Coordinating joint design work: the role of communication and artefacts

Abstract An increasing number of technology developers are orienting their efforts towards supporting the group work of designers and engineers, yet there are relatively few in-depth workplace studies of this type of work. To help fill this gap, two case studies of design work in engineering companies are presented and compared. The findings suggest that design and engineering is constructed through the interactions of multiple actors, and that artefacts and representations of the design process have a key function in the organisation of this work. We note how current design and communication technologies fail to take these dimensions of work into account, and provide suggestions about areas where further reflection is needed.

[1]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts , 1983 .

[2]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Robert J. Thomas,et al.  What machines can't do : politics and technology in the industrial enterprise , 1995 .

[4]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  Designing Engineers , 1994 .

[5]  Kaj Grønbæk,et al.  CSCW challenges: cooperative design in engineering projects , 1993, CACM.

[6]  Christian Heath,et al.  Collaborative Activity and Technological Design: Task Coordination in London Underground Control Rooms , 1991, ECSCW.

[7]  Victoria Bellotti,et al.  Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team , 1996, CSCW '96.

[8]  Bob Anderson,et al.  Supporting The Design Process Within An Organisational Context , 1993, ECSCW.

[9]  Kathryn Henderson,et al.  The Visual Culture of Engineers , 1994 .

[10]  John Bowers,et al.  Getting others to get it right: an ethnography of design work in the fashion industry , 1996, CSCW '96.

[11]  Tom Rodden,et al.  “They’re Supposed to Be Fixing it”: Requirements and System Redesign , 1996 .

[12]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[13]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[14]  Kathryn Henderson,et al.  Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering , 1991 .

[15]  Mark Perry,et al.  Distributed cognition and computer supported collaborative design: the organisation of work in const , 1997 .

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

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

[18]  Mike Robinson,et al.  Design for Unanticipated Use , 1993, ECSCW.

[19]  Stuart Bennett,et al.  What Machines Can’t Do: Politics and Technology in the Industrial Enterprise by Robert J. Thomas (review) , 1995, Technology and Culture.

[20]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  An ethnographic perspective on engineering design , 1988 .

[21]  Wk Omoka.  The social construction of scientific facts and its implications for social-scientific inquiry , 1996 .

[22]  Edwin Hutchins,et al.  Distributed Cognition in an Airline Cockpit , 1996 .

[23]  Alan Penn,et al.  Intelligent Architecture: Desktop VR for Complex Strategic Design in Architecture and Planning , 1995 .

[24]  Duncan Sanderson,et al.  Partial Success and Partial Failure in a Commercial Development Project , 1996 .

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

[26]  Robert J. Thomas,et al.  What Machines Can't Do , 1994 .

[27]  Sara A. Bly,et al.  The Portland Experience: A Report on a Distributed Research Group , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..