The Structural Approach to Shared Knowledge

Objective: We propose a methodology for analyzing shared knowledge in engineering design teams. Background: Whereas prior work has focused on shared knowledge in small teams at a specific point in time, the model presented here is both scalable and dynamic. Method: By quantifying team members’ common views of design drivers, we build a network of shared mental models to reveal the structure of shared knowledge at a snapshot in time. Based on a structural comparison of networks at different points in time, a metric of change in shared knowledge is computed. Results: Analysis of survey data from 12 conceptual space mission design sessions reveals a correlation between change in shared knowledge and each of several system attributes, including system development time, system mass, and technological maturity. Conclusion: From these results, we conclude that an early period of learning and consensus building could be beneficial to the design of engineered systems. Application: Although we do not examine team performance directly, we demonstrate that shared knowledge is related to the technical design and thus provide a foundation for improving design products by incorporating the knowledge and thoughts of the engineering design team into the process.

[1]  David Krackardt,et al.  QAP partialling as a test of spuriousness , 1987 .

[2]  Gary Klein,et al.  Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions , 2017 .

[3]  S. Mohammed,et al.  Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration? , 2007 .

[4]  Mark S. Avnet,et al.  Socio-cognitive analysis of engineering systems design : shared knowledge, process, and product , 2009 .

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

[6]  Gary Klein,et al.  Distributed Planning Teams , 1999 .

[7]  J. Mathieu,et al.  Scaling the quality of teammates' mental models: equifinality and normative comparisons , 2005 .

[8]  John C. Mankins,et al.  Technology Readiness Levels-A White Paper , 1995 .

[9]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[10]  Nicolau Reinhard,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF SHARED MENTAL MODELS BETWEEN THE CIO AND THE TOP MANAGEMENT TEAM ON THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON BETWEEN BRAZILIAN AND US COMPANIES , 2013 .

[11]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  HUMAN FACTORS ASPECTS OF TEAM COGNITION , 2004 .

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

[13]  Janice Langan-Fox,et al.  Mental models, team mental models, and performance: Process, development, and future directions , 2004 .

[14]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Handbook of Human Factors in Web Design , 2009 .

[15]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Planning, Shared Mental Models, and Coordinated Performance: An Empirical Link Is Established , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[16]  A. Crofts,et al.  Structure and function of the -complex of , 1992 .

[17]  S. Mohammed,et al.  Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor? , 1994 .

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

[19]  C. Burke,et al.  The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[20]  K. Weick.  Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. 2nd ed. , 1984 .

[21]  G. J. Klein,et al.  The role of mental simulation in problem solving and decision making , 2018 .

[22]  W. Karwowski.  Assessment of Team Cognition , 2006 .