Abstract
Technical work is often described as universal, but in practice it is shaped by social and cultural contexts in which it takes place. My capstone project analyzes differences in technical work across two internship environments: a United States corporate consulting firm FTI Consulting and a United Kingdom startup Shopwave. I undertook this research to better understand how communication and accountability vary in technical workplaces when both national culture and organization type differ. My STS research paper builds on this same foundational topic through a sociotechnical analysis of how cultural values and organizational structures influence technical practices and professional relationships. I pursued this research to challenge the assumption that engineering work is purely technical and to explain why these differences may exist across environments. These two projects are closely aligned, as they address the same research question and examine the same workplaces and patterns rather than target separate topics. The capstone identifies and compares differences in technical practice, while the STS paper looks more in depth at the underlying sociotechnical factors that explain those differences.
My capstone project addresses the problem that technical work is often assumed to be standardized, when in reality it varies significantly across workplace environments. By comparing my experiences at FTI Consulting and Shopwave, the project highlights differences in communication and accountability across a United States corporate consulting firm and a United Kingdom startup. I used a comparative approach to analyze patterns from day-to-day work experiences such as desk setups, feedback processes, documentation expectations, and team interactions. This approach allowed me to identify consistent differences in how technical work is structured and carried out across the two environments.
The project concludes that technical work is not performed in a standardized way, but instead varies depending on organizational structure and national context. The United States corporate environment emphasized structured workflows and formal communication, while the United Kingdom startup environment relied on flexibility, informal interaction, and rapid iteration. While the corporate setting provided greater stability, the startup allowed for more creativity and autonomy. Even when technical goals were similar, the processes used to achieve them differed significantly across the two environments.
Building on the comparative observations from my capstone project, my STS research paper poses the question: how do national culture and organizational structure shape expectations for communication, workflow, and accountability in technology workplaces? This question is significant because computer science education often emphasizes technical skills without fully addressing the sociotechnical systems that influence how those skills are applied across different cultural and organizational environments. To answer this question, I used a comparative case analysis of my experiences at FTI Consulting and Shopwave, applying frameworks such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and organizational structure theory to interpret patterns in communication, hierarchy, and approaches to uncertainty.
The analysis shows that differences in technical workflow and communication are driven by both cultural values and organizational structure. In the United States corporate environment at FTI, there were higher levels of structure and formality, emphasizing risk reduction, accountability, and controlled communication. In contrast, the United Kingdom startup environment at Shopwave showed a higher tolerance for ambiguity, allowing for more informal interaction and collaborative problem solving. These firsthand observations are supported by existing research, which shows that differences in uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and organizational design shape how technical work is performed. Overall, the paper concludes that technical practices are not culturally neutral, but are instead shaped by sociotechnical systems that influence how engineers communicate and collaborate.
