Abstract
Collaborative design has become one of the main challenges in several fields of studies, especially social and communication sciences, physics and computer sciences and even biology, architecture and ecosystems of innovation. It is part of the future research program in humanities and digital social sciences. Designers want to create systems where several entities (organizations and individuals) could collaborate to society projects in an autonomous way, on site and in their sphere of respective work. Actually this social design process occurs within the collaborative network framework. Collaborative design seeks to allow collaborators to work in a more efficient way by realizing collaborative actions beyond cultural, disciplinary, geographical and temporal barriers. However, for the system to work, we must configure it in order to meet the needs of social requests and changes. According to Lu et al. (2007), few disciplines have addressed the collaborative design study rigorously, which remains a field of the occult science or black magic. These authors grant we should transform collaborative design in a real discipline, in other words, to take it from black magic practiced by very few people to a rigorous discipline understood by all (Lu et al. 2007). Researches on collaboration found a strong resistance from the determinist philosophical tradition followers, resistance also coming from some misunderstandings created by previous works. We were wondering, for example, how to evaluate the human collaboration as an acquired social dexterity if we cannot study it scientifically. In other words, if we cannot provide mathematical proof of the existence of collaboration, its uniqueness, its stability or convergence properties when collaborative design does not rely on any intellectual substance, in view of the low number of serious studies on collaboration sciences that have been led until here. In this case, how to build a collaborative design that allows to generate and share the knowledge? According to Wenger and Gervais, design does not rely on a simple communication activity:
Here, it is about unifying and coordinating the skills that exist in a practice constellation. The design challenge in organizations is not to find the form of skill that conditions all the others, but at the contrary, to coordinate multiple forms of skills in the organizational learning. (Wenger and Gervais 2005, p. 269)
The present chapter suggests an outline for the creation of the community informatics ecosystem’s design and suggests a few leads and recommendations. It also provides a methodological framework, even a multi-methodological one, to support virtual environments. In other words, it is about experiencing a community information systems design or to present the general architecture of a collaboration software, the “reference design for open collaboration”. The community informatics design assistance system (SADC) is essentially a framework presenting the adjustable design modalities according to the users’ needs. It is the starting point for virtual organizations and communities that wish to implement new collaboration solutions. As an adjustable socio-collaborative platform, the SADC covers both the community informatics design’s scientific bases, the design of virtual communities and the collaboration aspects. It links them in order to facilitate the information circulation and the access to knowledge and bring closer the users’ communities. To a lesser degree, the SADC is also a reference model, a conceptual framework defining a middle ground and a common terminology for communication and a platform prototype of open service, expandable and adaptable for the structuring and integration of all sorts of online activities, socio-technical systems, personalized portals and even all sorts of collaboration platforms like virtual communities or campuses.
Notes
- 1.
“Reference architecture ”, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_architecture>.
- 2.
“Reference model”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_model
References
Appelt, W., & Manbrey, P. (1999). Experiences with the BSCW shared workspace system as the backbone of a virtual learning environment for students. Proceedings of ED Media’99, Charlottesville, 1710–1715.
Baecker, R. M., Grudin, J., Buxton, W. A. S., & Greenberg, S. (1995). Readings in human computer interaction: Toward the year 2000. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press.
Banathy, B. H. (2000a). Guided evolution of society: A systems view. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General systems theory, foundation, development, applications. New-York: G. Braziller, trad. française: (1973), Théorie générale des systèmes, Paris: Dunod.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Stewart, S. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage Publishing.
Budweg, M., Bock, G., & Weber, M. (2006). The Eifel plume-imaged with converted seismic waves. Geophysical Journal International, 166(2), 579–589.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2005a). Collaborative networks: a new scientific discipline. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Netherlands, 16, 439–452.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2005b). In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, & A. Ortiz (Eds.), Collaborative networks and their breeding environments (Vol. 186, pp. 3–16). Boston: Springer.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H., & Ollus, M. (2005a). Virtual organizations: Systems and practices. Boston: Springer.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H., & Ollus, M. (2005b). ECOLEAD: A holistic approach to creation and management of dynamic virtual organizations. in.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Silveri, I., Afsarmanesh, H., & Oliveira, A. I. (2005c). Towards a framework for creation of dynamic virtual organizations. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.), Collaborative networks and their breeding environments (pp. 69–80). Boston: Springer.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Checkland, P. (1988). Information systems and systems thinking: Time to unite? International Journal of Information Management, 8, 239–248.
Cobb, P., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Cross, N. (1974). Redesigning the future. New York: Wiley.
Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. New York: Wiley.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. Massachusset Institute of technology. Summer 2001.
Dong, A. (2004). Design as a socio-cultural cognitive system, published in the proceeding of the International Design conference- Design 2004- Dubrovnik, May 18–21, 2004.
Garnham, N. (1990). Capitalism and communication: Global culture and the economics of information. London: Sage.
Gregory, S. A. (1966). A design science, dans S. A. Gregory (dir.), The design method (pp. 323–330) Londres: Butter worth.
Huang, C. Y., et al. (2010). Reference architecture for collaborative design. International Journal of Computers, Communications & Control, 5(1), 71–90. ISSN 1841-9836, E-ISSN 1841-9844.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild-issue. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, 2e éd , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lu, S. C.-Y., Elmaraghy, W., Schuh, G., & Wilhelm, R. (2007). A scientific foundation of collaborative engineering. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 56(2), 605–634.
Messick, S. (1992). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23. (incomplete).
Mulder, I., Velthausz, D., & Kriens, M. (2008). The living labs harmonization cube: Communicating living labs’ essentials. In eJOV Executive – The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, vol. 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, November 2008.
Ning, H., et al. (2016). Cybermatics: Cyber–physical–social–thinking hyperspace based science and technology. Future Generation Computer Systems, 56, 504–522.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schumacher, J., & Feurstein, K. (2007). Living labs – a new multi-stakeholder approach to user integration. In Presented at the 3rd International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Systems and Applications (I-ESA’07), Funchal, Madeira, Portugal.
Sim, K. S., & Duffy, A. H. B. (2003). Toward ontology of generic engineering design activities. Res En Design, 14, 200–223. doi:10.1007/s00163-003-0037-1. (incomplete).
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.
TOGAF. (2009). TOGAF™ version 9 Enterprise edition: An introduction document no.: W094. Mumbai: The Open Group.
Von Hippel, E., & Thomke, S. (2002). Customers as innovators: A new way to create value. Harvard Bussiness Review, consulté le 28 novembre 2013.
Van Eijnatten, F. M. (2005). A chaordic view of collaborative networked organisations. January 2005. (incomplete).
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E., & Gervais, F. (2005). La théorie des communautés de pratique. Québec: Presses Université Laval.
Zhuge, H. (2009). Communities and emerging semantics in semantic link network: Discovery and learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(6), 785–799. [87].
Zhuge, H. (2010). Interactive semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 174, 190–204. [88].
Zhuge, H. (2011). Semantic linking through spaces for cyber-physical-socio intelligence: Amethodology. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 988–1019.
Zweifel, P., Felder, S., & Meier, M. (1999). Ageing of population and health care expenditure: A red herring? Health Economics, 8(6), 485–496.
Webography
Banathy, B., (2000b). A taste of systemics. Why a system view? From A Special Integration Group (SIG) of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) originally SGSR, Society for General Systems Research. <http://www.isss.org/taste.html>, consulté le 13 février, 2008.
CoreLabs. (2007). Building sustainable competitiveness living labs roadmap 2007–2010. Recommendations on networked systems for open user-driven research, development and innovation. <http://www.amicommunities.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/d310714/Living%20Lab%20Roadmap%202007-2010.pdf>, consulté le 9 février 2009.
Horváth, I. (2001). A contemporary survey of scientific research into engineering design. In S. Culley, A. C. McMahon, K. Wallace (Eds.), Proceeding of ICED 01, August 21–23, 2001 (pp.13–20). Professional Engineering Publishing, Bury St Edmonds and London, UK. <http://dutoce.io.tudelft.nl/~jouke/docdb/docs/iced>, consulté le 2 décembre 2010.
Love, T. (2001). Changes to theory making about systems involving people: Meta-theoretical analysis and brain research. In Systems in Management 7th annual ANZSYS Conference 2001, Edith Cowan University. Australia. <http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2001/2001%20ANZSYS01%20People%20Sys%20NTA%20and%20Brain.htm,p>, consulté le 18 octobre 2010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harvey, PL. (2017). Towards a Scientific Collaborative Design Approach: The Construction of a Community Informatics Design Assistance System to Support Communities and Virtual Organizations. In: Community Informatics Design Applied to Digital Social Systems. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65373-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65373-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65372-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65373-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)