The standardized package, in our case GIS, is the real object of study. What is involved in making social groups (institutions, disciplines, guilds, etc.) agree that GIS is such an interesting revolution in thinking about the world. BUT it is quite difficult to address that question directly.
The boundary objects are the locus of social negotiation and agreement. Essentially these are the elements on which groups agree to differ. As such, they may offer the best insight into the nature of the standardized packages as they are socially constructed.
One example of a boundary object is the concept of 'wetlands'. Wetlands mean different things to different groups, yet they are willing to allow these differences to some extent. There is a lot of contention in the political and scientific arenas about the nature of wetlands, and how they are mapped. The study performed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee Wetlands Subcommittee on Wicomico County shows how accuracy assessment techniques (map overlay of 6 different sources) can demonstrate the operational differences in socially constructed definitions. The role of different mandates link back to the disciplinary training and points-of-view in the various agencies.
Thus, I see future research potential in examining the boundary objects as the result of the implicit negotiation between competing interests.