Abstract
In this chapter we argue that designers who collaborate in the workplace in order to evaluate proposed solutions and make decisions about them can learn informally about the characteristics of solutions, but it is more difficult to learn informally about the decision process itself. We illustrate two types of pivotal moments for decision making. The first—a pivotal moment for choice—leads to choosing between two solutions that have already been proposed through mobilizing criteria in arguments. The second—a pivotal moment for emergence—allows for the emergence of a new solution, by arguing against a first solution. This type of argumentation leads to explicit learning concerning the performance of the solution (e.g., can it be constructed, is it ergonomic, etc.) as criteria are elements that characterize performance. Our analysis shows that employing certain criteria provokes a change in focus: designers abandon one solution in favor of evaluating another, either already on the table or completely new. However, because we identify these “pivotal moments” a posteriori and because it is our analysis that allows us to formalize this phenomenon, it is not obvious that designers understand the potential and the importance of such pivotal moments while they are in the midst of the decision process. Our next step is to combine our detailed interaction analysis with a macro-level study about communicating with designers about our results within their organizational context. Our goal is to explore how designers think our results could improve their decision process.
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
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
Baker, M. J. (2004). Recherches sur l’élaboration de connaissances dans le dialogue. Mémoire d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches (Université Nancy 2). Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://tel.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/11/03/14/PDF/hdr.pdf
Baker, M. J. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315–357.
Balacheff, N. (1987). Processus de preuves et situations de validation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(2), 147–176.
Boujut, J. F., & Blanco, E. (2003). Intermediary objects as a mean to foster co-operation in engineering design. Computer Supported Collaborative Work, 12, 205–219.
Brissaud, D., Garro, O., & Poveda, O. (2003). Design process logic capture and support by abstraction of criteria. Research in Engineering Design, 14(3), 162–172.
Cassier, J. L., Prudhomme, G., & Lund, K. (2008, May). Mobilising criteria in arguing about product solutions: A motor for designer convergence during a project review? In D. Marjanovic, M. Storga, N. Pavkovic, & N. Bojcetic (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference Design 2008 (pp. 123–130). Dubrovnik, Croatia: University of Zagreb.
Conklin, J., & Burgess-Yakemovic, K. (1996). A process-oriented approach to design rationale. In T. Moran & J. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale concepts, techniques, and use (pp. 293–428). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Détienne, F., Boujut, J.-F., & Hohmann, B. (2004). Characterization of collaborative design and interaction management activities in a distant engineering design situation. In F. Darses, R. Dieng, C. Simone, & M. Zacklad (Eds.), Cooperative systems design (pp. 83–98). Amsterdam: Ios Press.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
Dyke, G., Lund, K., & Girardot, J.-J. (2009). Tatiana: An environment to support the CSCL analysis process. In C. O’Malley, P. Reimann, D. Suthers, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), CSCL 2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 58–67). Rhodes: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 1948(15), 135–175 (Reproduced in Hempel, Carl G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press).
Hutchins, E. (2000). Cognition in the wild. London: MIT Press.
Ivarsson, J. (2010). Developing the construction sight: architectural education and technological change. Visual Communication (2), 171–191.
Kuutti, K. (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human–computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lee, J. (1997). Design rationale systems: Understanding the issues. IEEE Expert, 12(3), 78–85.
Lee, J., & Lai, K. Y. (1996). What’s in design rationale. In T. Moran & J. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale concepts, techniques, and use (pp. 21–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lund, K. (2003). Analyse de l'activité explicative en interaction : étude de dialogues d'enseignants de physique en formation interprétant les interactions entre élèves. Thèse de doctorat, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France.
MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Belloti, V., & Moran, T. (1996). Question, option, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. In T. Moran & J. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale concepts, techniques, and use (pp. 53–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nardi, B. (1992, August 4–8). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models and distributed cognition. In Proceedings East–west HCI Conference (pp. 352–359). St. Petersburg, Russia.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Shum, S., & Hammond, N. (1993). Argumentation-based design rationale: From conceptual roots to current use. Tech. Report EPC-1993-106. Cambridge: Rank Xerox Research Centre
Sim S., & Duffy A. (1994, August 15–18). A new perspective to design intent and design rationale. In Artificial Intelligence in Design Workshop Notes for Representing and Using Design Rationale (pp. 4–12).
Suchman, L. (1987). Plan’s and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press. 220 pp.
Suh, N. P. (2005). Complexity in engineering design. General assembly of CIRP no 55 (vol. 54(2), pp. 581–598) CIRP Annals, Antalaya, Turquie, ISSN 0007-8506.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Min in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Womack J. P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Free Press (edition 2007). ISBN-13:978-0-7432-9979-4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lund, K., Prudhomme, G., Cassier, JL. (2013). Pivotal Moments for Decision Making in Collaborative Design: Are They Teachable?. In: Goggins, S., Jahnke, I., Wulf, V. (eds) Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 14. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1740-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1740-8_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1739-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1740-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)