Skip to main content

Towards Computational Tools for Supporting the Reflective Team

  • Chapter
Artificial Intelligence in Design ’02

Abstract

The content of engineering design documentation, beyond capturing the details of the design, communicates the shared knowledge integration of the design team. In this research, we present a method to analyze design documentation for levels of shared understanding and team cohesiveness in design teams by applying the computational tools of latent semantic analysis and natural language processing. We study the design documentation from students in a multidisciplinary, graduate-level product design and development course. The results show promise in measuring cohesiveness and shared understanding in design teams by analyzing their documentation and correlating metrics of effective communication to the likelihood of successful outcomes of the design team.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adams, BN: 1967,Interaction theory and the social network, Sociometry 30(1): 64–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, F, Moore, CJ, and Jagodzinski, AP: 2000, An ethnographic study of engineering design teams at Rolls-Royce Aerospace, Design Studies 21 (4): 333–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bødker, K and Pedersen, JS: 1991, Workplace cultures: looking at artifacts, symbols and practices, in J Greenbaum and M Kyng (eds), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems,Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 121–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, LL: 1994, Designing Engineers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citera, M, McNeese, MD, Brown, CE, Selvaraj, JA, Zaff, BS, and Whitaker, RD: 1995, Fitting information systems to collaborating design teams, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46 (7): 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook KS, and Whitmeyer, J: 1992, Two approaches to social structure: exchange theory and network analysis, Annual Review of Sociology 18: 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, RG, and Kleinschmidt, EJ: 1995, Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management 12 (5): 374–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhillon, IS, and Modha, DS: 1999, Concept Decompositions for Large Sparse Text Data Using Clustering,IBM Almaden Research Center, Research Report RJ 10147 (95022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K: 1997, Describing Design — A Comparison of Paradigms, Doctoral Thesis, Delft Technical University, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, A: 1995, PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends and benchmarking best practices, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 14 (6): 429–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, CJ: 1974, The future of semantics, Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Department of Linguistics and Institute of Human Learning, University of California, Berkeley, CA, pp. 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, JJ, Kaltman, H, and O’Connor, MC: 1984, Cohesion in spoken and written discourse: ethnic style and the transition to literacy, in D. Tannen, (ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, ABLEX Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, MAK and Hasan, R: 1976, Cohesion in English, Longman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harabagiu, S: 1999, From lexical cohesion to textual coherence: A data driven perspective, International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 13 (2): 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henke, JW, Krachenberg, AR, and Lyons, TF: 1993, Cross-functional teams; good concept, poor implementation, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 10 (3): 216–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, A, Song, S, Dong, A and Agogino, AM: 2001, Identifying shared understanding in design using document analysis, Proceedings of the 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2001/DTM-21713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landuaer, TK: 1999, Latent semantic analysis: A theory of the psychology of language and mind, Discourse Processes 27 (3): 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, TK, Foltz, PW and Laham, D: 1998, Introduction to latent semantic analysis, Discourse Processes 25: 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, P: 2000, Storytelling and the development of discourse in the engineering design process, Design Studies 21: 357–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, III, EF, Kahn, KB and Barczak, G: 2000, An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2): 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, J and White, D: 2000, Social Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Conception of Social Groups, Santa Fe Institute, Working Paper No. 00–08–049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neck, CP and Manz, CC.: August 1994, From groupthink to teamthink: toward the creation of constructive thought patterns in self-managing work teams, Human Relations 47 (8): 929–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G and Beitz, W: 1996, Engineering Design, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag, London. Raccah, PY: July 1995, Argumentation and natural language - presentation and discussion of four foundational hypotheses, Journal of Pragmatics 24(1–2): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M and Bannon, L: 1991, Questioning representations, in L Bannon, M Robinson, and K Schmidt, (eds), Proceedings of ECSCW’9l: 2nd European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Work, Kluwer, Amsterdam, pp. 219–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, DA: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, HA: 1996, The Sciences of the Artificial, Third Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg, R: 2000, The Reflective Practice in Product Design Teams, Doctoral Thesis, Delft Technical University, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S and Galaskiewicz, J (eds): Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hill, A.W., Dong, A., Agogino, A.M. (2002). Towards Computational Tools for Supporting the Reflective Team. In: Gero, J.S. (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Design ’02. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0795-4_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0795-4_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6059-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0795-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics