I think the concept *object* in activity theory is pretty different from
the concept goal, plan in American cognitive pyschology.
That is also very related to Suchman's argument about 'plan and situated
actions'.
According to my understanding activity theory, the object of activity
is not given and not intelligible from the beginning. For example, in the
case of lathemachine technicians, in the process of cutting, the object,
that is projectively represented in the metal, becomes gradually visible.
One circle of cutting makes visible of projective or prospective cutting.
The metal's shape that was already cut tells them the more concrete
and convergent object.
At the same time, they use lathe machines as tools and various artifacts
such as blueprint or drawing in order to make the object socially
intelligible.
Further, an object of activity is not static and not invariant at all.
It is reorganized again and again according to situation, tools, production
and other things.
The object often disappears and workers are alienated from the object
in modern complex activities or it often becomes means for the quite
different object.