Advertisement

Collective Intelligence Support Protocol

A Systemic Approach for Collaborative Architectural Design
  • Alexandru Senciuc
  • Irene Pluchinotta
  • Samia Ben Rajeb
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9320)

Abstract

The collaborative architectural design process can be difficult to generate and maintain, especially when consisting of large teams, time constraints and long distance as it requires a higher sense of working together. However, a formal description of collaborative design as a system made of elements, agents, sub-systems and relationships could open a path to potentially improve production efficiency and stream collective intelligence. The CISP is a first attempt methodology to support collaborative design based on the empirical analysis of a single case study involving a multi-disciplinary team competing in an international architectural idea competition. The methodology operates through interdependencies on three layers: organization, planning and shared workspace. By articulating methods, tools, team members and project phases, the CISP fosters an integrated design system and a fluent design process.

Keywords

Collective intelligence Collaborative design Systemic approach Decision support system 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The Researchers would like to address a warm thank you to the members of the TarTar Team for agreeing to take part in this case study.

References

  1. 1.
    Goldschmidt, G., Rodgers, P.A.: Design thinking approaches of three different groups of designers based on self-reports. Des. Stud. 34, 454–471 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiu, M.L.: An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Des. Stud. 23, 187–210 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Detienne, F.: Collaborative design: managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives. Interact. Comput. 18, 1–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Leeuwen, J.P.: Computer support for collaborative work in the construction industry. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Madeira, Portugal (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kvan, T.: Collaborative design: what is it? Autom. Const. 9, 409–415 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dong, A.: The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Des. Stud. 26, 445–461 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, X., et al.: Mutual awareness in collaborative design: an augmented reality integrated telepresence system. Comput. Ind. 65, 314–324 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forrester, J.W.: System Dynamics: The Foundation Under Systems Thinking. Cambridge, Sloan School of Management, MIT (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skyttner, L.: General Systems Theory: An Introduction. Macmillan Press, London (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashmos, D., et al.: The systems paradigm in organization theory: correcting the record and suggesting the future. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12(4), 607–621 (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amagoh, F.: From perspectives on organizational change: systems and complexity theories. Innov. J. Public Sect. Innov. J. 13(3), 1–14 (2008). Article 3Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martinelli, D.P.: Systems hierarchies and management. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 18(1), 69–82 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robin, V., Rose, B., Girard, P.: Modelling collaborative knowledge to support engineering design project manager. Comput. Ind. 58, 188–198 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    White, L.: Changing the “whole system” in the public sector. J. Organ. Change Manage. 13(2), 162–177 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rhee, Y.: Complex systems approach to the study of politics. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 17(6), 487–491 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stewart, J., Ayres, R.: Systems theory and policy practice: an exploration. Policy Sci. 34(1), 79–88 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Katz, D., et al.: The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostergaard, K., Summers, J.D.: A taxonomic classification of collaborative design processes. In: International Conference on Engineering Design (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Randolph, A., et al.: Managing Organizational Behavior. Irwin, Boston (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montuori, L.: Organizational longevity. Integrating systems thinking, learning and complexity. J. Organ. Change Manage. 13(1), 61–73 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simon, H.A.: Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, 4th edn. Macmillan Co, New York (1947)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shim, J.P., et al.: Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decis. Support Syst. 33, 111–126 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warkentin, M.E., et al.: Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decis. Sci. 28(4), 975–996 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gorry, G.A.: Scott Morton, M.S.: A framework for management information systems. Sloan Manage. Rev. 13(1), 55–70 (1971)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anthony, R.N.: Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston (1965)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simon, H.A.: The New Science of Management Decision. Harper and Brothers, New York (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mattessich, P.W., Monsey, B.R.: Collaboration: What makes it work. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, St. Paul (1992)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilson, P.: Introducing CSCW - what is it and why we need it. In: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Brookfield, VT, Ashgate Publishing (1994)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K.: What is coordination theory and how can it help cooperative work systems? In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles (1990)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K.: The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput. Surv. 26(1), 87–119 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R., Dellarocas, C.N.: Harnessing crowds: mapping the genome of collective intelligence. MIT Center for Collective Intelligence Working Paper, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Senciuc, A., Lecourtois, C.: Exploring collective architectural conception: cooperation, coordination and collaboration via basic online tools. In: Luo, Y. (ed.) CDVE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8091, pp. 51–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandru Senciuc
    • 1
  • Irene Pluchinotta
    • 2
    • 3
  • Samia Ben Rajeb
    • 4
  1. 1.Independent ResearcherCachanFrance
  2. 2.DICATEChTechnical University of BariBariItaly
  3. 3.LAMSADE-CNRSUniversité Paris-DauphineParisFrance
  4. 4.LUCIDUniversité de LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations