Towards Shared Understanding on Common Ground, Boundary Objects and Other Related Concepts

Since Aristotle, it has repeatedly been stressed that for engaging in meaningful discussion or debate, the discussion parties must share, besides a language, also knowledge, information, values and goals. What do we know today about this issue? How can that knowledge be used and advanced? The purpose of this paper is to consolidate our understanding on the many concepts that refer to preconditions for communication and collaboration in construction projects. The underlying research is conceptual by nature, and it is underpinned by a literature review. The findings show that currently there is a wide variety of terms and theoretical approaches that refer to the discussed phenomena. This situation invites for a conceptual synthesis and empirical research for its validation.

[1]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Play, learning, and instruction , 1999 .

[2]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  From Teams to Knots: Activity-Theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work , 2008 .

[3]  Christine Pasquire,et al.  The 8th flow - common understanding , 2012 .

[4]  Harri Haapasalo,et al.  The characteristics of and cornerstones for creating integrated teams , 2013 .

[5]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design , 2000, TCHI.

[6]  Charlotte P. Lee,et al.  Boundary Negotiating Artifacts: Unbinding the Routine of Boundary Objects and Embracing Chaos in Collaborative Work , 2007, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[7]  Yusuf Arayici,et al.  The key performance indicators of the BIM implementation process , 2010 .

[8]  M. Cole.  A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition , 1993 .

[9]  Stephen Emmitt,et al.  Social BIM: Co-creation with shared situational awareness , 2015, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[10]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. , 2000, Ergonomics.

[11]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Situation Awareness: Review of Mica Endsley's 1995 Articles on Situation Awareness Theory and Measurement , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[12]  I. Kecskés,et al.  Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: a socio-cognitive approach , 2009 .

[13]  J. H. Fujimura.  The Molecular Biological Bandwagon in Cancer Research: Where Social Worlds Meet , 1988 .

[14]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  The use of visual information in shared visual spaces: informing the development of virtual co-presence , 2002, CSCW '02.

[15]  Rianne Valkenburg.  Shared understanding as a condition for team design , 1998 .

[16]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[17]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[18]  Jan Marco Leimeister,et al.  Why Shared Understanding Matters -- Engineering a Collaboration Process for Shared Understanding to Improve Collaboration Effectiveness in Heterogeneous Teams , 2013, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  Grainne Conole,et al.  Chapter VIII The Role of Mediating Artefacts in Learning Design , 2008 .

[20]  H. Kimaro,et al.  HIS Standardization in Developing Countries: Use of Boundary Objects to Enable Multiple Translations , 2015 .

[21]  Lauri Koskela,et al.  Where Rhetoric and Lean Meet , 2015 .

[22]  Maaike Kleinsmann,et al.  Understanding collaborative design , 2006 .

[23]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  Presuppositions , 1973, J. Philos. Log..

[24]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Common Ground and Coordination in Joint Activity , 2005 .

[25]  Daniel Forgues,et al.  Information technology as boundary object for transformational learning , 2009, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[26]  E. Salas,et al.  Human Factors : The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 2012 .

[27]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Observations of teamwork and social processes in design , 1995 .

[28]  Ac Rianne Valkenburg,et al.  The reflective practice of design teams , 1998 .

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

[30]  付伶俐.  打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[31]  A. Bakker,et al.  Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects , 2011 .

[32]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Using Visual Information for Grounding and Awareness in Collaborative Tasks , 2012, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  An experimental study of computer mediated collaborative design , 1996, Proceedings of WET ICE '96. IEEE 5th Workshop on Enabling Technologies; Infrastucture for Collaborative Enterprises.

[34]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating and Transforming: An Integrative Framework , 2002 .

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

[36]  Charles M. Eastman,et al.  BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors , 2008 .

[37]  J. Whyte,et al.  Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as `Epistemic Objects' , 2009 .

[38]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[39]  Robert Kramer,et al.  Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems , 1990 .

[40]  Endsley,et al.  A model of inter- and intrateam situation awareness: implications for design, training and measurement , 2001 .

[41]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Team learning: building shared mental models , 2011 .

[42]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[43]  J. Hartnack.  The Metaphysics Of The “ I ” , 1972 .

[44]  Nigel Shadbolt,et al.  Shared Understanding within Military Coalitions: A Definition and Review of Research Challenges , 2009 .

[45]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[46]  Wim H. Gijselaers,et al.  Common Ground, Complex Problems and Decision Making , 2006 .

[47]  S. L. Star,et al.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

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

[49]  Maaike Kleinsmann,et al.  Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects , 2008 .

[50]  Oswald Jones,et al.  Mediating Artefacts, Boundary Objects and the Social Construction of Knowledge , 2006 .

[51]  David Meister,et al.  Performance Measurement : Current Perspectives and Future Challenges , 2006 .