounding community.Many ?lm crews work a six-day work week,with two days off in-between.Thus,almost immediately upon joining a new production,crew members no longer share a week-end with the outside world.In addition,the daily work schedule of?lm crews is highly variable and unpre-dictable,predicated on such factors as the amount of shooting that is?nished in a day and the union rules. For example,if the crew shoots late on Monday night and wrap time(the time that people leave the set)is at midnight,some unions require that their members not be called in to work on Tuesday until10a.m.The result of these contingencies is that the crew may come in to work at daybreak on the?rst day of the week,but by the end of the week the shooting day could begin in the afternoon and run deep into the night.This physical and temporal isolation means that not only do the crew members spend most of their time together during work, but also have few options for socializing outside of their fellow crew from the set.The drifting work schedule makes it dif?cult to have a social or home life outside of the institution.As Goffman(1961a)points out,this leads to blurred boundaries between the work and play of the same small set of individuals.

Film production is also characterized by strongly enforced interdependent activity schedules(Goffman 1961a).Crew members’daily activity is governed by the call sheet,which indicates what time each person is to arrive and what scenes will be shot on a particular day.The work involved in shooting a particular scene requires many different departments to work together on each shot.For instance,in Murder Mansion there was a climactic thunderstorm scene in which one of the actors,Taylor,ran down a?ery hallway and kicked in the basement door to run down the stairs.To shoot this scene,the gaffer(the head of the electric department) and the key grip(the head of the grip department)met with the director of photography to discuss how to light the scene,and then the rest of their departments set it up.Once the scene began shooting,several electri-cians stayed on the set to operate the lights to simulate ?re and lightning.The property master and his assistant set up the candles that lit the hallway,and then waited behind the basement door to set up resistance and throw up the dust that made it appear that Taylor had kicked it in.Several production assistants took positions around the perimeter of the set to keep extraneous people from getting in the shot and to cue the property department. The director of photography,?rst assistant director,and boom operator ran ahead of Taylor to?lm her,and the person responsible for craft services waited on the side-lines to provide Taylor with a bottle of water between takes.

This interdependence of tasks also contributes to the crew’s sense that work and play are interwoven.Because task execution of the departments is closely interre-lated,some members of the crew are idle while waiting for others to?nish planning,making decisions,or per-forming particular tasks.For instance,as in the scene described above,the electric and grip crews cannot set up the lights for a particular scene until the director of photography decides how to light it.This leads to periods of forced idleness(DeFillippi and Arthur1998): During down times,crew members,when not ducking out for a cigarette,stand around,watch what others are doing,gossip,and crack jokes.

While most of the activity on?lm sets is immedi-ately visible due to the physically close quarters,?lm productions further increase visibility through repetitive, public processes of communication.This also serves to reinforce the role structure.Film sets are characterized by an atmosphere of continual communication,in which people update one another and provide information over a variety of technologies such as walkie-talkies,cellular phones,and megaphones.Therefore,much of the activ-ity on a set is public,visible to people even when they cannot physically see what is happening,which empha-sizes the tasks and behaviors that are associated with roles on the set.

Visibility,temporality,and interdependence bolster the sense that the crew are members of a total institu-tion,where work and play is intermingled and they are immersed in an organization isolated from the outside world.However,in contrast to the total institutions Goffman(1961a)focuses on,like jails and mental hos-pitals,where members are often reluctant participants, on?lm sets participants embrace their roles,looking

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS11

to capitalize on their experiences to move forward and upward in the network of their career progression. Approaching the structural context of?lm sets as tem-porary total institutions gives us insight into how the immersion experience inherent in a?lm project sup-ports coordination both within the temporary organi-zation and across these experiences.The strong social pressures exerted by temporary total institutions make it more likely that interactions on one set have the impact on individuals’understandings of roles to provide both continuity in the generalized role structure and confor-mity to established roles.Next,I turn to the enactment process,describing the interactive work by which the generalized role structure is understood by participants and actually made real.

Coordination and Role Enactment on

Film Sets

The interorganizational career structure and the institu-tional nature of the?lm project are the context within which the generalized role structure is understood and role enactments take place.However,while having a vis-ible generalized role structure is a necessary element underlying coordination in temporary organizations,it is not suf?cient for actually coordinating the work on a particular project.While from the perspective of experi-enced crew the systems appear to“have been in place for years,”in actuality these systems are(re)created through the interactions crew members have as they enact their roles on each set.As crew members create working arrangements on a project,role expectations are clari?ed and reinforced through practices of thanking,admon-ishing,and joking.In other words,within each project, the generalized role structure is instantiated by a set of crew members who negotiate and modify their partic-ular roles.The generalized role structure and the role enactments mutually support one another,while at the same time establishing a means for almost immediate coordination on each new project.

Role Enactments:Thanking,Admonishing,and Joking

The interactions experienced by crew members on the set as they went about their work were a key element of coordination,as they directed tasks at the same time that they communicated role expectations.Public interac-tive practices on?lm productions were characterized by effusive thanking,polite admonishing,and role-oriented joking.Within the structural context described above, these interactions provided crew members with clear sig-nals about tasks,behaviors,and expectations of their roles as well as the roles of others and the relationships between them.

Enthusiastic Thanking and Polite Admonishing.One way in which crew members’role behaviors were sustained was through explicit,immediate responses to both their appropriate and inappropriate role enactments. Gratitude and praise were frequent and enthusiastic; crew members were often told directly that they were enacting their roles well.Because many role enactments happened within view of others,it was relatively easy to provide responses immediately.The gaffer on Murder Mansion,for example,while watching the PA assigned to the electric department operating the machine that simulated?ickers of lightning,enthused,“Great job, Debby!”Crew members were also acknowledged with enthusiastic gratitude after performing a task,even the most simple.Gratitude was so pervasive,in fact,that I eventually ceased scribbling detailed notes on the struc-ture of such interactions,just jotting“thanks.”On the set of Murder Mansion,any time a PA completed a task such as cleaning dishes or making photocopies,we were thanked repeatedly and soundly by the person who requested the assistance,as well as by others in the department.Similarly,on the set of Talk to the Animals, I heard the key grip thank his crew over the walkie-talkie several times a day.

In like fashion,admonishing typically came almost immediately upon inadequate completion of a task,and these corrections had a predictable structure.After crew members made a mistake,they were directed by the person who asked them to perform a task how to do it properly.Upon apologizing,they received a stan-dard disclaimer—“Oh,that is?ne,don’t worry,no problem”—and then an admonition to do it the proper way the next time.For instance,one afternoon on the set of Murder Mansion,the assistant production of?ce coordinator(APOC)telephoned a few additional grips6 and gave them a call time for the following day.She then informed the key grip which additional crew would be coming in the next day,and he corrected her,saying,“I’d really like to know before you call these guys.”She immediately apologized,and he replied,“Nope,that’s ?ne.Just for the future if you could let me know?rst that’d be great.Thanks!”Being unable to approve his crew for the following day was a minor problem for the key grip,which he tried to ensure would not be repeated by providing clari?cation for the APOC.He did so in a polite manner that also helped reassure her and maintain their relationship.

This type of admonishing was evident at all levels of the crew hierarchy,including among the key crew mem-bers and the studio executives.For instance,one of the vice presidents of production at the Hollywood studio that produced Talk to the Animals expressed his willing-ness to directly let subordinates know what was expected of them.The unit production manager complained,“The script supervisor is not giving me thorough information about the completed number of pages for the morning report.I have asked her a couple of times now and she acts like she is too busy to help us.”The vice president’s

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations 12Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

response was,“If you aren’t getting satisfaction with [the script supervisor],I’m happy to set up a confer-ence call so she knows we want this number.”Apologies and gratitude were second nature to the unit production manager,as he spent much of his time correcting oth-ers,and?xing or smoothing over problems that arose.In these cases,a chorus of“I’m sorry,”“Don’t worry,”and “Thank you”often rang out from the parties involved in the exchange.

Thanking and admonishing were often used by senior crew members to provide role clari?cation for the junior crew members within the same departments,but in addi-tion I observed a similar pattern of interactions across departments.In some cases,a member of one depart-ment helped out a member of another with instructions on how to do something,such as when the sound mixer on Murder Mansion directed an electrician to place a cable away from his sound cart.In other cases,members of other departments reminded individuals of the expec-tations of their roles.In one instance,on the set of Alo, the location manager and the key grip were discussing a rooftop location where the director wanted to shoot. The location manager,Pam,said she was uncomfortable with the location:“I just don’t think it’s safe.”The key grip agreed.Pam responded?rmly:“You are the key;it’s your place to say it.Not just that you don’t like it,but that you won’t shoot here!”Admonishing across groups also could be seen on the HBO series Project Greenlight. When several key crew members were unhappy with the director of photography’s behavior,the?rst assistant director pointed out to the associate and line producers,“You guys are the producers.I can’t make[the director of photography]do it;you can!”

Similarly,one day on the set of Talk to the Animals, Don,the unit production manager,complained to the production accountant about a problem he was antici-pating with meal penalties.Meal penalties are fees that the production pays the crew for working too long with-out breaking for a meal;they accrue additively as the minutes pass.Don said:

We’re into our second meal penalty,and meal penalties can get so expensive.On[a previous?lm set]the asso-ciate producer didn’t wise up about meal penalties,and they went to seven penalties one day for the whole crew. The production took a$200,000hit just for that day.Ten minutes ago,I told Jim(the producer of Talk to the Ani-mals),“There’s no way in hell we go for a third;we need to get the shot and move on.”

On a previous set,Don had a bad experience with a producer who did not pay attention to meal penalties and cost the production money.As a result,Don was not certain that the producer for Talk to the Animals would be attentive to the meal penalty issue either.He therefore was quick to approach Jim after the second meal penalty with a strong admonition,providing the direct feedback that they needed to move on rather than incur a third meal penalty.

Direct responses worked to quickly and consistently link tasks and behaviors to roles.As Weider’s(1974) study of convicts“telling the code”demonstrates, verbalization makes the code explicit.In telling the code, convicts refer explicitly to the set of shared expecta-tions about the activities they should and should not engage in.By both describing the code and reprimanding those who break it,verbalizing thus reinforces the code as a control device.Similarly,on?lm sets social pres-sure ensured that crew members did the work correctly while reinforcing the meaning of the role structure. Enthusiastic praise and thanking reinforced appropriate role behaviors,rewarding crew members for enacting their roles properly and making them feel happy about doing a good job.Direct,polite admonishing called attention to poor or incomplete role performance,offer-ing instructions for future enactment of the role while softening the blow of correction with politeness.Such role clari?cation gave crew members a more complete image to draw on for their future role performances. Simultaneously,these interactions helped coordination by smoothing over problems and dif?culties so they did not escalate and make working together more dif?cult. Role-Oriented Joking.Another means of surfacing role expectations and reinforcing social order was through the use of humor.Humor at work has been shown both to relieve stress and to provide pressure to conform to expectations(Roy1959,Hatch1997). On?lm sets joking accomplished similar purposes to thanking and admonishing,reinforcing appropriate role enactment and correcting inappropriate role enactment. However,humor allowed for expectations and under-standing of roles to be displayed in a less direct,and possibly less threatening,way.It also furnished crew members with a means for role distancing;humor was a safety valve that enabled them to complain about their role constraints while still enacting roles appropriately and accomplishing their work.

Teasing and ribbing about appropriate role behaviors occurred across departments at all levels of the crew hierarchy.For example,one day on the set of Murder Mansion,a few of the crew were working in the room that served as the killer’s bedroom,preparing the props and lighting for a shot that would be?lmed in a few hours.Reaching out as though to grab one of the orange peels scattered across the bed,the gaffer said to the set dresser,“Did you place that orange peel?Is this a hot set?”They laughed,because they both knew that the set dresser had just spent an hour dressing the room for the shot.A hot set,which is a set that is prepared for shoot-ing,is labeled as such to ensure that nobody touches or moves anything that might interfere with the visual continuity of the scenes in the?lm.Maintaining con-tinuity entails making the set look the same in every

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS13

scene,and can take a long time,as it requires using pho-tographs for comparisons while placing items in their matching locations.By teasing the set dresser that she might take a peel,the gaffer demonstrated that she knew what his role was and she knew that she was not sup-posed to touch anything.At the same time,these types of humorous comments,while said in a light manner, publicly reinforced the appropriate role behaviors of the crew members.

Humor out of the target’s presence tended to be a bit sharper,and focused on inadequate role performance. For example,on the set of Murder Mansion one after-noon,the?rst assistant director(AD)announced to the crew over the walkie-talkie,“Lock it up,we’re going two times in a row without cutting.”The second AD was sitting in the middle of another room with about10 idle crew members,watching the video feed of the shot. Aloud,he chimed in mockingly with the appropriate ter-minology,“Sort of like a series?”

In this example,the second AD was pointing out the inadequacy of the?rst AD’s knowledge of the role, because the?rst AD did not seem to be aware that the term“series”meant shooting repeated versions of the shot without stopping in between them.At the same time,the second AD was demonstrating that he him-self was knowledgeable about the correct terms to use. While the second AD was constrained from perform-ing the tasks associated with the?rst AD’s role,he could express his frustration through sarcasm.By inter-jecting his mocking comment,the second AD not only contributed to sustaining a particular de?nition of the ?rst AD’s role(as one that requires the use of role-appropriate language),but also asserted his ability to perform that role,in the event that someone within hear-ing range would have in?uence in hiring for that position on a future project.

Teasing and sarcastic comments such as those of the second AD and the gaffer in the previous examples were also used as status indicators.One’s ability to“make”and“get”jokes can establish an individual’s place in the status hierarchy(Boland and Hoffman1983).For instance,one ubiquitous joke on all sets revolved around the role of the PAs,the gofers who generally performed all of the menial work.When individuals such as the locations assistant or the set dresser,for instance,were asked to perform a task that they did not consider part of their roles,they would scoff,“Do you think I’m a PA?”Doing so clearly and publicly demarcated the tasks that were considered by the crew to be beneath every-one except for those in the lowest status role,the pro-duction assistants.By using such humor,crew members strongly encouraged sustaining particular de?nitions of certain roles while reinforcing the status of the roles in the crew hierarchy.

Humor also served as both role reinforcement and dis-tancing mechanism in the following example.One morn-ing while I was working with the wardrobe department of Talk to the Animals,the producer asked Nancy,a set costumer,to run back and get a particular out?t from the wardrobe truck.She did not return to the truck,which was located several miles away at the other end of the park.At lunch,she told the story to a couple of other costumers.One of them,Marcia,joked,“Yeah,you’ll swim over to59th Street and get it!”Nancy replied,“Any time a producer asks you for something like that, you know not to bother to go.I’ve gone a couple of times,and by the time you get back they’ve already done the shot.”Marcia chimed in,“Like they’ll hold cam-era for you,right!”These costumers had learned over time that running to accommodate a producer’s whim is often fruitless;in contrast,they often ran to accom-modate the requests of the wardrobe supervisor and the costume designer,as that was more relevant to their role and their careers.

The interaction between these costumers demonstrates how humor simultaneously reinforces role expectations and expresses role distance(Goffman1961b).Joking that rushing out to grab an out?t for a producer is a bad idea not only displays role expectations for all the cos-tumers at lunch,but does so in a way that demonstrates membership and enacts distance.Running back to get an out?t is not a pleasant part of the costumers’role,but is a necessary one in certain circumstances.Like the sar-castic comment of the second AD described earlier,the costumers’joking gives them an outlet for their stress and frustration,allowing them the distance to continue to perform the role.

Humor and direct comments worked simultaneously to express role expectations.In another instance of mocking role-based humor,the production of?ce coor-dinator for Murder Mansion,Craig,was checking over a set of mileage reports from the production assistants, who submitted these reports to be reimbursed for their gas usage.He remarked bitingly to the assistant produc-tion of?ce coordinator and several others in the room,“This PA has more mileage than the location scout!”When Craig was not actually talking to the PA in ques-tion,he was sarcastic in criticizing her role performance: The location scout logs many miles looking for places to shoot and production assistants merely go to local stores to pick up supplies.However,when he talked with the PA and showed her the proper way to?ll out the report, Craig was far more polite and direct,pointing out in the standard fashion what the PA did wrong and telling her,“No problem,just do it the right way next time.”Role-oriented joking,therefore,in combination with polite admonishing and gratitude,served as a softer, friendlier means of role reinforcement.The crew mem-bers worked in the close quarters of a total institution, and their future careers depended on the maintenance of friendly relationships with their colleagues.There-fore,overtly expressing anger was avoided.While I saw some anger expressed by individuals on all sets,most of

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations 14Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

the time it was not voiced publicly.Private complaints and frustration were not uncommon among con?dantes, but these were polished into more polite admonishing in public.For instance,as described earlier,the unit pro-duction manager of Talk to the Animals was unhappy with the role enactment of the gaffer,and privately com-plained to me about his performance.He repeatedly and politely tried to indicate his expectations to the gaffer,?nally vowing(again,privately)to not work with the individual on any future projects.However,I never once heard him lose his temper and address the gaffer in an angry tone.

The one public display of anger I witnessed was notable both for its rarity and for the reactions it pro-duced among the rest of the crew.An assistant direc-tor working on Murder Mansion was frustrated by the behavior of the head of his department throughout the shoot,and on one speci?c day near the end of?lm-ing,he blew up about it and went“on strike”for sev-eral hours,refusing to perform his tasks.Responses to his actions from the other crew inside and outside his department ranged from“He’s an asshole!”and“He’s completely unprofessional!”to“Why does the unit pro-duction manager keep hiring this guy?”Both his anger and his refusal to perform his role led others to be wary of working with him in the future.

As this example illustrates,while sarcasm,joking, and admonishing were acceptable behavior,anger and acting out was not.Crew members engaged in a del-icate balancing act:performing their own role to get the work accomplished,while at the same time demon-strating understanding of other roles and maintaining working relationships with others.Crew members upset this balance at their own peril.As these roles were conditioned by the career structure and the institutional structure,joking and politeness were far more common than anger because they enabled the work to continue, smoothed over potential obstacles,and kept the social system running.

Finally,learning how roles interacted with one another was also integral to coordination.In the example of the costumers,their understanding of when it was effec-tive for them to run back to the truck saved them time and effort and offered the opportunity to perform more important tasks such as checking the costumes of the actors in order to be ready for the next shot.In like fashion,Don’s improved understanding from both past experiences and current role negotiation that part of his role was to pressure the producer to take a meal break was what enabled the production to move onward.The understanding created through the interplay of structure and enactments thus facilitated quick coordination on ?lm sets.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study offers a role-based analysis of coordination, demonstrating that in these temporary organizations,the role structure and enactments coordinated,enabled, and constrained work activity.The results provide us with a detailed picture of the coordination activity in temporary organizations,extending our understanding of how the work happens in this organizational form.More-over,the focus on how roles provide negotiated structure in temporary organizations both contributes to role the-ory by elaborating our knowledge of how roles are con-stituted in organizations and highlights the contribution of role enactment to our understanding of coordination in organizations.

Examining coordination from a role-oriented perspec-tive allows us to further our understanding of the nature of temporary organizations.The?lm sets I observed could not be characterized as organizational“one-night stands”that required swift trust in execution(Meyerson et al.1996).Instead,from the?rst moment they arrived on set,members of these temporary organiza-tions relied on role expectations to guide relationships and tasks.These expectations were based on two inter-related elements of roles:structure and enactment.The generalized role structure provided the continuity and stability that the individual temporary projects lacked. On each project,members in certain roles were expected to perform certain tasks.At the same time,strong social pressure was exerted to ensure that crew members con-formed to role expectations.The coordination practices at the crew level were in?uenced by the structural con-text of the?lm industry:In order to maintain friend-ships and further careers,people were inclined to express expectations in as soft a manner as possible and to accept criticism and try hard to meet those expectations.This social pressure not only helped coordinate tasks,but also contributed to sustaining the generalized role structure. This research demonstrates how role structure and role enactment are paramount for coordinating the work as well as maintaining the social system.Because this was an ethnographic study of four sets,it cannot pro-vide de?nitive evidence on the social structure of the ?lm industry.A longitudinal qualitative analysis of the role enactments of all the participants in a temporary system would have to be undertaken to produce such support.However,this study is suggestive of how the generalized role structure and role enactments interact to rapidly create working temporary organizations.As such,it advances our understanding of how clear role structures are actually learned and elaborated through the interactive process of enactment.The analysis also links the structural context of this particular indus-try to the role enactments that enable coordination.In doing so,it enables us to think about particular condi-tions under which these coordination practices happen.7 Examining these conditions helps us to understand how coordination practices on?lm sets might generalize to other settings.

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS15

Conditions In?uencing Role Enactment and Structure

Four conditions are meaningful for linking role struc-ture and enactment to explain coordination in temporary organizations:position and status of individuals,expec-tations of interaction in the future,visibility of interac-tion,and duration in role.The career structure creates a context in which crew members spend only short times in particular roles because each project is temporary. However,crew members have high expectations of inter-acting with some of the same people on future projects. Additionally,in a temporary total institution interaction is highly visible,and people spend a lot of time together both working and socializing.

Duration in Role.Because careers in the?lm industry are interorganizational,there is a new arrangement of people occupying the roles on each particular project. Therefore,coordination on each project requires speedy understanding of the new instantiation of the role structure.This contrasts with other structural contexts that have greater stability of membership,such as high-reliability organizations like aircraft carrier crews (Weick and Roberts1993)or ship navigators(Hutchins 1990,1995).As in?lm projects,these settings require active coordination and rely on attentive communication. However,in high-reliability organizations,roles are usu-ally occupied continuously by the same set of people. As a result,people can rely on their relationships with one another and their longstanding performance of the same roles to“heedfully interrelate”(Weick and Roberts 1993).In these settings,technology often serves as a structuring mechanism that creates stability,orienting members toward their interdependent tasks(Hutchins 1995).Over time,people in these settings also develop idiosyncratic ways of relating to one another while working.

In contrast,temporary organizations must create coor-dination under conditions in which new sets of people occupy the roles on each project.Instead of technol-ogy or longstanding relationships,roles are the primary structuring and stabilizing force.Crews use practices of admonishing,thanking,and joking to accelerate famil-iarity with one another and reinforce role expectations. These practices of interrelating are“heedful”in the sense that crew members are paying attention to and actively encouraging and discouraging certain elements of role performance.However,analyzing such practices with respect to the role structure demonstrates exactly what people are being attentive to—not just speci?cs about task accomplishment but social cues about appro-priate behavior that organize emergent structure and pro-vide continuity across projects.

Expectation of Future Interaction.Understanding the conditions inherent in a temporary total institution also helps account for the social dynamics seen in role enactments on?lm sets.My description of crew mem-bers’balancing act between role performance and rela-tionship maintenance allows us to see how thanking and role-based joking help perpetuate the role system.Rela-tionships with fellow crew members are paramount in this structural context,where both careers and emotional well-being are conditioned on successful role perfor-mance.Among crew members,there is an expectation that they will be interacting with these colleagues con-tinuously for the duration of the shoot.Also,they rely on positive assessments by these colleagues for future employment opportunities.Therefore,the crew rarely break out of role or act contrary to role expectations. Instead,they joke and complain to reduce their stress while continuing to act in a role-appropriate manner.As Coser(1959)points out in her study of humor in a hos-pital ward,joking can shape the social structure of the group.On?lm sets,joking strengthens the role structure, making it less likely that role negotiation will result in great structural change.

Thus,as temporary total institutions,the structural and career context of?lm projects creates conditions of both opportunity and constraint for role occupants.Con-sidering how roles are negotiated within the structural context provides an understanding of the process that creates role stability in these organizations alongside role change,illustrating the work done by members of orga-nizations in order to produce situations in which little change seems to happen.By examining how role struc-ture and enactments are related,this study demonstrates how situations of strong institutional context encourage the maintenance of shared de?nitions of roles through the interactive processes of joking,admonishing,and thanking.

Visibility of Interaction and Status of Position.Fur-ther,another way the temporary total institution of?lm projects sustains role structure is by creating conditions that increase the visibility of interaction and emphasize the relative status of positions.On?lm sets,everyone carrying a walkie-talkie on their belt or a call sheet in their pocket knows who is occupying each role.Mem-bers of the crew watch one another at work and at play,and therefore they look to their colleagues for both social and career approbation.As a result of the nor-mative pressure of these temporary projects,while crew members maneuver within their role enactments,broad change in roles is unlikely.

This contrasts the experience of?lmmakers described by Baker and Faulkner(1991)in their in?uential paper exploring roles in the context of temporary systems. Some of these directors,screenwriters,and producers used their roles as resources,adopting new combina-tions of roles that provided the“institutional and cultural means to compete and negotiate”(Baker and Faulkner 1991,p.284)that allowed them to successfully shape

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations 16Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

their movies as well as their careers.However,the crew members on the?lm sets I studied were decidedly dif-ferent,as the behavioral latitude granted a producer or director does not extend down the crew hierarchy to the grips and the electricians.The crew members who per-form much of the coordination work of?lm production are therefore not the creators of positions that Baker and Faulkner(1991)describe.A similar dynamic holds in another cultural industry,restaurant kitchens,in which autonomy and latitude are the province of the chef,who decides not only what meals are cooked but also which cooks will do the cooking(Fine1992,1996).In the?lm industry,the above-the-line roles and key crew members are akin to chefs in terms of their autonomy and status. Production crew,like cooks,are more constrained;while enacting their roles they are less likely to create greatly changed roles than executives are.For most crew mem-bers,?lm sets are a highly institutionalized setting in which they may stretch role boundaries,but they do not have the power to break out of the structural con?nes of their roles.

This behavior?ts with Turner’s(1962)contention that role making only happens in certain kinds of structural situations;in institutionalized situations the?exibility accorded to participants is reduced.This comparison also contributes to our understanding of role theory by clarifying the conditions under which roles can success-fully be used as resources,and when they cannot(Baker and Faulkner1991,Callero1994).Lower status,more institutionally constrained roles are not likely to be used to expand the resources of those who claim them,as the potential behaviors associated with enacting these roles are limited by the structural context.However,the data do illustrate that crew members at all levels of the sta-tus hierarchy participate in reinforcing the role expecta-tions while enacting their roles.Thus,we see thanking, admonishing,and joking among all crew members,in all types of status combinations.These practices can both reinforce the status hierarchy,as when crew members joke about being a PA,while also endorsing the role expectations of higher-status crew members,as when the unit production manager urges the producer to take a lunch break.

This particular example also illustrates how the struc-tural context of?lm production promotes elements of change in individual role enactments.Roles are not com-pletely speci?ed by the role structure,but provide some wiggle room for crew members.In particular,because individuals enact their roles on different projects over time,they develop their own approach to particular roles in response to the enactments of others.This can be seen in the way Don,the unit production manager on Talk to the Animals,responded to the meal-penalty issue on the set.Don chose to be somewhat aggressive in admonishing Jim,the producer,about taking too many meal penalties.His previous experience on a different set suggested that he needed to tell producers more clearly what they needed to do,and thus Don negotiated his role in this instance.Jim accepted this small change in Don’s role,and thereafter Don would probably continue to interact with producers in this new manner.

This study therefore encourages re?ection on the issue of how we de?ne role stability and change.Conceptual-izing change as the normal condition of organization life suggests taking a closer look at the negotiated changes that“sustain and,at the same time,potentially cor-rode stability”in organizations(Tsoukas and Chia2002, p.568).Speci?cally,my data show that role enactment over a series of projects is made up of many small role changes within a relatively persistent pattern of role sta-bility.If we examine these nuanced,negotiated changes in roles,we realize that from an individual perspec-tive,roles are constantly being learned and elaborated. However,within a temporary total institution such as a ?lm set,role expectations receive strong reinforcement through the isolation of temporary projects,the blurring of work and social boundaries between people,expecta-tions of future interaction,and role-based socialization practices like thanking,admonishing,and joking.This results in a role structure that appears stable from the perspective of the?lm industry,and encourages partic-ipants’belief in systems that are“the same from show to show.”Thus,this study reminds us that roles are both stable and changing,as they provide strong expecta-tions for behavior that enables continuity across projects while also allowing individuals room to enact changes in particular instantiations of their roles.Such?ndings suggest a closer exploration of the dynamics of role change,specifying the impetus for changes that continue across projects versus those that are more ephemeral,in order to understand the emergent patterns of stability in organizations.

Implications for Coordination in Organizations Finally,this study explored the importance of roles for coordination in organizations,deepening our understand-ing of how the process of role enactment contributes to coordination.Early understandings about organiza-tion design suggested that as uncertainty facing orga-nizations increases,coordination needs become more complex(Galbraith1973,Thompson1967,Lawrence and Lorsch1967).In particular,as interdependencies among functions increased,organizations were thought to shift coordination mechanisms from standardization, hierarchies,and routines to informal mechanisms such as mutual adjustment(Thompson1967).More recent coor-dination theory focuses on organizational processes,and conceptualizes coordination as managing dependencies among activities(Crowston1997,Malone et al.1999). It argues that a variety of coordination mechanisms such as planning,standards,and simulations can be used to manage different types of dependencies such as those in

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS17

which tasks share a common input or output(Crowston 1997,Malone et al.1999).

However,these theories do not adequately account for the process by which coordination takes place in temporary organizations—the negotiated order created through role enactments.In particular,this study demon-strates the importance of the interplay between the struc-tural context and the negotiated enactment of roles in order to coordinate activity on?lm sets.The relationship between structure and action in coordination is one that has not been explored by coordination theories.Because these theories focus on contrasting alternative mecha-nisms for coordination,they tend to portray trade-offs between formal structures and informal action,rather than investigate how coordination practices rely simul-taneously on structure and enactment.

The bene?ts of exploring the interplay of these aspects of coordination can be seen when comparing the results of this study of negotiated order of?lm sets with Stelling and Bucher’s(1972)investigation of the negotiated order of hospitals.Film projects and hospitals share the struc-tural context of total institutions.However,they differ in terms of their formal structures—?lm sets lack per-manent hierarchy and rely less on standardization—for instance,while hospitals abound with such structures. Interestingly,Stelling and Bucher(1972,p.443)?nd that “medical wards with the strongest hierarchical compo-nent also demonstrate the greatest amount of autonomy”or latitude in role behavior.Thus,while the two settings share the institutional element of their structural context, the formal structural elements in the settings appear to be different and,as a consequence,so does the behav-ioral latitude granted to participants.This brief compar-ison suggests that examining the relationship between the structural context of organizations and the negoti-ated behaviors of individuals provides greater explana-tory power by pinpointing the conditions under which we might see particular coordination practices. Examining role-based organizing from a negotiated order perspective therefore enabled me to specify and elaborate on the conditions that in?uenced coordination practices in?lm projects.For instance,I showed how the context of?lm sets as temporary total institutions cre-ates a powerful environment of social control for crew members.This control is greater as the length of the project increases—on a rap video shoot that lasts a week the isolation and social pressure is not as intense as on a three-month?lm shoot on a deserted island or even on a six-week shoot in a major metropolitan area like New York City.This strong environment makes it possi-ble for roles to work as a coordination mechanism.The narrow and overlapping social and work worlds of the crew members leaves the crew with less exposure to out-side in?uence,and therefore strengthens the impact of role expectations.Without the intense interdependence created in this setting,it is not clear that roles would be as clear or effective for coordination.

Thinking about how these structural conditions are linked to coordination practices invites investigation of other settings where interdependent,complex work may be organized in a temporary manner.For instance, intense work environments seem to be on the rise con-comitantly with temporary forms of organizing.These project-based environments,seen in advertising,consult-ing,and high-tech?rms,are characterized by long hours spent working in temporary groups,sometimes“on loca-tion”as opposed to in a permanent of?ce(Shenhar2001, Grabher2002).A consulting team,however,may not exhibit as many conditions of a temporary total institu-tion as a?lm set.Consultants often return to their of?ces on Fridays and spend weekends at home with family and friends,for example.The study of?lm sets raises ques-tions about how coordination might be accomplished in such settings:How might role expectations be cre-ated within the structural context of these other environ-ments?Mere intensity of interaction while at work may not be suf?cient.Similarly,the institutionalization of the role structure in consulting is not as longstanding or well-developed as that of the?lm industry.This prompts consideration of how temporary organizing can be suc-cessful in settings without a generalized role structure. While roles are important elements of work in all organizations,we would also expect that they would be drawn on in different ways depending upon the struc-tural context.Further,if these environments do not rely heavily on roles,what processes are key to achieving coordination?It remains to be seen how the coordina-tion practices found in this study of?lm sets compare to those in other settings.For instance,the practical activ-ities of police SWAT teams entail regular rehearsals to anticipate potential coordination problems:Team mem-bers meet for scheduled practice of scenarios in order to enable quick action in real engagements(Okhuysen 2005).In contrast,the interaction between functional groups in manufacturing teams is ongoing and relies on the use of material objects to coordinate work:It is struc-tured by formal engineering drawings,and punctuated by problem solving around prototypes during production (Bechky2003).These examples suggest that the impor-tance of different types of coordination practices will vary across settings,and depend on the structural con-text of such practices.Future research therefore should focus on comparative studies of coordination,examining underlying similarities and differences in coordination practices across settings.Only then can we develop a truly thorough understanding of how organizations coor-dinate activity under different conditions.

This paper reveals that examining how people nego-tiate roles is a useful tool for investigating coordina-tion in organizations.Coordination on?lm sets was sustained by the creation of an enduring generalized

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations 18Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

role structure and accomplished through negotiated role enactment.Coordination was embedded in the gener-alized role structure understood by members as they arrived on a temporary project.At6am,when the crew members in my introductory story reported to the set, they arrived not just with their raincoats,equipment, and lights,but also with their understandings of the role structure.All that remained was the negotiation of how these roles would be enacted on this particular set:Who would put the lights in place,and what would be said while placing them?

Acknowledgments

The author appreciates the thoughtful feedback of Mark Zbaracki,Danielle Warren,Anand Swaminathan,Nancy Roth-bard,Gerardo Okhuysen,Anca Metiu,Peter Levin,Rodney Lacey,Quintus Jett,Andy Hargadon,Wendy Guild,Fabrizio Ferraro,Kim Elsbach,Doug Creed,Pablo Boczkowski,Steve Barley,and Bart Balocki,as well as the comments of partici-pants in seminars at MIT,Wharton,EGOS,ICC,INSEAD,and UC Davis.She is also grateful for the help and guidance of Deborah Dougherty and three anonymous reviewers.Finally, the author thanks her informants for taking the time to teach her about making movies.Financial support for this study was pro-vided by the Reginald E.Jones Center at the Wharton School. An earlier version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the61st Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management. Appendix1.Participation at Research Sites

My aim was to gather information about the work involved in?lm production,with a particular focus on the interaction of the different departments and the coordination of the work. Because?lm production is accomplished within temporary organizations,I knew I would need access to several projects before I felt that I had an understanding of the work.Initially, I met with the deputy director of the Philadelphia Film Of?ce, who expressed his interest in the research and began to connect me with local?lm crews.I started my?eldwork on the site of a commercial,as my informant in the?lm of?ce thought that a smaller,self-contained project would be a good introduction to the industry.The?eldwork then extended over a progression of projects,both through snowballing from the initial contact and developing new contacts in other cities.

Alo

My?rst project,in March2000,was a commercial for a long-distance telephone company with a production crew of about50 people.My?lm of?ce informant introduced me to the location manager,who took me under her wing for the two days of the shoot.I explained my role as a researcher who would be“hang-ing out”in her department and assured her that I would main-tain con?dentiality.I spent the duration of the project work-ing with the location manager and her two assistants,scouting locations,putting up and removing?yers around the city,and “locking up”various street corners to prevent pedestrians from gaining access to the?lm site.

Murder Mansion

My second project,in April2000,was an independently funded horror?lm with a budget of approximately$2million.The same?lm of?ce informant connected me to a local produc-tion manager who was serving as a consultant for the start-ing phase of production of Murder Mansion.She immediately put me to work as a production assistant in the of?ce,after we obtained the unit production manager’s approval for my research project.Murder Mansion took?ve weeks to?lm,and had a crew of about50members.The extended duration of the project allowed me to develop close relationships with sev-eral people who acted as“key informants,”and I worked with those individuals most often,focusing on the departments to which they were assigned.These informants provided me with exhaustive detail about their work and the culture of the project. On Murder Mansion,I was able to rotate through many depart-ments,including of?ce,wardrobe,electric,grip,property,and sound.My work entailed standard production assistant duties: going on runs for supplies,locking up locations,and running copies of the“sides,”the reduced-size copies of the scenes that will be shot on a given day.Additionally,because this was a nonunion set,I was able to lend a hand in the more technical departments,and helped to operate lights and create props.I was assigned my own walkie-talkie,which allowed me to mon-itor communications on different channels for each department.

I also occasionally socialized with informants after we?nished shooting in the evening,as well as attended the wrap party after ?lming was completed.

Playaz Ball

In May2000,the production of?ce coordinator from Murder Mansion invited me to work as a production assistant on another project,a rap music video.This provided me the oppor-tunity to observe some preproduction work as well as work as a member of the of?ce and set crew once shooting began.I set up the rooms for auditions and assisted the production of?ce coordinator with locating and securing equipment and trans-portation.During shooting,I transported the band members, locked up the set,and helped prepare the props.The project lasted?ve days and had a crew of35members.

Talk to the Animals

In the spring of2001,I obtained access to a Hollywood studio ?lm,with a budget of over$100million,which was shoot-ing on location in New York.This six-week location shoot had a unionized crew of175members from both coasts,?lming as two separate units.My key informant was the New York unit production manager(UPM),who spent a month negotiat-ing access with the studio on my behalf.For liability reasons, the studio would not let me work as a crew member,and thus I mostly observed.However,I informally assisted the UPM on a daily basis,as well as the of?ce production crew once a week.Additionally,many of the other departments allowed me to observe their activities more directly,including the cam-era,grip,wardrobe,visual and aerial effects,and set-dressing departments.As a result,on the set of Talk to the Animals I learned how to enter payroll,distribute per diems,and load a magazine(prepare?lm for the camera).

Endnotes

1For analyses of the differences between the two approaches, see Turner(1986)and Handel(1979).

2Because the hiring of?lm crews is dependent on social and professional networks(Faulkner and Anderson1987,Jones 1996),often crew members have worked with some others on

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS19

the project before.However,there are always crew members who are strangers to one another,and often members are in positions that are new to them.

3The names of all four projects,as well as all crew members, are pseudonyms.Some of the particular role titles have also been altered to further disguise the identities of the crew mem-bers.

4The of?ce department handles all administrative tasks for the set,managing paperwork and supplier relations.Locations is responsible for?nding and negotiating access to places to shoot.The wardrobe department is responsible for cos-tumes.Lighting and power needs are supplied by the electric department,while the grip department provides mechanical and construction support.The property department procures and manages the“props”that will be seen on-screen,and the sound department captures and records the sound and dialogue.

5Being more familiar with the academic culture of criticism,I was skeptical at?rst of people thanking me so frequently and correcting me so gently,but I quickly became accustomed to it. 6An additional is someone who is not a regular member of the crew,but is hired on a contingent basis when extra help is needed in a department.

7Strauss(1978)would call these conditions the negotiation context:the particular elements of the structural context that directly in?uence negotiations.

References

Amman,John.1996.The transformation of industrial relations in the motion picture and television industries:Craft and production.

Lois S.Gray,Ronald L.Seeber,eds.Under the Stars:Essays on Labor Relations in Arts and Entertainment.ILR/Cornell Univer-sity Press,Ithaca,NY,113–155.

Baker,Wayne E.,Robert R.Faulkner.1991.Role as resource in the Hollywood?lm industry.Amer.J.Sociology97279–309. Barker,James R.1993.Tightening the iron cage:Concertive control in self-managing teams.Admin.Sci.Quart.38408–437. Barley,Stephen R.1996.The New World of Work.British North-American Committee,London,UK.

Barley,Stephen R.,Gideon Kunda.2001.Bringing work back in.

Organ.Sci.1276–95.

Barley,Stephen R.,Gideon Kunda.2004.Gurus,Hired Guns,and Warm Bodies:Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge Economy.

Princeton University Press,Princeton,NJ.

Bart,Peter.1999.The Gross.St.Martin’s Press,New York. Bechky,Beth A.2003.Shared meaning across occupational communi-ties:The transformation of understanding on a production?oor.

Organ.Sci.14312–330.

Belous,Richard S.1989.How human resource systems adjust to the shift toward contingent workers.Monthly Labor Rev.112(3) 7–12.

Biddle,B.J.,E.J.Thomas,eds.1966.Role Theory:Concepts and Research.John Wiley&Sons,Inc.,New York.

Bielby,William T.,Denise https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,anizational mediation of project-based labor markets:Talent agencies and the careers of screenwriters.Amer.Sociological Rev.6464–85. Bigley,G.A.,K.H.Roberts.2001.The incident command system: High reliability organizing for complex and volatile task envi-ronments.Acad.Management J.44(6)1281–1299.Birnholtz,Jeremy P.,Michael D.Cohen,Susannah V.Hoch.2004.

Organizational character:On the regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove.Working paper,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI. Boland,Richard J.,R.Hoffman.1983.Humor in a machine shop: An interpretation of symbolic action.Louis R.Pondy,Peter J.

Frost,Gareth Morgan,Thomas C.Dandridge,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,aniza-tional Symbolism.JAI Press,Greenwich,CT,187–198. Callero,Peter.1994.From role-playing to role-using:Understanding role as resource.Soc.Psych.Quart.57228–243.

Carlile,Paul Reuben.2002.A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries:Boundary objects in new product development.

Organ.Sci.13442–455.

Christopherson,Susan,Michael Storper.1989.The effects of?ex-ible specialization on industrial politics and the labor market: The motion picture https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,bor Relations Rev.42 331–347.

Cooper,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,bor pains:Hollywood unions are on the defen-sive.Can they survive?Should they?Premiere(September) 86–89.

Coser,Rose Laub.1959.Some social functions of laughter:A study of humor in a hospital setting.Human Relations12171–182. Crowston,Kevin.1997.A coordination theory approach to organiza-tional process https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,an.Sci.8157–175.

Davis-Blake,Alison,Brian Uzzi.1993.Determinants of employment externalization:A study of temporary workers and independent contractors.Admin.Sci.Quart.38195–223.

Day,Robert,JoAnne V.Day.1977.A review of the current state of negotiated order theory:An appreciation and a critique.Socio-logical Quart.19126–142.

DeFillippi,Robert J.,Michael B.Arthur.1998.Paradox in project-based enterprise:The case of?lm making.California Manage-ment Rev.40125–139.

Dunne,John D.1969.The Studio.Farrar,Strauss and Giroux, New York.

Eccles,Robert G.1981.The quasi?rm in the construction industry.

J.Econom.Behavior Organ.2335–357.

Faulkner,Robert R.,Andy B.Anderson.1987.Short-term projects and emergent careers:Evidence from Hollywood.Amer.J.Sociology 92879–909.

Feldman,Martha S.,Brian T.Pentland.2003.Reconceptualizing orga-nizational routines as a source of?exibility and change.Admin.

Sci.Quart.4894–118.

Fine,Gary Alan.1992.The culture of production:Aesthetic choices and constraints in culinary work.Amer.J.Sociology97 1268–1294.

Fine,Gary Alan.1996.Kitchens:The culture of restaurant work.

University of California Press,Berkeley,CA.

Galbraith,James R.1973.Designing Complex Organizations.

Addison-Wesley,Reading,MA.

Glaser,Barney G.,Anselm K.Strauss.1967.The Discovery of Grounded Theory:Strategies for Qualitative Research.Aldine de Gruyter,New York.

Goffman,Erving.1961a.Asylums.Anchor Books,Garden City,NY. Goffman,Erving.1961b.Encounters:Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction.Bobbs-Merrill,Indianapolis,IN.

Goldman,William.1983.Adventures in the Screen Trade.Warner Books,New York.

Goodman,Lawrence Peter,Richard Alan Goodman.1972.Theater as

a temporary system.California Management Rev.15103–108.

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations 20Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS

Goodman,Richard Alan,Lawrence Peter Goodman.1976.Some man-agement issues in temporary systems:A study of the profes-sional development and manpower—the theater case.Admin.

Sci.Quart.21494–500.

Grabher,Gernot.2002.The project ecology of advertising:Tasks, talents and teams.Regional Stud.36245–263.

Gunz,Hugh,Martin Evans,Michael Jalland.2000.Career boundaries in a“boundaryless”world.M.Peiperl,M.Arthur,R.Goffee, T.Morris,eds.Career Frontiers:New Conceptions of Working Lives.Oxford University Press,Oxford,UK,24–53. Handel,Warren.1979.Normative expectations and the emergence of meaning as solutions to problems:Convergence of structural and interactionist views.Amer.J.Sociology84855–881. Hatch,Mary Jo.1997.Irony and the social construction of contradic-tion in the humor of a management https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,an.Sci.8275–288. Heath,Chip,Nancy Staudenmayer.2000.Coordination neglect:How lay theories of organizing complicate coordination in https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,an.Behavior22153–191.

Hughes,Everett C.1958.Men and Their Work.The Free Press, Glencoe,IL.

Hutchins,Edwin.1990.The technology of team navigation.Jolene Galegher,Robert E.Kraut,Carmen Egido,eds.Intellectual Teamwork:Social and Technological Foundations of Coop-erative https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,wrence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale,NJ, 191–220.

Hutchins,Edwin.1995.Cognition in the Wild.The MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.

Jones,Candace.1996.Careers in project networks:The case of the ?lm industry.Michael Arthur,Denise Rousseau,eds.The Bound-aryless Career.Oxford University Press,New York,58–75. Jones,Candace.2002.Signaling expertise:How signals shape career trajectories and labor market segmentation in creative industries.

M.Peiperl,M.B.Arthur,R.Goffe,N.Anand,eds.Career Creativity:Explorations in the Remaking of Work.Oxford Uni-versity Press,New York.

Jones,Candace,Robert J.DeFillippi.1996.Back to the future in ?lm:Combining industry-and self-knowledge to meet career challenges of the21st century.Acad.Management Executive10 89–104.

Jones,Candace,William S.Hesterly,Stephen P.Borgatti.1997.

A general theory of network governance:Exchange conditions

and social mechanisms.Acad.Management Rev.22911–945. Kanter,Rosabeth Moss.1989.When Giants Learn to Dance:Master-ing the Challenges of Strategy,Management,and Careers in the 1990s.Basic Books,New York.

Kanter,Rosabeth Moss.1995.World Class:Thriving Locally in the Global Economy.Simon and Schuster,New York.

Kawin,Bruce F.1992.How Movies Work.University of California Press,Berkeley,CA.

Kunda,Gideon,Stephen R.Barley,James Evans.2002.Why do con-tractors contract?The experience of highly skilled technical pro-fessionals in a contingent labor https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,bor Relations Rev.55234–262.

Lawrence,Paul R.,Jay https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,anization and Envi-ronment:Managing Differentiation and Integration.Graduate School of Business Administration,Harvard University,Boston, MA.

Linton,Ralph.1936.The Study of Man.Appleton-Century,New York. Maines,David R.1982.In search of mesostructure:Studies in the negotiated order.Urban Life11267–279.Malone,Thomas W.,Kevin Crowston,Jintae Lee,Brian Pentland, Chrysanthos Dellarocas,George Wyner,John Quimby,Charles S.Osborn,Abraham Bernstein,George Herman,Mark Klein, Elissa O’Donnell.1999.Tools for inventing organizations: Toward a handbook of organizational processes.Management Sci.45425–443.

March,James G.,Herbert https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,anizations.Wiley, New York.

Menger,Pierre-Michel.1999.Artistic labor markets and careers.

Annual Rev.Sociology25541–574.

Meyerson,Debra,Karl E.Weick,Roderick M.Kramer.1996.Swift trust and temporary groups.Roderick M.Kramer,Thomas R.

Tyler,eds.Trust in Organizations:Frontiers of Theory and Research.Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks,CA,166–195. Okhuysen,Gerardo.2005.Understanding group behavior:How

a police SWAT team creates,changes,and manages group

routines.Kimberly D.Elsbach,ed.Qualitative Organiza-tional https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,rmation Age Publishing,Greenwich,CT, 139–168.

Orlikowski,Wanda.2002.Knowing in practice:Enacting a collective capability in distributed https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,an.Sci.13249–273. Pentland,Brian T.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,anizational routines as grammars of action.Admin.Sci.Quart.39484–510. Peters,Tom.1992.Liberation Management.Knopf,New York. Polivka,Anne E.1996.A pro?le of contingent workers.Monthly Labor Rev.119(10)10–20.

Powell,Walter W.1990.Neither market nor hierarchy:Network forms of https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,an.Behavior12295–336. Prechel,H.1994.Economic crisis and the centralization of control over the managerial process:Corporate restructuring and neo-Fordist decision-making.Amer.Sociological Rev.59723–745. Roy,Donald.1959.“Banana time”:Job satisfaction and informal interaction.Human Organ.18158–168.

Shenhar,Aaron J.2001.Contingent management in temporary, dynamic organizations:The comparative analysis of projects.

J.High Tech.Management Res.12239–271.

Silver,Alain,Elizabeth Ward.1992.The Film Director’s Team.

Silman-James Press,Los Angeles,CA.

Smith,Vicki.1997.New forms of work organization.Annual Rev.

Sociology23315–319.

Stelling,Joan,Rue Bucher.1972.Autonomy and monitoring on hos-pital wards.Sociological Quart.13431–446.

Strauss,Anselm.1978.Negotiations:Varieties,Contexts,Processes, and Social Order.Jossey-Bass,Inc.,San Francisco,CA. Strauss,Anselm,Juliet Corbin.1990.Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.Sage Publica-tions,Newbury Park,CA.

Strauss,Anselm,Leonard Schatzman,Danuta Ehrlich,Rue Bucher, Melvin Sabshin.1963.The hospital and its negotiated order.

Eliot Friedson,ed.The Hospital in Modern Society.Free Press of Glencoe,New York.

Thompson,James https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,anizations in Action.McGraw-Hill, New York.

Tsoukas,Haridimos,Robert Chia.2002.On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,an.Sci.13567–582.

Bechky:Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations

Organization Science17(1),pp.3–21,?2006INF ORMS21

Turner,Jonathan H.1986.The Structure of Sociological Theory.

University of Chicago Press,Chicago,IL.

Turner,Ralph H.1962.Role-taking:Process vs.conformity.A.Rose, ed.Human Behavior and Social Processes.Houghton-Mif?in, Boston,MA.

Turner,Ralph H.1978.The role and the person.Amer.J.Sociology 841–21.

Vallas,Steven P.,John Beck.1996.The transformation of work revis-ited:The limits of?exibility in American manufacturing.Soc.

Problems43339–361.

Weick,Karl E.1993.The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.Admin.Sci.Quart.38628–652. Weick,Karl E.,Karlene H.Roberts.1993.Collective mind in organi-

zations:Heedful interrelating on?ight decks.Admin.Sci.Quart.

38357–381.

Weider,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,wrence.1974.Telling the code.Roy Turner,ed.

Ethnomethodology:Selected Readings.Penguin Education, Harmondsworth,England.

Zetka Jr.,James R.2003.Surgeons and the Scope.Cornell University, Press,Ithaca,NY.

Zuckerman,Ezra W.2004.Do?rms and markets look different?

Repeat collaboration in the feature?lm industry,1935–1995.

Working paper,MIT Sloan School of Management,Boston,MA. Zuckerman,Ezra W.,Tai-Young Kim,Kalinda Ukanwa,James von Rittmann.2003.Robust identities or non-entities?Typecasting in the feature?lm labor market.Amer.J.Sociology1081018–1075.

智能存包柜(储物柜)产品技术说明书

条码式寄存柜（储物柜）产品技术说明 一、适用范围 自助行李寄存柜，用于高效率、规范化且消费群体较密集的高档公共场所，如：超市、学校、机场、俱乐部、游泳馆、健身房、超市、大卖场、商场、事业单位等。客户可根据自身特点选择不同类型的机组，有条码型、指纹型、IC卡、条形码卡、磁卡、射频卡以及TM扣等，或者使用客户各自所持有的会员卡。 二、基本组成 自助行李寄存柜，是由嵌入式计算机进行控制，具有管理功能的小件物品寄存系统。主要由输入设备（条码阅读器）、输出设备（如中文液晶显示）、嵌入式计算机处理中心、管理软件以及电源组成。 三、结构、材料、钣金说明 寄存柜柜体选用0.8mm以上优质冷轧板，经冷加工成形后，用二氧化碳气体保护焊焊接装配而成，柜体结构坚固结实。箱体表面经除锈、除油、打磨、磷化处理后喷塑，塑面的颜色可由用户选定。?箱门背面增加纵向加强筋，提高箱门的防撞击能力；能有效防止和降低使用者因疏忽碰伤、磕伤，电控锁采用360度具有防撬、带防软片插入装置。 四、元器件说明 1)电控锁：经过10万次寿命测试无故障，性能可靠稳定。部件的表面均作热 涂锌防锈处理，装配成形后每把锁均作电气绝缘试验和开启试验，并按加工批量的1％作寿命试验。 2)扫描枪：台湾欣技C1000，性能稳定，读码速度快。 3)液晶显示屏：3.5寸彩色显示屏。例如:

表示：空箱，顾客可以存入的箱子 表示：满箱，有合法密码，箱内有物 4)打印机：自主研发使用日本精工打印机芯。 5)控制主板：自主研发生产。 6)切纸刀：自主研发生产、10万次寿命测试，性能稳定，配有走纸导向。 7)控制芯片：采用国际上著名大公司的工业级产品，有ATMEL公司、INTEL公 司、日立公司、德州公司等。 8)键盘：选用电话机水晶键盘，工作可靠，永不退色，使用寿命长。 五、常规技术指标 （1）功率－待机：25W 开箱：60W （2）电源电压：AC110V—AC240V 50HZ （3）后备电源（可选）：18V 7AH （4）打印速度：35mm/s （5）打印机寿命：50Km （6）柜体冷轧钢板厚度：0.8mm （7）读码速度：<0.4s （8）显示分辨率：3.5寸彩色液晶屏（可定制显示LOGO） 六、条码寄存柜主要功能说明 ?大屏幕液晶显示屏 操作步骤提示、箱门5种状态显示、时钟显示、常规故障指示、设置菜单、管理界面、工作状态显示等。 在现场安装就位后，确认各个部件正常后，即可上电开机，完整的显示： ?全开放式中文设置菜单（可定制多国语言、语音） 寄存柜的各个管理参数全部面向客户开放，客户可选择相应的菜单进行设置。设有三级管理密码，方便不同级别的管理要求。 ?快捷管理员管理菜单 在管理模式下，管理快捷菜单可应急开启箱门、清除箱门ID、查询箱门状态等操作。可设置500位管理员进行管理,每个管理员可根据自己的用户号及管

脐带干细胞综述

脐带间充质干细胞的研究进展 间充质干细胞（mesenchymal stem cells,MSC S ）是来源于发育早期中胚层 的一类多能干细胞[1-5]，MSC S 由于它的自我更新和多项分化潜能，而具有巨大的 治疗价值 ,日益受到关注。MSC S 有以下特点：(1)多向分化潜能，在适当的诱导条件下可分化为肌细胞[2]、成骨细胞[3、4]、脂肪细胞、神经细胞[9]、肝细胞[6]、心肌细胞[10]和表皮细胞[11, 12]；(2)通过分泌可溶性因子和转分化促进创面愈合；(3) 免疫调控功能，骨髓源（bone marrow ）MSC S 表达MHC-I类分子，不表达MHC-II 类分子，不表达CD80、CD86、CD40等协同刺激分子，体外抑制混合淋巴细胞反应，体内诱导免疫耐受[11, 15]，在预防和治疗移植物抗宿主病、诱导器官移植免疫耐受等领域有较好的应用前景；(4)连续传代培养和冷冻保存后仍具有多向分化潜能，可作为理想的种子细胞用于组织工程和细胞替代治疗。1974年Friedenstein [16] 首先证明了骨髓中存在MSC S ，以后的研究证明MSC S 不仅存在于骨髓中，也存在 于其他一些组织与器官的间质中：如外周血[17]，脐血[5]，松质骨[1, 18]，脂肪组织[1]，滑膜[18]和脐带。在所有这些来源中，脐血(umbilical cord blood)和脐带(umbilical cord)是MSC S 最理想的来源，因为它们可以通过非侵入性手段容易获 得，并且病毒污染的风险低，还可冷冻保存后行自体移植。然而，脐血MSC的培养成功率不高[19, 23-24]，Shetty 的研究认为只有6%，而脐带MSC的培养成功率可 达100%[25]。另外从脐血中分离MSC S ，就浪费了其中的造血干/祖细胞(hematopoietic stem cells/hematopoietic progenitor cells,HSCs/HPCs) [26, 27]，因此，脐带MSC S (umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells, UC-MSC S )就成 为重要来源。 一．概述 人脐带约40 g, 它的长度约60–65 cm, 足月脐带的平均直径约1.5 cm[28, 29]。脐带被覆着鳞状上皮，叫脐带上皮，是单层或复层结构，这层上皮由羊膜延续过来[30, 31]。脐带的内部是两根动脉和一根静脉，血管之间是粘液样的结缔组织，叫做沃顿胶质，充当血管外膜的功能。脐带中无毛细血管和淋巴系统。沃顿胶质的网状系统是糖蛋白微纤维和胶原纤维。沃顿胶质中最多的葡萄糖胺聚糖是透明质酸，它是包绕在成纤维样细胞和胶原纤维周围的并维持脐带形状的水合凝胶，使脐带免受挤压。沃顿胶质的基质细胞是成纤维样细胞[32]，这种中间丝蛋白表达于间充质来源的细胞如成纤维细胞的，而不表达于平滑肌细胞。共表达波形蛋白和索蛋白提示这些细胞本质上肌纤维母细胞。 脐带基质细胞也是一种具有多能干细胞特点的细胞，具有多项分化潜能，其 形态和生物学特点与骨髓源性MSC S 相似[5, 20, 21, 38, 46]，但脐带MSC S 更原始，是介 于成体干细胞和胚胎干细胞之间的一种干细胞，表达Oct-4, Sox-2和Nanog等多

二、分析天平的基本操作

模块二滴定分析基本操作任务一分析天平的基本操作 一、分析天平的分类 分析天平是定量分析中最常用的准确称量物质的仪器。分析天平分类：等臂（双盘）分析天平、不等臂（单盘）分析天平、电子天平。 二、电子天平的介绍 1、工作原理：电磁平衡原理，秤盘通过支架连杆支架作用于线圈上，重力方向向下。线圈内有电流通过时，根据电磁基本理论，通电的导线在磁场中将产生一个向上作用的电磁力，与秤盘重力方向相反大小相同，与之相平衡，而通过导线的电流与被称物体的质量成正比。 2、性能特点：a.使用寿命长，性能稳定，灵敏度高，体积小，操作方便 b.称 量速度快、精度高 c.具有自动校准、累计称量、超载显示、自动去皮等功能 3、称量的一般程序 水平调节——打扫——预热——开启显示器——校准——称量——结束工作 ①水平调节检查水平仪，调节水平调节脚，使水泡位于水平仪中心。 ②打扫打扫天平秤盘 ③预热通电预热30min以上 ④开启显示器按ON键，显示器亮，显示屏出现0.0000g ⑤校准按“校准”键 ⑥称量被称物置于秤盘中间进行称量 ⑦称量结束工作取下被称物，核对零点，关闭天平，进行使用登记 4、基本称量方法 ①直接称量法将称量物直接放在天平盘上直接称量物体的质量。例如，称量 小烧杯的质量，容量器皿校正中称量某容量瓶的质量，重量分析实验中称量某坩埚的质量等，都使用这种称量法。 ②固定质量称量法

用于称量某一固定质量的试剂(如基准物质)或试样。适于称量不易吸潮、在空气中能稳定存在的粉末状或小颗粒样品。 A、去皮将干燥的容器置于秤盘上，待显示平衡后按“去皮”键扣除皮重并显示零点 B、加样打开天平门，用药匙将试样抖入容器内，使之达到所需质量。 固定质量称量法注意：若不慎加入试剂超过指定质量，用牛角匙取出多余试剂，直至试剂质量符合指定要求为止。严格要求时，取出的多余试剂应弃去，不要放回原试剂瓶中。操作时不能将试剂散落于天平盘等容器以外的地方，称好的试剂必须定量地由表面皿等容器直接转入接受容器，此即所谓“定量转移”。 ③递减称量法（减量法） 用于称量一定质量范围的样品或试剂。样品易吸水、易氧化或易与二氧化碳等反应时，可选择此法。。 称量步骤：试样的保存——取出盛试样的称量瓶——称出称量瓶质量——敲样——再称出其质量——样品质量——连续称样——称量工作结束 A、试样保存待称样品放于洁净的干燥容器（称量瓶）中，置于干燥器中保存 B、取出称量瓶左手戴手套取出称量瓶或者用折叠成约1cm的纸取出 C、称出称量瓶质量称出称量瓶质量，记录数据 D、敲样将称量瓶取出，在接收容器的上方倾斜瓶身，用称量瓶盖轻敲瓶口上部使试样慢慢落入容器中，瓶盖始终不要离开接受器上方。当倾出的试样接近所需量时，一边继续用瓶盖轻敲瓶口，一边逐渐将瓶身竖直，使粘附在瓶口上的试样落回称量瓶，然后盖好瓶盖，准确称其质量。两次质量之差，即为试样的质量。按上述方法连续递减，可称量多份试样。

精神分裂症的病因及发病机理

精神分裂症的病因及发病机理 精神分裂症病因：尚未明，近百年来的研究结果也仅发现一些可能的致病因素。（一）生物学因素1．遗传遗传因素是精神分裂症最可能的一种素质因素。国内家系调查资料表明：精神分裂症患者亲属中的患病率比一般居民高6.2倍，血缘关系愈近，患病率也愈高。双生子研究表明：遗传信息几乎相同的单卵双生子的同病率远较遗传信息不完全相同 的双卵双生子为高，综合近年来11项研究资料：单卵双生子同病率（56.7%），是双卵双生子同病率（12.7%）的4.5倍，是一般人口患难与共病率的35-60倍。说明遗传因素在本病发生中具有重要作用，寄养子研究也证明遗传因素是本症发病的主要因素，而环境因素的重要性较小。以往的研究证明疾病并不按类型进行遗传，目前认为多基因遗传方式的可能性最大，也有人认为是常染色体单基因遗传或多源性遗传。Shields发现病情愈轻，病因愈复杂，愈属多源性遗传。高发家系的前瞻性研究与分子遗传的研究相结合，可能阐明一些问题。国内有报道用人类原癌基因Ha-ras-1为探针，对精神病患者基因组进行限止性片段长度多态性的分析，结果提示11号染色体上可能存在着精神分裂症与双相情感性精神病有关的DNA序列。2．性格特征：约40%患者的病前性格具有孤僻、冷淡、敏感、多疑、富于幻想等特征，即内向

型性格。3．其它：精神分裂症发病与年龄有一定关系，多发生于青壮年，约1/2患者于20～30岁发病。发病年龄与临床类型有关，偏执型发病较晚，有资料提示偏执型平均发病年龄为35岁，其它型为23岁。80年代国内12地区调查资料：女性总患病率（7.07%。）与时点患病率（5.91%。）明显高于男性（4.33%。与3.68%。）。Kretschmer在描述性格与精神分裂症关系时指出：61%患者为瘦长型和运动家型，12.8%为肥胖型，11.3%发育不良型。在躯体疾病或分娩之后发生精神分裂症是很常见的现象，可能是心理性生理性应激的非特异性影响。部分患者在脑外伤后或感染性疾病后发病；有报告在精神分裂症患者的脑脊液中发现病毒性物质；月经期内病情加重等躯体因素都可能是诱发因素，但在精神分裂症发病机理中的价值有待进一步证实。（二）心理社会因素1．环境因素①家庭中父母的性格，言行、举止和教育方式（如放纵、溺爱、过严）等都会影响子女的心身健康或导致个性偏离常态。②家庭成员间的关系及其精神交流的紊乱。③生活不安定、居住拥挤、职业不固定、人际关系不良、噪音干扰、环境污染等均对发病有一定作用。农村精神分裂症发病率明显低于城市。2．心理因素一般认为生活事件可发诱发精神分裂症。诸如失学、失恋、学习紧张、家庭纠纷、夫妻不和、意处事故等均对发病有一定影响，但这些事件的性质均无特殊性。因此，心理因素也仅属诱发因

脐带血造血干细胞库管理办法(试行)

脐带血造血干细胞库管理办法（试行） 第一章总则 第一条为合理利用我国脐带血造血干细胞资源，促进脐带血造血干细胞移植高新技术的发展，确保脐带血 造血干细胞应用的安全性和有效性，特制定本管理办法。 第二条脐带血造血干细胞库是指以人体造血干细胞移植为目的，具有采集、处理、保存和提供造血干细胞 的能力，并具有相当研究实力的特殊血站。 任何单位和个人不得以营利为目的进行脐带血采供活动。 第三条本办法所指脐带血为与孕妇和新生儿血容量和血循环无关的，由新生儿脐带扎断后的远端所采集的 胎盘血。 第四条对脐带血造血干细胞库实行全国统一规划，统一布局，统一标准，统一规范和统一管理制度。 第二章设置审批 第五条国务院卫生行政部门根据我国人口分布、卫生资源、临床造血干细胞移植需要等实际情况，制订我 国脐带血造血干细胞库设置的总体布局和发展规划。 第六条脐带血造血干细胞库的设置必须经国务院卫生行政部门批准。 第七条国务院卫生行政部门成立由有关方面专家组成的脐带血造血干细胞库专家委员会（以下简称专家委

员会），负责对脐带血造血干细胞库设置的申请、验收和考评提出论证意见。专家委员会负责制订脐带血 造血干细胞库建设、操作、运行等技术标准。 第八条脐带血造血干细胞库设置的申请者除符合国家规划和布局要求，具备设置一般血站基本条件之外， 还需具备下列条件： （一）具有基本的血液学研究基础和造血干细胞研究能力； （二）具有符合储存不低于1 万份脐带血的高清洁度的空间和冷冻设备的设计规划； （三）具有血细胞生物学、HLA 配型、相关病原体检测、遗传学和冷冻生物学、专供脐带血处理等符合GMP、 GLP 标准的实验室、资料保存室； （四）具有流式细胞仪、程控冷冻仪、PCR 仪和细胞冷冻及相关检测及计算机网络管理等仪器设备； （五）具有独立开展实验血液学、免疫学、造血细胞培养、检测、HLA 配型、病原体检测、冷冻生物学、 管理、质量控制和监测、仪器操作、资料保管和共享等方面的技术、管理和服务人员； （六）具有安全可靠的脐带血来源保证； （七）具备多渠道筹集建设资金运转经费的能力。 第九条设置脐带血造血干细胞库应向所在地省级卫生行政部门提交设置可行性研究报告，内容包括：

电子天平使用说明书.

电子天平使用说明书 使用方法 ◎准备 1、将天平安放在稳定及水平的工作台上,避免振动、气流、阳光直射和剧烈的温度波动; 2、安装称盘; 3、接通电源前请确认当地交流电压是否与天平所附的电源适配器所需电压一致; 4、为获得准确的称量结果,在进行称量前天平应接通电源预热30分钟。 ◎电源 1. 天平随机附配交流电源适配器,输入220+22-33V ~ 50Hz 输出9V 300mA 2. 天平选用电池供电时可打开天平底部的电池盖按极性指示装入电池即可,建议使用9伏碱性电池,可连续工作约12小时。 当天平电池供电时,显示屏左上角电量指示框显示段数表明电池的状态(显示3段:电池充足,显示0段:电池耗尽,当电池电量将耗尽时,最后一个显示段闪烁。 ◎开机 在称盘空载情况下按<开/关>键,天平依次进入自检显示(显示屏所有字段短时点亮、型号显示和零状态显示,当天平显示零状态时即可进行称量; 当遇到相关功能键设置有误无法恢复时,按<开/关>键重新开机即可恢复初始设置状态。

◎校准 为获得准确的称量结果,必须对天平进行校准以适应当地的重力加速度。校准应在天平预热结束后进行,遇到以下情况必须使用外部校准砝码对天平进行校准。 1. 首次使用天平称量之前; 2. 天平改变安放位置后。 校准方法与步骤: 1.准备好校准用的标准砝码并确保称盘空载; 2.按<去皮>键:天平显示零状态; 3.按<校准>键:天平显示闪烁的CAL—XXX,(XXX一般为100、200或其它数字,提醒使用相对应的100g、200g或其它规格的标准砝码 4.将标准砝码放到称盘中心位置,天平显示CAL-XXX,等待几秒钟后,显示标准砝码的量值。此时移去砝码,天平显示零状态,则表示校准结束,可以进行称量。如天平不零状态,应重复进行一次校准工作。 ◎称量 天平经校准后即可进行称量,称量时必须等显示器左下角的“○”标志熄灭后才可读数,称量过程中被称物必须轻拿轻放,并确保不使天平超载,以免损坏天平的传感器。 ◎清零或去皮 清零:当天平空载时,如显示不在零状态,可按<去皮>键,使天平显示零状态。此时才可进行正常称量。

存包柜项目方案说明

存包柜项目方案说明 一、项目基本信息 （一）项目名称 存包柜项目 （二）项目建设单位 xxx有限公司 （三）法定代表人 于xx （四）公司简介 本公司奉行“客户至上，质量保障”的服务宗旨，树立“一切为客户着想” 的经营理念，以高效、优质、优惠的专业精神服务于新老客户。 公司依托集团公司整体优势、发展自身专业化咨询能力，以助力产业提高运营效率为使命，提供全方面的业务咨询服务。 公司将加强人才的引进和培养，尤其是研发及业务方面的高级人才，健全研发、管理和销售等各级人员的薪酬考核体系，完善激励制度，提高公司员工创造力，为公司的持续快速发展提供强大保障。

上一年度，xxx（集团）有限公司实现营业收入7026.99万元，同比增长25.92%（1446.42万元）。其中，主营业业务存包柜生产及销售收入为5749.34万元，占营业总收入的81.82%。 根据初步统计测算，公司实现利润总额1653.53万元，较去年同期相比增长375.52万元，增长率29.38%；实现净利润1240.15万元，较去年同期相比增长139.78万元，增长率12.70%。 （五）项目选址 xx新兴产业示范基地 （六）项目用地规模 项目总用地面积12559.61平方米（折合约18.83亩）。 （七）项目用地控制指标 该工程规划建筑系数71.28%，建筑容积率1.01，建设区域绿化覆盖率7.20%，固定资产投资强度188.57万元/亩。 项目净用地面积12559.61平方米，建筑物基底占地面积8952.49平方米，总建筑面积12685.21平方米，其中：规划建设主体工程7943.44平方米，项目规划绿化面积913.28平方米。 （八）设备选型方案 项目计划购置设备共计91台（套），设备购置费1292.40万元。 （九）节能分析 1、项目年用电量486324.58千瓦时，折合59.77吨标准煤。

分析天平使用说明书

TG-328分析天平使用说明书 一、分析天平结构及作用原理： 1.该分析天平，是属于双盘等臂式，横梁采用铜镍合金制成，上面装有玛瑙刀三把，中间为固定的支点刀，两边可调整的承重刀。 好仪器，好资料，尽在沧州建仪（https://www.wendangku.net/doc/8d15907422.html,）。欢迎查询。 打造中国建仪销售第一品牌，树立沧州产品全新形象 2.支点刀位于支点刀垫上，支点刀垫固定在天平立柱上端。 3.横梁停动装置为双层折翼式，在天平开启时，横梁上的承重刀必须比支点刀先接角触，为了避免刀锋损坏和保证横梁位置的再现性，开启天平求轻稳，避免冲击，摇晃。 4.横梁的左右两端悬挂承重挂钩，左承重挂钩上装有砝码承重架，该二零碎件分别挂在小刀刃上，另有秤盘各一件分别挂在承重挂钩上。 5.整个天平固定在大理石的基座板上，底板前下部装有二只可供调整水平位置的螺旋脚，后面装有一只固定脚，天平木框前面有一扇可供启闭及随意停止在上下位置的玻璃门，右侧有一扇玻璃移门。 6.秤盘上节中间的阻尼装置，是用铝合金板制成，固定在中柱上。是利用空气阻力来减少横梁的摆动时间，达到静止迅速，从而提高工作效率。

7.光学报影装置，固定在底板上前方，可直接读出0.1-10毫克以内的重量值。 8.天平外框左侧装有机械加码装置，通过三档增减砝码的指示旋钮来变换自10毫克-199.99克砝码以内所需重量值。 二、分析天平主要技术指标： 规格型号技术参数：秤盘尺寸 TG328A200g/0.1mg80mm TG328B200g/0.1mg80mm1 TG628A200g/1mg80mm 三、分析天平性能特点： 1.TG系列双盘机械天平，采用空气阻尼，光电读数，具有称量准确，读数简便，价格实惠。 2.专供实验室，学校，工矿等作精密称量分析用。 四、天平的安装方法： a．安装前的准备工作安装前的准备工作安装前的准备工作安装前的准备工作 1.安装选择：天平必须放在牢固的台上，不准有震动，气流存在，室内气温要求干燥明亮，温度最好保持在20℃±2℃左右，避免阳光晒射单面受热和气温潮湿，反之影响天平的灵敏度和正确性。

精神分裂症的发病原因是什么

精神分裂症的发病原因是什么 精神分裂症是一种精神病，对于我们的影响是很大的，如果不幸患上就要及时做好治疗，不然后果会很严重，无法进行正常的工作和生活，是一件很尴尬的事情。因此为了避免患上这样的疾病，我们就要做好预防，今天我们就请广州协佳的专家张可斌来介绍一下精神分裂症的发病原因。 精神分裂症是严重影响人们身体健康的一种疾病，这种疾病会让我们整体看起来不正常，会出现胡言乱语的情况，甚至还会出现幻想幻听，可见精神分裂症这种病的危害程度。 (1)精神刺激：人的心理与社会因素密切相关，个人与社会环境不相适应，就产生了精神刺激，精神刺激导致大脑功能紊乱，出现精神障碍。不管是令人愉快的良性刺激，还是使人痛苦的恶性刺激，超过一定的限度都会对人的心理造成影响。 (2)遗传因素：精神病中如精神分裂症、情感性精神障碍，家族中精神病的患病率明显高于一般普通人群，而且血缘关系愈近，发病机会愈高。此外，精神发育迟滞、癫痫性精神障碍的遗传性在发病因素中也占相当的比重。这也是精神病的病因之一。 (3)自身：在同样的环境中，承受同样的精神刺激，那些心理素质差、对精神刺激耐受力低的人易发病。通常情况下，性格内向、心胸狭窄、过分自尊的人，不与人交往、孤僻懒散的人受挫折后容易出现精神异常。 (4)躯体因素：感染、中毒、颅脑外伤、肿瘤、内分泌、代谢及营养障碍等均可导致精神障碍，。但应注意，精神障碍伴有的躯体因素，并不完全与精神症状直接相关，有些是由躯体因素直接引起的，有些则是以躯体因素只作为一种诱因而存在。 孕期感染。如果在怀孕期间，孕妇感染了某种病毒，病毒也传染给了胎儿的话，那么，胎儿出生长大后患上精神分裂症的可能性是极其的大。所以怀孕中的女性朋友要注意卫生，尽量不要接触病毒源。 上述就是关于精神分裂症的发病原因，想必大家都已经知道了吧。患上精神分裂症之后，大家也不必过于伤心，现在我国的医疗水平是足以让大家快速恢复过来的，所以说一定要保持良好的情绪。

基于单片机的自动存包系统设计

基于单片机的自动存包系统设计 摘要 近年来，随着生活水平的提高，人们对于社会消费品的质量和数量的要求也在逐渐增加。为了更好的为广大顾客服务，在一些商场、影院、超市等公共场合通常设置有自动存包柜，本次便是针对这一现象进行设计。 本文详细介绍了国内自动存包控制系统的发展现状，发展中所面临的问题。并详细介绍了本系统采用的AT89S52单片机做控制器，可以同时管理四个存包柜。柜门锁是由继电器控制，当顾客需要存包的时候，可以自行到存包柜前按“开门”键，需要顾客向光学指纹识别系统输入个指纹，然后通过继电器进行开门（用亮灯表示），顾客即可存包，并需将柜门关上。当顾客需要取包时，要将只要将之前输入的指纹放置于指纹识别器前方，指纹识别器采集到指纹信息输出相应的高低电平信号传给单片机，系统比较密码一致后，发出开箱信号至继电器将柜门打开，顾客即可将包取出。它具有功能实用、操作简便、安全可靠、抗干扰性强等特点。 关键词：自动存包柜,单片机,指纹识别器

李少鹏：基于单片机的自动存包系统设计 Based on single chip microcomputer automatic package design Abstract In recent years, with the improvement of living standards, people for social consumer goo ds quality and quantity requirements are to increase gradually. In order to better service for the g eneral customers, in some stores, movie theaters, supermarkets public Settings are to be put auto matically usually bag ark, it is functional practical, simple operation, safe and reliable, anti-jamm ing strong sexual characteristics. Domestic deposit automatic control system are introduced in detail in this paper the development of the status quo, problems faced in the development of. And introduces in detail the system adopts single chip microcomputer controller, can simultaneously manage multiple pack ark. Cupboard door lock controlled by relay, when customers need to save package, will be allowed to save package before the ark according to the "open" button, need customer to the system input fingerprint, and then through the relay to open the door (with lighting), customers can save package, and the cupboard door must be closed. When customers need to pick up package, as long as before the input fingerprint should be placed on the fingerprint recognizer, fingerprint recognizer collecting to the fingerprint information and output the corresponding high and low level signal to the microcontroller, the system is password consistent, signal out of the box to the relay Key words: Automatic Storage Bag, Microcontroller, Fingerprint recognizer。

电子精密天平秤的使用方法及注意事项(正式版)

电子精密天平秤的使用方法及注意事项 刘维彬电子精密天平秤是定量分析工作中不可缺少的重要仪器，充分了解仪器性能及熟练掌握其使用方法，是获得可靠分析结果的保证。精密天平的种类很多，有普通精密天平、半自动/全自动加码电光投影阻尼精密天平及电子精密天平等。下面就电子精密天平的使用方法及注意事项做一介绍。 操作方法: 1．检查并调整天平至水平位置。 2．事先检查电源电压是否匹配（必要时配置稳压器），按仪器要求通电预热至所需时间。 3．预热足够时间后打开天平开关，天平则自动进行灵敏度及零点调节。待稳定标志显示后，可进行正式称量。 4．称量时将洁净称量瓶或称量纸置于称盘上，关上侧门，轻按一下去皮键，天平将自动校对零点，然后逐渐加入待称物质，直到所需重量为止。 5．称量结束应及时除去称量瓶（纸），关上侧门，切断电源，并做好使用情况登记。 注意事项: 1.天平应放置在牢固平稳水泥台或木台上，室内要求清洁、干燥及较恒定的温度，同时应避免光线直接照射到天平上。 2.称量时应从侧门取放物质，读数时应关闭箱门以免空气流动引起天平摆动。前门仅在检修或清除残留物质时使用。 3.电子精密天平若长时间不使用，则应定时通电预热，每周一次，每次预热

2h，以确保仪器始终处于良好使用状态。 4.天平箱内应放置吸潮剂(如硅胶)，当吸潮剂吸水变色，应立即高温烘烤更换，以确保吸湿性能。 5.挥发性、腐蚀性、强酸强碱类物质应盛于带盖称量瓶内称量，防止腐蚀天平。 6.称量重量不得过天平的最大载荷。 7.经常对电子天平进行自校或定期外校，保证其处于最佳状态。 8.天平发生故障，不得擅自修理，应立即报告测试中心质量负责人。 9.天平放妥后不宜经常搬动。必须搬动时，移动天平位置后，应由市计量部门校正计量合格后，方可使用。

精神分裂症的病因是什么

精神分裂症的病因是什么 精神分裂症是一种精神方面的疾病，青壮年发生的概率高，一般 在16～40岁间，没有正常器官的疾病出现，为一种功能性精神病。 精神分裂症大部分的患者是由于在日常的生活和工作当中受到的压力 过大，而患者没有一个良好的疏导的方式所导致。患者在出现该情况 不仅影响本人的正常社会生活，且对家庭和社会也造成很严重的影响。 精神分裂症常见的致病因素： 1、环境因素：工作环境比如经济水平低低收入人群、无职业的人群中，精神分裂症的患病率明显高于经济水平高的职业人群的患病率。还有实际的生活环境生活中的不如意不开心也会诱发该病。 2、心理因素：生活工作中的不开心不满意，导致情绪上的失控，心里长期受到压抑没有办法和没有正确的途径去发泄，如恋爱失败， 婚姻破裂，学习、工作中不愉快都会成为本病的原因。 3、遗传因素：家族中长辈或者亲属中曾经有过这样的病人，后代会出现精神分裂症的机会比正常人要高。 4、精神影响：人的心里与社会要各个方面都有着不可缺少的联系，对社会环境不适应，自己无法融入到社会中去，自己与社会环境不相

适应，精神和心情就会受到一定的影响，大脑控制着人的精神世界， 有可能促发精神分裂症。 5、身体方面：细菌感染、出现中毒情况、大脑外伤、肿瘤、身体的代谢及营养不良等均可能导致使精神分裂症，身体受到外界环境的 影响受到一定程度的伤害，心里受到打击，无法承受伤害造成的痛苦，可能会出现精神的问题。 对于精神分裂症一定要配合治疗，接受全面正确的治疗，最好的 疗法就是中医疗法加心理疗法。早发现并及时治疗并且科学合理的治疗，不要相信迷信，要去正规的医院接受合理的治疗，接受正确的治 疗按照医生的要求对症下药，配合医生和家人，给病人创造一个良好 的治疗环境，对于该病的康复和痊愈会起到意想不到的效果。

自动存包柜的设计与仿真

自动存包柜的设计与仿真 摘要 本课题是基于单片机的自动存包柜设计。自动存包柜是新一代的存包柜，具有功能实用、操作简单、管理方便、安全可靠等特点，能够更好的服务于不同市场的广大群众，使用者可以根据简明清晰的操作说明自行完成存包取包工作。本系统由MCS-51单片机构成核心控制系统，整个系统由主控部分、键盘显示控制部分、执行部分三部分组成，通过随机密码的产生和核对完成自动存包取包过程。本设计中各元器件便于安装且操作简单，能基本实现存包取包功能。 关键词：自动存包柜；单片机；随机密码

Design and Simulation of Automatic Lockers ABSTRACT This topic is microcontroller-based automatic lockers.Automatic lockers is a new generation of lockers, with a practical, simple operation, easy management, safe and reliable, able to better serve the broad masses of the different markets, users are based on a clear and concise instructions to complete the deposit bags to take the package. The system consists of MCS-51 microcontroller core control system, the entire system from the main section, the keyboard display control part of the implementation of some of the three-part composition, random password generation and check completed automatically save the package to take the package process. Various components of this design is easy to install and easy to operate, can basically save the package to take package function. Key words :Automatic lockers; microcontroller; random password

卫生部办公厅关于印发《脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术管理规范(试行)

卫生部办公厅关于印发《脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术管理规 范(试行)》的通知 【法规类别】采供血机构和血液管理 【发文字号】卫办医政发[2009]189号 【失效依据】国家卫生计生委办公厅关于印发造血干细胞移植技术管理规范(2017年版)等15个“限制临床应用”医疗技术管理规范和质量控制指标的通知 【发布部门】卫生部(已撤销) 【发布日期】2009.11.13 【实施日期】2009.11.13 【时效性】失效 【效力级别】部门规范性文件 卫生部办公厅关于印发《脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术管理规范（试行）》的通知 （卫办医政发〔2009〕189号） 各省、自治区、直辖市卫生厅局，新疆生产建设兵团卫生局： 为贯彻落实《医疗技术临床应用管理办法》，做好脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术审核和临床应用管理，保障医疗质量和医疗安全，我部组织制定了《脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术管理规范（试行）》。现印发给你们，请遵照执行。 二〇〇九年十一月十三日

脐带血造血干细胞 治疗技术管理规范（试行） 为规范脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术的临床应用，保证医疗质量和医疗安全，制定本规范。本规范为技术审核机构对医疗机构申请临床应用脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术进行技术审核的依据，是医疗机构及其医师开展脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术的最低要求。 本治疗技术管理规范适用于脐带血造血干细胞移植技术。 一、医疗机构基本要求 （一）开展脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术的医疗机构应当与其功能、任务相适应，有合法脐带血造血干细胞来源。 （二）三级综合医院、血液病医院或儿童医院，具有卫生行政部门核准登记的血液内科或儿科专业诊疗科目。 1.三级综合医院血液内科开展成人脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术的，还应当具备以下条件： （1）近3年内独立开展脐带血造血干细胞和（或）同种异基因造血干细胞移植15例以上。 （2）有4张床位以上的百级层流病房，配备病人呼叫系统、心电监护仪、电动吸引器、供氧设施。 （3）开展儿童脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术的，还应至少有1名具有副主任医师以上专业技术职务任职资格的儿科医师。 2.三级综合医院儿科开展儿童脐带血造血干细胞治疗技术的，还应当具备以下条件：

大件寄存管理流程

大件寄存程序 一、大件寄存流程 1、当顾客提出大件寄存需求时，服务中心员工应先查看物品大小，如果可自助存包柜寄存的物品，请顾客优先使用自动存包柜，并提醒顾客不要寄放贵重物品。 2、如果物品过大，自助存包柜寄存不下的物品或顾客坚持要求寄存服务台的商品，服务台员工应与顾客确认是否有贵重物品，如有，请顾客将贵重物品取出自行保管，其它物品则办理寄存手续。 3、员工将顾客物品放置在指定区域，挂好存包牌，将另一块号码牌交予顾客，并告知顾客于当天营业结束前凭此号码牌领取寄存物品，请顾客妥善保管。 4、当顾客前来领取寄存物品时，服务中心员工请顾客出示号码牌，员工收回号码牌，根据号码牌查找物品上对应的号码牌，核对无误后交还顾客物品。存包牌两块互绑在一起放回存放盒内。 5、若核对号码牌时发现物品与存放时不符或丢失,应立即告知客服主管或值班经理前来处理(具体处理方法请参照客诉处理办法) 6、如顾客遗失号码牌时，服务中心员工处理程序： A、通知广播寻找遗失的号码牌。 B、询问顾客具体号码牌号或所寄存物品形状、颜色、特征。 C、询问顾客是否有任何的证件，并请顾客提供有效证件证明所寄存物品确为其所属。 D、请顾客在《寄存物异常登记表》上留下地址、电话、证件号等信息。 E、向顾客适当收取号码牌工本费并在退换货收银机做销售操作，将寄存物品归还于顾客。 7、每日营业结束后盘点号码牌，每块号码牌要求一个号码两块互绑在一起，如已不齐全的号码牌则不再使用。号码牌需定期全部更换。 二、大件寄存顾客告示 1、请您在存包后主动索取存包牌，并保存好自己的存包牌，不要遗失。 2、现金、手机、照相机、存折等超过200元的贵重物品及有效证件如身份证、户口本等物品请随身携带，请勿寄存，由此造成的损失，自行承担。 3、当您领取所存物品时，请出示存包牌，并当面点清您所存的物品，离柜本商场不再负责。 4、如存包牌丢失，应及时持有效证件领取所存物品，并付工本费5元，未及时挂失，导致所存物品丢失，不予负责。

精神分裂症应该怎么治疗

精神分裂症应该怎么治疗 1、坚持服药治疗 服药治疗是最有效的预防复发措施临床大量统计资料表明，大多数精神分裂症的复发与自行停药有关。坚持维持量服药的病人复发率为40%。而没坚持维持量服药者复发率高达80%。因此，病人和家属要高度重视维持治疗。 2、及时发现复发的先兆，及时处理 精神分裂症的复发是有先兆的，只要及时发现，及时调整药物和剂量，一般都能防止复发，常见的复发先兆为：病人无原因出现睡眠不好、懒散、不愿起床、发呆发愣、情绪不稳、无故发脾气、烦躁易怒、胡思乱想、说话离谱，或病中的想法又露头等。这时就应该及时就医，调整治疗病情波动时的及时处理可免于疾病的复发。 3、坚持定期门诊复查 一定要坚持定期到门诊复查，使医生连续地、动态地了解病情，使病人经常处于精神科医生的医疗监护之下，及时根据病情变化调整药量。通过复查也可使端正人及时得到咨询和心理治疗解除病人在生活、工作和药物治疗中的各种困惑，这对预防精神分裂症的复发也起着重要作用。 4、减少诱发因素 家属及周围人要充分认识到精神分裂症病人病后精神状态的薄弱性，帮助安排好日常的生活、工作、学习。经常与病人谈心，帮助病人正确对待疾病，正确对待现实生活，帮助病人提高心理承受能力，学会对待应激事件的方法，鼓励病人增强信心，指导病人充实生活，使病人在没有心理压力和精神困扰的环境中生活。 首先是性格上的改变，塬本活泼开朗爱玩的人，突然变得沉默寡言，独自发呆，不与人交往，爱干净的人也变的不注意卫生、生活

懒散、纪律松弛、做事注意力不集中，总是和患病之前的性格完全 相悖。 再者就是语言表达异常，在谈话中说一些无关的谈话内容，使人无法理解。连最简单的话语都无法准确称述，与之谈话完全感觉不 到重心。 第三个就是行为的异常，行为怪异让人无法理解，喜欢独处、不适意的追逐异性，不知廉耻，自语自笑、生活懒散、时常发呆、蒙 头大睡、四处乱跑，夜不归宿等。 还有情感上的变化，失去了以往的热情，开始变的冷淡、对亲人不关心、和友人疏远，对周围事情不感兴趣，一点消失都可大动干戈。 最后就是敏感多疑，对任何事情比较敏感，精神分裂症患者，总认为有人针对自己。甚至有时认为有人要害自己，从而不吃不喝。 但是也有的会出现难以入眠、容易被惊醒或睡眠不深，整晚做恶梦或者长睡不醒的现象。这些都有可能是患上了精神分裂症。 1.加强心理护理 心理护理是家庭护理中的重要方面，由于社会上普遍存在对精神病人的歧视和偏见，给病人造成很大的精神压力，常表现为自卑、 抑郁、绝望等，有的病人会因无法承受压力而自杀。家属应多给予 些爱心和理解，满足其心理需求，尽力消除病人的悲观情绪。病人 生活在家庭中，与亲人朝夕相处，接触密切，家属便于对病人的情感、行为进行细致的观察，病人的思想活动也易于向家属暴露。家 属应掌握适当的心理护理方法，随时对病人进行启发与帮助，启发 病人对病态的认识，帮助他们树立自信，以积极的心态好地回归社会。 2.重视服药的依从性 精神分裂症病人家庭护理的关键就在于要让病人按时按量吃药维持治疗。如果不按时服药，精神病尤其是精神分裂症的复发率很高。精神病人在医院经过一系统的治疗痊愈后，一般需要维持2~3年的

卫生部关于印发《脐带血造血干细胞库设置管理规范(试行)》的通知

卫生部关于印发《脐带血造血干细胞库设置管理规范(试行)》的通知 发文机关：卫生部(已撤销) 发布日期： 2001.01.09 生效日期： 2001.02.01 时效性：现行有效 文号：卫医发(2001)10号 各省、自治区、直辖市卫生厅局： 为贯彻实施《脐带血造血干细胞库管理办法（试行）》，保证脐带血临床使用的安全、有效，我部制定了《脐带血造血干细胞库设计管理规范（试行）》。现印发给你们，请遵照执行。 附件：《脐带血造血干细胞库设置管理规范（试行）》 二○○一年一月九日 附件： 脐带血造血干细胞库设置管理规范（试行） 脐带血造血干细胞库的设置管理必须符合本规范的规定。 一、机构设置 （一）脐带血造血干细胞库（以下简称脐带血库）实行主任负责制。 （二）部门设置 脐带血库设置业务科室至少应涵盖以下功能：脐带血采运、处理、细胞培养、组织配型、微生物、深低温冻存及融化、脐带血档案资料及独立的质量管理部分。 二、人员要求

（一）脐带血库主任应具有医学高级职称。脐带血库可设副主任，应具有临床医学或生物学中、高级职称。 （二）各部门负责人员要求 1．负责脐带血采运的人员应具有医学中专以上学历，2年以上医护工作经验，经专业培训并考核合格者。 2．负责细胞培养、组织配型、微生物、深低温冻存及融化、质量保证的人员应具有医学或相关学科本科以上学历，4年以上专业工作经历，并具有丰富的相关专业技术经验和较高的业务指导水平。 3．负责档案资料的人员应具相关专业中专以上学历，具有计算机基础知识和一定的医学知识，熟悉脐带血库的生产全过程。 4．负责其它业务工作的人员应具有相关专业大学以上学历，熟悉相关业务，具有2年以上相关专业工作经验。 （三）各部门工作人员任职条件 1．脐带血采集人员为经过严格专业培训的护士或助产士职称以上卫生专业技术人员并经考核合格者。 2．脐带血处理技术人员为医学、生物学专业大专以上学历，经培训并考核合格者。 3．脐带血冻存技术人员为大专以上学历、经培训并考核合格者。 4．脐带血库实验室技术人员为相关专业大专以上学历，经培训并考核合格者。 三、建筑和设施 （一）脐带血库建筑选址应保证周围无污染源。 （二）脐带血库建筑设施应符合国家有关规定，总体结构与装修要符合抗震、消防、安全、合理、坚固的要求。 （三）脐带血库要布局合理，建筑面积应达到至少能够储存一万份脐带血的空间；并具有脐带血处理洁净室、深低温冻存室、组织配型室、细菌检测室、病毒检测室、造血干/祖细胞检测室、流式细胞仪室、档案资料室、收/发血室、消毒室等专业房。 （四）业务工作区域应与行政区域分开。