IIE Transactions

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 49–59 | Cite as

Problems in error correction, learning and knowledge of performance in design organizations

  • J. S. Busby


A study of five industrial equipment manufacturers found a number of limitations in the feedback provided to engineering designers. The error-correcting function of feedback, for example, was compromised by the poor diagnostic abilities of people in other functions, and by the superficial level of peer reviews. Delays in detecting errors also meant that designers were disinclined and had too few resources to correct them thoroughly. In terms of the learning function of feedback, post project reviews were mostly absent and delayed outcomes (like product cost) made it hard for designers to associate important design criteria with specific design decisions or practices. Designers lacked systematic knowledge of the difficulties encountered in installing, operating and maintaining their products. And there were repeated errors where design organizations had failed to embody past experience in new products. The motivational function of feedback was vitiated by the absence of objective outcome measurements and little systematic guidance to designers on effective behaviours. Designers also believed there was a strong bias towards negative (that is critical and unfavourable) feedback in their day-to-day work. Several of these problems have more general explanations: (1) a general under-estimation of the extent to which knowledge of results contributes to job satisfaction among designers; (2) a similar under-estimation of the extent to which designers are uncertain about the consequences of their decisions and their general performance; and (3) a strong current-task orientation which discourages both individual and collective investment in acquiring knowledge for future application.


Design Organization Diagnostic Ability General Explanation Learning Function Industrial Equipment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Campion, M.A. and Lord, R.G. (1982) A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 265–287.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Powers, W.T. (1973) Feedback: beyond behaviorism. Science, 179, 351–356.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Shanteau, J. (1992) Competence in experts: the role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 252–266.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hammond, K.R. Summers, D.A. and Deane, D.H. (1973) Negative effects of outcome-feedback in multiple-cue probability learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 30–34.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R.M. (1978) Confidence in judgment: persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395–416.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Argyris, C. (1996) Unrecognised defenses of scholars: impact on theory and research. Organization Science, 7, 79–87.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Ivancevich, J.M. and McMahon, J.T. (1982) The effects of goal setting, external feedback and self-generated feedback on outcome variables: a field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 359–372.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Pritchard, R.D., Jones, S.D., Roth, P.L., Stuebing, K.K. and Ekeberg, S.E. (1988) Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337–358.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Greller, M.M. (1980) Evaluation of feedback sources as a function of role and organizational level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 24–27.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Ilgen, D.R. and Moore, C.F. (1987) Types and choices of performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 401–406.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ashton, R.H. (1990) Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: paradoxical e.ects of incentives, feedback and justification. Journal of Accounting Research, 28, 148–180.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Christensen-Szalanski, J.J. (1980) A further examination of the selection of problem-solving strategies: the e.ect of deadlines and analytic aptitude. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 25, 107–22.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Rosswork, S.G. (1977) Goal setting: the effects on an academic task with varying magnitudes of incentives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 710–715.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Annett, J. (1969) Feedback and Human Behaviour, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Baron, R.M., Cowan, G., Ganz, R.L. and McDonald, M. (1974) Interaction of locus of control and type of performance feedback: considerations of external validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 285–292.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Varcia, P.E. and Levy, J.C. (1984) Individual differences in response to unfavourable group feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 100–111.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Busby, J.S. (1997) The limited informativeness of resource discrepancy feedback to designers. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17, 630–646.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Busby
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Industrial & Manufacturing ScienceCranfield UniversityCranfield, BedfordshireUK

Personalised recommendations