Field Guide for Interpreting Engineering Team Behavior with Sensor Data

  • Lorena Pelegrin
  • Bryan MoserEmail author
  • Shinnosuke Wanaka
  • Marc-Andre Chavy-Macdonald
  • Ira Winder
Conference paper


The design of complex systems is a challenge with many capabilities enabled by a recent generation of digital tools for modeling, simulation, and interaction. Relevant studies on teamwork from coordination science, learning, design, HCI, and serious games are briefly summarized. However, validation of resulting behavior and emergent outcomes given these much-needed new tools has been difficult. The recent availability of pervasive sensors may allow the creation of experiment platforms to increase empirical data from experiments, their scalability, and analyses towards reproducibility. This paper’s approach treats engineering teamwork as a sociotechnical system and proposes instrumentation of teamwork across problem, solution, and social spaces. A quasi-experiment was conducted, with experts in the maritime industry exploring options for transition to natural gas infrastructure and shipping. The experiment derives a narrative of the engineering teamwork both from ethnography and digital sensors to uncover teamwork behavior. Thus, this work integrates disparate data to create mapping rules from sensors to story. We find the approach promising for the generation of sensor-derived stories and the potential for deeper and scalable studies on engineering teamwork.


  1. 1.
    Hirshorn, S.R., Voss, L.D., Bromley, L.K.: NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malone, T.W., Bernstein, M.S.: Handbook of Collective Intelligence. MIT Press (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woolley, A.W., Chabris, C.F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., Malone, T.W.: Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 686–688 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R., Dellarocas, C.: The collective intelligence genome. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 51(3), 21 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moser, H.A.: Systems Engineering, Systems Thinking, and Learning: A Case Study in Space Industry. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolb, D.: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ross, A.N.: Knowledge creation and learning through conversation: a longitudinal case study of a design project (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schon, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, vol. 1. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valkenburg, R.: The Reflective Practice in Product Design Teams (Ph.D. thesis). Delft University of Technology, Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nonaka, I.: A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 1, 14 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engeström, Y.: Learning by Expanding. Cambridge University Press (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stompff, G., Smulders, F., Henze, L.: Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams. Des. Stud. 47, 187–214 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carrizosa, K., Eris, Ö., Milne, A., Mabogunje, A.: Building the design observatory: a core instrument for design research. In DS 30: Proceedings of DESIGN 2002, the 7th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, pp. 37–42Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milne, A., Winograd, T.: The iLoft project: a technologically advanced collaborative design workspace as research instrument. In: DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 2003, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm, pp. 315–316 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Törlind, P., Sonalkar, N., Bergström, M., Blanco, E., Hicks, B., McAlpine, H.: Lessons learned and future challenges for design observatory research. In DS 58-2: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, vol. 2, Design Theory and Research Methodology, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24–27 August 2009Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang, M.C.: Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Res. Eng. Des. 20(1), 1–11 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosen, M.A., Dietz, A.S., Yang, T., Priebe, C.E., Pronovost, P.J.: An integrative framework for sensor-based measurement of teamwork in healthcare. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 22(1), 11–18 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., Hochheiser, H.: Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baecker, R., Grudin, J., Buxton, W., Greenberg, S., Chui, M.: Readings in human-computer interaction, towards year 2000. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 18(2), 187–188 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilson, P.: Computer Supported Cooperative Work: An Introduction. Springer Science & Business Media (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johansen, R.: Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams. The Free Press (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., Zambrano, J.: From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. Int. J. Comput. Supp. Collab. Learn. 1–21 (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grogan, P.T., de Weck, O.L.: Collaborative design in the sustainable infrastructure planning game. In: Society for Computer Simulation International, p. 4 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moser, B., Mori, K., Suzuki, H., Kimura, F.: Global product development based on activity models with coordination distance features. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, pp. 161–166 (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moser, B.R., Wood, R.T.: Design of complex programs as sociotechnical systems. In: Concurrent Engineering in the 21st Century, pp. 197–220. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Argyris, C.: Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Bus. Rev. 5, 115–125 (1977)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duhigg, C.: What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. NY Times Magazine, 26 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pelegrin, L.: Teamwork Phenomena: Exploring Path Dependency and Learning in Teams during Architectural Design of Sustainable Maritime Shipping Systems [Master of Science in Engineering and Management]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorena Pelegrin
    • 1
  • Bryan Moser
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shinnosuke Wanaka
    • 2
  • Marc-Andre Chavy-Macdonald
    • 2
  • Ira Winder
    • 1
  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations