Chapter 27: Information‒Triggered Co‒Evolution: A Combined Process Perspective

(02/12/2018) Information-triggered Co-evolution: A Combined Process Perspective Core elements of design work include the development of problem/solution understanding, as well as information and knowledge sharing activities. However, their interrelationships have been little explored. As such, this work aims to take the first steps towards a more integrated evaluation and description of the interaction between understanding and activity, based around co-evolutionary transition events; and start to answer the question: How can the link between co-evolution and activity be systematically characterized as a foundation for a more fundamental description of design activity? A protocol analysis is used to provide the basis for characterization of different types of coevolutionary transition event. A number of distinct event types are described and significant differences in information use and team engagement are identified across transition events. Bringing these findings together, we propose a unitary model of the interaction between activity and understanding around co-evolutionary transition events. This has a number of implications for future theory building and testing in both design activity and wider design research.

[1]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  Formalising Design Exploration as Co-Evolution , 1996 .

[2]  Philip Cash,et al.  Prototyping with your hands: the many roles of gesture in the communication of design concepts , 2016 .

[3]  Mark Srite,et al.  Information technology and culture: Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture , 2005, Inf. Organ..

[4]  Bin Guo,et al.  The scope of external information-seeking under uncertainty: An individual-level study , 2011, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[5]  Fleur Deken,et al.  Development of design collaboration skills , 2012 .

[6]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[7]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Inspiration peak: exploring the semantic distance between design problem and textual inspirational stimuli , 2013 .

[8]  Tino Stanković,et al.  Using visual information analysis to explore complex patterns in the activity of designers , 2014 .

[9]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Sources of inspiration: a language of design , 2000 .

[10]  P. John Clarkson,et al.  Exploring knowledge and information needs in engineering from the past and for the future – results from a survey , 2010 .

[11]  Lassi A. Liikkanen,et al.  Exposure effects in design: Unconscious plagiarism or a product of sampling probability? In Proceedings of NordDesign 2006, Reykandvik, Iceland , 2006 .

[12]  Mark Robinson.  An empirical analysis of engineers' information behaviors , 2010 .

[13]  R. Handfield,et al.  Knowledge Sharing in Interorganizational Product Development Teams: The Effect of Formal and Informal Socialization Mechanisms* , 2009 .

[14]  Ben J Hicks,et al.  Understanding engineering email: the development of a taxonomy for identifying and classifying engineering work , 2009 .

[15]  Ben J Hicks,et al.  A foundational observation method for studying design situations , 2015 .

[16]  John S. Gero,et al.  Empirical support for problem–solution coevolution in a parametric design environment , 2014, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[17]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Situated Function — Behaviour — Structure Framework , 2004 .

[18]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  Characterising the information requests of aerospace engineering designers , 2013 .

[19]  C. Gibson.  From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: cycles of collective cognition in work groups , 2001 .

[20]  Maaike Kleinsmann,et al.  Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects , 2008 .

[21]  Andy Dong,et al.  The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication , 2005 .

[22]  Philip Cash,et al.  Investigating design: A comparison of manifest and latent approaches , 2014 .

[23]  W. Karwowski,et al.  Activity theory as a basis for the study of work , 2004, Ergonomics.

[24]  Glen Mullineux,et al.  A framework for the requirements of capturing, storing and reusing information and knowledge in engineering design , 2002, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[25]  Roderick I. Swaab,et al.  The Pros and Cons of Dyadic Side Conversations in Small Groups , 2008 .

[26]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  Tapping into past design experiences: knowledge sharing and creation during novice–expert design consultations , 2012 .

[27]  Ben J Hicks,et al.  Activity Theory as a means for multi-scale analysis of the engineering design process: A protocol study of design in practice , 2015 .

[28]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes , 2008, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[29]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation , 2014 .

[30]  Bo T. Christensen,et al.  Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design , 2013 .

[31]  Terence Love,et al.  Philosophy of design: a meta-theoretical structure for design theory , 2000 .

[32]  C. Dorst.  Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen☆ , 2008 .

[33]  Alex H. B. Duffy,et al.  Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities , 2003 .

[34]  Ellen Yi-Luen Do,et al.  Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design , 2010 .

[35]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  Understanding how the information requests of aerospace engineering designers influence information-seeking behaviour , 2010 .