Pivotal Moments for Decision Making in Collaborative Design: Are They Teachable?

In this chapter we argue that designers who collaborate in the workplace in order to evaluate proposed solutions and make decisions about them can learn informally about the characteristics of solutions, but it is more difficult to learn informally about the decision process itself. We illustrate two types of pivotal moments for decision making. The first—a pivotal moment for choice—leads to choosing between two solutions that have already been proposed through mobilizing criteria in arguments. The second—a pivotal moment for emergence—allows for the emergence of a new solution, by arguing against a first solution. This type of argumentation leads to explicit learning concerning the performance of the solution (e.g., can it be constructed, is it ergonomic, etc.) as criteria are elements that characterize performance. Our analysis shows that employing certain criteria provokes a change in focus: designers abandon one solution in favor of evaluating another, either already on the table or completely new. However, because we identify these “pivotal moments” a posteriori and because it is our analysis that allows us to formalize this phenomenon, it is not obvious that designers understand the potential and the importance of such pivotal moments while they are in the midst of the decision process. Our next step is to combine our detailed interaction analysis with a macro-level study about communicating with designers about our results within their organizational context. Our goal is to explore how designers think our results could improve their decision process.

[1]  Csr Young,et al.  How to Do Things With Words , 2009 .

[2]  Daniel T. Jones,et al.  The machine that changed the world : based on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5-million dollar 5-year study on the future of the automobile , 1990 .

[3]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  Characterization of Collaborative Design and Interaction Management Activities in a Distant Engineering Design Situation , 1992 .

[4]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use , 1996 .

[5]  Jintae Lee,et al.  What's in Design Rationale? , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[6]  Daniel Brissaud,et al.  Design process rationale capture and support by abstraction of criteria , 2003 .

[7]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective , 1992 .

[8]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[9]  B. Nardi Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition , 1995 .

[10]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  B. Nardi Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction , 1995 .

[12]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Complexity in engineering design , 2009 .

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

[14]  木村 和夫 Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[15]  Kristine Lund Analyse de l'activité explicative en interaction : étude de dialogues d'enseignants de physique en formation interprétant les interactions entre élèves , 2003 .

[16]  Eric Blanco,et al.  Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design , 2003, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[17]  P. Agre Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Commuinication (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987) , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[18]  D. Schoen The Reflective Practitioner , 1983 .

[19]  Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont,et al.  Argumentation and education : theoretical foundations and practices , 2009 .

[20]  Jean-Jacques Girardot,et al.  Tatiana: an environment to support the CSCL analysis process , 2009, CSCL.

[21]  David G. Ullman,et al.  Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use , 1997 .

[22]  Bengt Klefsjö,et al.  The machine that changed the world , 2008 .

[23]  Michael Baker RECHERCHES SUR L'ELABORATION DE CONNAISSANCES DANS LE DIALOGUE , 2004 .

[24]  N. Balacheff Processus de preuve et situations de validation , 1987 .

[25]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

[26]  C. Hempel,et al.  Studies in the Logic of Explanation , 1948, Philosophy of Science.

[27]  E. Jeffrey Conklin,et al.  A process-oriented approach to design rationale , 1991 .

[28]  L. Vygotsky Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[29]  M. Resnik,et al.  Aspects of Scientific Explanation. , 1966 .

[30]  N. Suh Complexity in Engineering , 2005 .

[31]  Lucy Suchman Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[32]  Kristine Lund,et al.  MOBILISING CRITERIA IN ARGUING ABOUT PRODUCT SOLUTIONS: A MOTOR FOR DESIGNER CONVERGENCE DURING A PROJECT REVIEW? , 2008 .

[33]  Jintae Lee,et al.  Design Rationale Systems: Understanding the Issues , 1997, IEEE Expert.

[34]  K. Kuutti Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research , 1995 .

[35]  M. Baker Argumentative Interactions and the Social Construction of Knowledge , 2009 .

[36]  E. Hutchins Cognition in the wild , 1995 .

[37]  Jonas Ivarsson,et al.  Developing the construction sight: Architectural education and technological change , 2010 .