C o d e v e l o p m e n t differs f rom P D because the users are not engaged in system design, The engineers develop the t echnology-bu t the users and engineers codevelop the change and extension of the users' work practice necessa ry to p r o p e r l y a p p l y the system. Furthermore, in contrast to the pub l i shed discuss ions of P D efforts, this project brings engineers employed in a large commerc ia l technology company together with users and customers specifically to (a) evaluate this new technology and work practice and (b) explore market and product requirements . This collaborat ion is a new work experience for both parties. Codevelopment also differs from Joint Application Design [3], which is another information systems (IS) design method, because developing new technology with the users changes the engineers ' work practices. Of course, introducing new technology to the users changes their work practices too. Work practice changes include the development of new skills as well as the formation of new relationships. In o rde r to facilitate and suppor t the learning of new work skills, engineers need to cultivate working relations with the users. Initially, the project engineers had two different kinds o f expectations. First, codeveloping systems with customers was expected to shorten the time required to discover customer needs and produce products that satisfy them. Working directly with users is a way to learn about an application domain quickly, i It also provides a real-life testing ground that is impossible to simulate. Al though it is possible to become narrowly focussed on a specialized application, reflection and analysis of the work practices of a given customer can reveal more general market requirements. Fur thermore , codeveloped products and systems are expected to be more reliable, 2 to satisfy customer need, and to anticipate the needs that grow from extensions resulting from the customer's evolving work practice and business goals. Second, working collaboratively with customers is expected to improve the work life of engineers. Working directly with users and suppor t ing their day-to-day work require engineers to be committed to helping users in a personal way. Hierarchical dependency relationships between engineers and managers do not work in a codevelopment effort that bridges two dif ferent enterprises. In addi t ion to independence, team members are encouraged to develop a diverse set of technical, interpersonal , and often interdisciplinary skills. Finally, individuals develop their own direct and informal contacts within their own and the users' organizations. To do this engineers and customers need to enlarge their notions of work. The challenges provided by codevelopment present opportuni t ies for exciting and stimulating work lives. Codevelopment of product prototypes results in change to the work practices of both the customer and the engineers. Due to its emphasis on process and method, this project has encouraged reflection on work practices and organizational behavior [1, 2]. A second theme of this article is that reflection on work process is essential for the successful implementation of PD projects. It is only th rough reflection that experience can be art iculated and reviewed and project learning made available for others. Changing the nature of engineer ing work requires developing and nourishing an organizational memory that captures both objective knowledge and tacit know-how [6]. For us, reflective engineer ing practice is an outgrowth of Donald Sch6n's explorat ion on the reflective work practices of professionals [10]. However, codevelopment demands group reflection in addit ion to the reflection-in-action described by Sch6n.
[1]
D. Schoen,et al.
The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action
,
1985
.
[2]
Michael A. Cusumano,et al.
Japan's Software Factories: A Challenge to U.S. Management, Michael A. Cusumano. 1991. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 513 pages. ISBN: 0-19-506216-7
,
1991,
The Journal of Asian Studies.
[3]
Gerhard Schmidt,et al.
Out of Scandinavia: Alternative Approaches to Software Design and System Development
,
1989,
Hum. Comput. Interact..
[4]
Erran Carmel,et al.
Participartory Design versus Joint Application Design: Trans-Atlantic Differences in Systems Development
,
1992
.
[5]
William L. Anderson,et al.
Customer codevelopment: the corneli-xerox joint study project, interim report
,
1991
.
[6]
Anne R. Kenney,et al.
Update on Digital Techniques
,
1992
.
[7]
Donald A. Sch.
The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action
,
1983
.