Breaking Socio-Cognitive Barriers to Value Generation in Integrated Teams

Value generation is defined as meeting client requirements while minimizing waste. Authors agree on the issues related to sequential design in handling client requirements, and suggest the use of an integrated Design approach as an alternative. Little is said, however, about the impact of adopting integrated Design new organization of work on traditional design practice, processes and tools, and about the importance of breaking down socio-cognitive barriers related to mental model fragmentation between design professionals, clients and users. This may result in cognitive inertia, a major source of waste. The objective of the research is to develop and test the use of boundary objects, such as requirement management tools in the context of integrated teams and organizations to break the cognitive inertia that hinders value generation. The research is conclusive about the effectiveness of using boundary objects such as a requirement management construct to transform practices in construction. The research also contributes to a better understanding of the new purpose of construction projects by framing its context and process dimensions within a theoretical framework, and to the evolution of practices in construction.

[1]  R. Stake.  The art of case study research , 1995 .

[2]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[3]  J. Aken.  Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[4]  F. Blackler,et al.  Managing Experts and Competing through Innovation: An Activity Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

[5]  G. Stasser,et al.  Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. , 1987 .

[6]  Rjoè,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work , 2005 .

[7]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  Contracts and production , 2006 .

[8]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[9]  Bart Victor,et al.  Invented Here: Maximizing Your Organization's Internal Growth and Profitability , 1998 .

[10]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[11]  K. Weick,et al.  Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. , 1993 .

[12]  Stuart D. Green,et al.  Theory and practice in value management: a reply to Ellis et al. (2005) , 2007 .

[13]  V. Druskat,et al.  Learning versus Performance in Short-Term Project Teams , 2000 .

[14]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[15]  Deborah G. Ancona,et al.  Managing for the Future: Organizational Behavior and Processes , 1998 .

[16]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Polycontextuality and Boundary Crossing in Expert Cognition: Learning and Problem Solving in Complex Work Activities. , 1995 .

[17]  David Zager,et al.  Collaboration as an Activity Coordinating with Pseudo-Collective Objects , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

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