Advertisement

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 185–203 | Cite as

Boundary Objects and Prototypes at the Interfaces of Engineering Design

  • Eswaran Subrahmanian
  • Ira Monarch
  • Suresh Konda
  • Helen Granger
  • Russ Milliken
  • Arthur Westerberg
  • Then-dim group
Article

Abstract

The primary hypothesis of this paper is thatinternal and external changes in design andmanufacturing organizations affect theviability of boundary objects (representations,drawings, models – virtual and physical) andrequire changes in the underlying distributedcognitive models. Internal and external factorsinclude new advances in technologies, insightsinto organizational processes, organizationalrestructuring and change of market focus. Ifthe above hypothesis is true, then there areconsequences for the methodologies of designingcomputational support systems for co-operativeengineering work. We provide evidence bydescribing three empirical studies ofengineering design we have performed in largeorganizations. We investigate how changingtechnologies disrupt the common grounds amonginterfaces and how this opens debate onthe role of boundary objects, especially in theproduct visualization and analysis arena. Wethen argue that changes in market forces andother factors leading to changes inorganizational structures often lead to erosionof common understanding of representations andprototypes, above all at the interfaces. Weconclude by making the case that everystructural and information flow change inengineering organizations is accompanied by thepotential deterioration of the common ground.This requires the synthesis of new commongrounds to accommodate the needs of newinterfaces.

boundary objects cognitive models engineering design interfaces 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bhavnani, S.K. and B.E. John (1997): From Sufficient to Efficient Usage: An Analysis of Strategic Knowledge. Proceedings of CHI 97, pp. 91–98.Google Scholar
  2. Bannon, L. and K. Schmidt (1993): CSCW: Four Characters in Search of a Context. Readings in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Assisting Human-Human Collaboration. Baecker, R. M., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994): Designing Engineers. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, M.P, F.J. Vecchio, R.J. Selby and P. Gupta (1997): Failure of An Offshore Oil Platform Concrete Base. Concrete Journal. American Concrete Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H. (1996): Using Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, J.G., E. Subrahmanian and A.W. Westerberg (1999): Knowledge In a Large Multinational Company. Proceedings of the Carnegie-Bosch Instititute Grantees workshop on Knowledge Management and Global Information Systems, //http:www.cbi.gsia.cmu.edu, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, J.G., E. Subrahmanian, S.L. Konda, H. Granger, H. Collins and A.W. Westerberg (2001): Creating Shared Information Spaces for Collaborative Design. To appear in Information Systems Frontiers.Google Scholar
  8. Dutoit, A. (1996): Role of Communication in Software Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  9. The Economist (2000), All Yours, March 31.Google Scholar
  10. Ferguson, E.F. (1994), Engineering the Mind's Eye. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Finger, S., S.L. Konda and E. Subrahmanian (1995): Concurrent Design Happens at the Interfaces. AIEDAM, vol. 9, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar
  12. Finger, S., E. Gardner and E. Subrahmanian (1993): Design Support Systems for Concurrent Engineering: A Case Study in Large Power Transformer Design. Proc. Int. Conference Engineering Design, ICED 93. The Hague.Google Scholar
  13. Henderson, K. (1999): On Line and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lackoff, G. (1999) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Paper Back Edition.Google Scholar
  15. Leifer, L.J. and A. Mabogunje (1996): Measuring the Mechanical Engineering Design Process. FIE 96 Conference. http://www.cdr.stanford.edu/~leifer/publications/FIE96/FIE96.htmlGoogle Scholar
  16. Monarch, I., S.L. Konda, S. Levy, Y. Reich, E. Subrahmanian and C. Ulrich (1997): Mapping Sociotechnical Networks in the Making. In G. Bowker, S.L. Star, W. Turner and L. Gasser (eds.): Social Science, Technical Systems and Co-operative Work: Beyond the Great Divide. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Naur, P. (1985): Programming as Theory Building. Microprocessing and Microprogramming, vol. 15, pp. 253–261.Google Scholar
  18. Naur, P. (1992): Computing as a Human Activity. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Petroski, H. (1994): Design Paradigms: Errors of Judgement in Engineering. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Reddy, J.C., S. Finger, S.L. Konda and E. Subrahmanian (1997): Designing as Building and Re-Using of Artifact Theories: Understanding and Support of Design Knowledge. Proceedings of the Workshop on Engineering Design Debate. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt, K. and C. Simone (1996): Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW Systems Design. Consumer Supported Cooperative Work, The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 5, nos. 2–3, pp. 155–200.Google Scholar
  22. Star, S.L. (1989): The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Heterogeneous Problem Solving, Boundary Objects and Distributed Artificial Intelligence. In Huhns and Gasser (eds.): Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  23. Star, S.L. and G. Bowker (1999): Sorting Things Out. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1994): Grounded Theory Methodology. In Denzin and Lincoln (eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Research.Google Scholar
  25. Subrahmanian, E., E. Daleng and A. Maeland (1995): Information Flow Analysis of Design at the Power Equipment Division. Confidential Report.Google Scholar
  26. Subrahmanian, E., Y. Reich, S. Konda, D. Cunningham, A. Dutoit, R. Patrick and A. Westerberg (1997): The n-dim Approach to Building Design Support Systems. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference. San Diego.Google Scholar
  27. Subrahmanian, E., H. Granger and R. Milliken (1999): An Information Flow Analysis of the Engineering Change and Design Specification Process for Transit Systems. Confidential Report.Google Scholar
  28. Waring, S.P. (1994): Taylorism Transformed: Scientific Management Since 1945. University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wren, F.H. (1997): Synthesis of Variety. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven, Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eswaran Subrahmanian
    • 1
  • Ira Monarch
    • 1
  • Suresh Konda
    • 1
  • Helen Granger
    • 1
  • Russ Milliken
    • 1
  • Arthur Westerberg
    • 1
  • Then-dim group
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Complex, Engineered Systems and Department of Chemical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations