Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 205–219 | Cite as

Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design

  • Jean-François Boujut
  • Eric Blanco


In this paper we argue that co-operation is aparticular way to co-ordinate an industrialactivity and that it is particularly suited tocollaborative design activity. Through a welldocumented case study of the development of afront truck axle, we point out several keyfeatures of co-operation in an industrialsetting. We particularly pay attention to theinterfaces between the actors involved in thecollaborative process. We observed thepre-eminence of the representations and theobjects created, manipulated, and finally weclaim that they support knowledge creation andtherefore allow the development of a commonunderstanding of the design situation (i.e. theproblem and the solution). We propose theconcept of ``intermediary object'' as aconceptual framework for the involvement ofobjects in the design process. We demonstratethe power of this concept in the analysis andmodelling of particular design situations andin the development of specific objects thatfoster co-operation in real design situations.

collaborative design computer aided design concurrent engineering empirical studies intermediary objects 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bonnardel, N. (1992): Le rôle de l'évaluation dans les activités de conception. Thèse de psychologie cognitive Université d'Aix en Provence.Google Scholar
  2. Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994): Designing Engineers. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Finger, S., S.L. Konda and E. Subrahmanian (1995): Concurrent Design Happens at the Interfaces. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 9, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar
  4. Henderson, K. (1999): On Line and on Paper. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Mintzberg, H. (1981): Organization Design: Fashion or Fit? Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  6. Moisdon, J.C. and B. Weil (1992): L'invention d'une voiture: un exercice de relations sociales? Anales des Mines, Gérer et comprendre, sept et dec.Google Scholar
  7. Norman, D.A. (1993): Les artefacts cognitifs. Raisons pratiques, les objets dans l'action, vol. 4, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
  8. Perry, M. and D. Sanderson (1998): Coordinating Joint Design Work: The Role of Communication and Artefacts. Design Studies, vol. 19, pp. 273–288.Google Scholar
  9. Schön, D. (1991): The Reflexive Practitioner: How Professional Think In Action. Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Star, S.L. (1989): The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Heterogenous Problem Solving, Boundary Objects and Distributed Artificial Intelligence. In Huhns and Gasser (eds.): Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  11. Ullman, D.G., D. Herling and A. Sinton (1996): Analysis of Protocol Data to Identify Product Information Evolution and Decision Making Process. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans and K. Dorst (eds.): Analysing Design Activity. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 168–185.Google Scholar
  12. Vinck, D. and A. Jeantet (1995): Mediating and Commissioning Objects in the Sociotechnical Process of Product Design: A Conceptual Approach. In D. MacLean, P. Saviotti and D. Vinck (eds.): Management and New Technology: Design, Networks and Strategy. COST Social Science Series, Bruxelles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-François Boujut
    • 1
  • Eric Blanco
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire 3SGrenoble cedex 9France (E-mail

Personalised recommendations