Abstract
It is widely acknowledged that projects that seek to address complex socio-technical problems benefit from a deliberate mix of individuals, whose complementary expertise and skills can be leveraged in service of the project goals. Three ways through which this team diversity can be achieved are through industry-academia collaborations, through combining various disciplines, and through the inclusion of individuals with different levels of proficiency in their field. This chapter takes a critical retrospective look at a recently concluded collaborative project, which integrated these dimensions of interest. Ostensibly, that project aimed to design devices for smart and connected cycling. However, in this chapter, it is taken as a case study for a post-project review by its team members. We provide a detailed description of this multi-actor team, the design brief, work process and outputs, alongside the findings from a reflective questionnaire. In doing so, we aim to contribute to informing best practices for future heterogeneous collaborative projects through the lessons we learned here.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Redström J (2020) Certain uncertainties and the design of design education. She Ji: J Des Econ Innov 6:83–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.02.001
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Des Issues 8:5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637
Jones PH (2014) Systemic design principles for complex social systems. In: Metcalf GS (ed) Social systems and design. Springer Japan, Tokyo, pp 91–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54478-4_4
Garousi V, Pfahl D, Fernandes JM, Felderer M, Mäntylä MV, Shepherd D, Arcuri A, Coşkunçay A, Tekinerdogan B (2019) Characterizing industry-academia collaborations in software engineering: evidence from 101 projects. Empir Softw Eng 24:2540–2602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09711-y
Meyer MW, Norman D (2020) Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji: J Des Econ Innov 6:13–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.002
Moirano R, Sánchez MA, Štěpánek L (2020) Creative interdisciplinary collaboration: a systematic literature review. Thinking Skills Creativity 35:100626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100626
Dreyfus SE, Dreyfus HL (1980) A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. California Univ, Berkeley Operations Research Center
Dorst K, Reymen I (2004) Levels of expertise in design education. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international engineering and product design education conference, 2–3 September 2004, Delft, pp 159–166. Delft University of Technology
Baer J (2015) The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Rev 37:165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1047480
Parjanen, S.: Experiencing creativity in the organization: From individual creativity to collective creativity. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management. 7, 109–128 (2012). https://doi.org/10.28945/1580.
Preece J, Sharp H, Rogers Y (2015) Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons
Wowk K, McKinney L, Muller-Karger F, Moll R, Avery S, Escobar-Briones E, Yoskowitz D, McLaughlin R (2017) Evolving academic culture to meet societal needs. Palgrave Commun 3:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0040-1
Haraway D (1990) Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203873106
Cross N (1982) Designerly ways of knowing. Des Stud 3:221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 13:442–455. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
Star SL (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In: Gasser L, Huhns MN (eds) Distributed artificial intelligence, pp 37–54. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (CA). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-55860-092-8.50006-X.
Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Tushman ML, Scanlan TJ (1981) Boundary spanning individuals: their role in information transfer and their antecedents. AMJ 24:289–305. https://doi.org/10.5465/255842
Koskinen KU (2005) Metaphoric boundary objects as co-ordinating mechanisms in the knowledge sharing of innovation processes. Eur J Innov Manag 8:323–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060510610180
Tharchen T, Garud R, Henn RL (2020) Design as an interactive boundary object. J Organ Des 9:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-020-00085-w
Lima F, Burrows A, Lemos L, Lucena P, Pessoa R, José R, Trigueiros P (2021) An industry-academia, multidisciplinary and expertise-heterogeneous design approach: A case study on designing for mobility. In: Martins N, Brandão D (eds) Advances in design and digital communication II: proceedings of the 5th international conference on design and digital communication, pp 274–286. Springer, Barcelos, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89735-2
Disterer G (2002) Management of project knowledge and experiences. J Knowl Manag 6:512–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210450450
Von Zedtwitz M (2002) Organizational learning through post–project reviews in R&D. R & D Manage 32:255–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00258
McNall M, Foster-Fishman PG (2007) Methods of rapid evaluation, assessment, and appraisal. Am J Eval 28:151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007300895
Vindrola-Padros C, Johnson GA (2020) Rapid techniques in qualitative research: a critical review of the literature. Qual Health Res 30:1596–1604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320921835
Birchley G, Huxtable R, Murtagh M, ter Meulen R, Flach P, Gooberman-Hill R (2017) Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers’ perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies. BMC Med Ethics 18:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z
Acknowledgements
This work was primarily supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds in the FEDER component, through the Operational Competitiveness and Internationalization Programme (COMPETE 2020) [Project n° 039334; Funding Reference: POCI-01–0247-FEDER-039334]. This work had additional financial support from Project Lab2PT—Landscapes, Heritage and Territory laboratory - AUR/04509, with financial support from FCT/MCTES through national funds (PIDDAC) and co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) POCI-01–0145-FEDER-007528, in line with the new partnership agreement PT2020 through COMPETE 2020—Competitiveness and Internationalization Operational Program (POCI). We would also like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of Lídia Lemos and Priscila Lucena, the student interns whose work was central to this collaboration.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burrows, A., Lima, F., Pessoa, R., José, R., Trigueiros, P. (2023). Growing Knowledge Across Boundaries: Lessons from a Multi-Actor Design Project. In: Martins, N., Brandão, D., Paiva, F. (eds) Perspectives on Design and Digital Communication III. Springer Series in Design and Innovation , vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06809-6_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06809-6_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06808-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06809-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)