1.3.1 Information Flow, Team Coordination, and Shared Knowledge in Integrated Concurrent Engineering

Large-scale systems engineering efforts involve complex interactions that must be managed throughout the entire life cycle. Prior research has analyzed the relationship between expected and actual communication in engineering design teams. This study builds on that previous research by incorporating the cognitive aspects of design into the analysis. Based on 10 design sessions of an Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) environment, Design Structure Matrix (DSM) representations of expected and reported interactions are constructed and used to calculate a metric of team coordination called socio-technical congruence (STC). By computing the correlation between STC and a previously developed metric of shared cognition in teams, a relationship is found between team coordination and change in shared knowledge. Based on these results, it is concluded that design team members learn the most when expected and reported interactions are aligned – that is, when the team follows a well-defined process based on information flow in the technical design.

[1]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  J. Mathieu,et al.  The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  N. M. Morris,et al.  On Looking into the Black Box: Prospects and Limits in the Search for Mental Models , 1986 .

[4]  K. Klein,et al.  Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy , 2006 .

[5]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[6]  Robert P. Smith,et al.  A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development , 1994 .

[7]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity , 2008, ESEM '08.

[8]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[9]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[10]  Annalisa L. Weigel,et al.  The Structural Approach to Shared Knowledge , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and Their Impact on Design Team Interactions , 2003 .

[12]  Thomas J. Allen,et al.  The Organization and Architecture of Innovation , 2006 .

[13]  Annalisa L. Weigel,et al.  An application of the Design Structure Matrix to Integrated Concurrent Engineering , 2010 .

[14]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Predicting technical communication in product development organizations , 1995 .

[15]  G. Karpati,et al.  The integrated mission design center (imdc) at nasa goddard space flight center , 2003, 2003 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.03TH8652).

[16]  Masanori Takezawa,et al.  Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence : An illustration in a group decision-making context , 1997 .