Design Team Communication and Design Task Complexity: The Preference for Dialogues

Abstract The way in which dialogues and group meetings affect the progress of multidisciplinary architectural design teams can be easily underestimated by managers. This is due to the importance of group meetings to review designs, share information, make decisions and hence progress the design. The aim of this paper is to discuss how design dialogues and design team meetings facilitate team communication. A review of research into design team communication and performance using a project website provides an insight into how design team members used and changed their synchronous and asynchronous communication while adopting the project web. Case studies were used to investigate changes in communication practices affecting team performance due to project web use. Research findings reveal a preference among design team members for dialogue as their favourite communication medium despite the growing use of asynchronous communication by teams. Results are discussed against research findings from communication in design and management team meetings. Implications for design managers, concerned with improving communications and the management of design, are discussed in the light of the research findings.

[1]  Rod Gameson An investigation into the interaction between potential building clients and construction professionals , 1992 .

[2]  Janet McDonnell,et al.  Architect and user interaction: the spoken representation of form and functional meaning in early design conversations , 2006 .

[3]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The knowledge-creating company , 2008 .

[4]  N. Bates-Brkljac Towards client-focused architectural representations as a facilitator for improved design decision-making process , 2008 .

[5]  A.F.H.J. den Otter,et al.  Design team communication and performance using a project website , 2005 .

[6]  Roberto Pietroforte,et al.  Communication and information in the building delivery process , 1992 .

[7]  Wilbur Schramm,et al.  Responsibility in mass communication , 1980 .

[8]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[9]  Ann Heylighen,et al.  Design in Mind , 2009, Design Issues.

[10]  Stephen Emmitt,et al.  Communication in Construction Teams , 2006 .

[11]  Stephen Emmitt,et al.  Investigating interpersonal communication during construction progress meetings: challenges and opportunities , 2003 .

[12]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[13]  R. Gold Roles in Sociological Field Observations , 1958 .

[14]  Mary C. Kernan,et al.  Individual and Group Performance: Effects of Task Complexity and Information , 1994 .

[15]  Lorin M. Hitt,et al.  Beyond the Productivity Paradox: Computers are the Catalyst for Bigger Changes , 1998 .

[16]  Michael Murray,et al.  Communication in Construction: Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[17]  W. A. Wallace The influence of design team communication content upon the architectural decision making process in the pre contract design stages , 1987 .

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

[19]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[20]  Michael Rosen COMING TO TERMS WITH THE FIELD: UNDERSTANDING AND DOING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY* , 1991 .

[21]  T. Newcomb An approach to the study of communicative acts. , 1953, Psychological review.

[22]  Ken Wong,et al.  Issues and challenges , 1993 .