An experimental methodology for investigating communication in collaborative design review meetings

Ostergaard, Karen J.; Wetmore, William R.; Divekar, Ameya; Vitali, Henry; Summers, Joshua D.

doi:10.1080/15710880500298520

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Vande Moere et al (2008), group cohesion -the degree of interrelatedness of the team's ideas -progresses through stages of divergence and convergence, and iterative interaction among participants leads to cohesion and shared understanding. Ostergaard et al (2005) note that cohesion can be both a benefit and a constraint. High group cohesion may be constructive but it can also lead to group-think symptoms, where a group's illusion of invulnerability can lead to the belief that they are incapable of error.…”

Section: Roles and Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 98%

Professional perspectives on collaborative design work

Feast

2012

CoDesign

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration has become more important owing to the challenges designers face to compete in fast-paced global markets. Designers need to capitalise on the strengths of different stakeholders to develop shared knowledge and practices to better deal with the complexity of problems facing society today. This study builds on research concerning social processes in design activity through exploring professional designers' perspectives on the significance of collaboration in their work. Twenty-three semi-structured in-context interviews were conducted with professional designers from 13 different professional specialisations. The interview data were analysed using a grounded theory interpretive approach. The insights developed from the analysis suggest that the development of support for collaborative design should target not only methods of solving design problems, but also informal and social interactions that bring together different stakeholders while respecting their differences. Further research in this area would enhance the effectiveness of collaboration and increase designers' ability to participate in the early stages of product development for complex problems.

show abstract

Section: Roles and Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 98%

Professional perspectives on collaborative design work

Feast

2012

CoDesign

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The type of design review meeting (co-located, remote, synchronous) influences the type of communication modes, and the number of reviewers available at the review. Investigating the role of communication at formal design reviews, Ostergaard et al, (2005) conducted a controlled user study of the effectiveness of various types of communication. The goal of the exercise was for subjects to identify design flaws.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Design Reviews: Understanding Differences by Designer-Roles and Phase of Development

Chen¹,

Zucco²,

Olechowski³

2019

Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present the results of a survey of new product development practitioners regarding their design review experiences. We surveyed 128 product development professionals on their experience and preferences in design reviews. We found that the goals and type (location / synchronicity) of design reviews change over the course of a product development project. We found that the majority of design review meetings continue to be held as co-located, live, in-person meetings. For reviewing 3D models, we found that a native CAD package (rather than a viewer, or fixed views, or a physical prototype) is the most commonly used tool. We found a difference between Designers (more likely to be product engineers) and Non-Designers and their access to CAD software, as well as their preference for which tool to use at the design review for 3D model evaluation. We hope that our findings spark future work related to better understanding design reviews and design reviewers in context. Design reviews are an important part of industrial product development processes, so we believe future studies have a large potential to improve these design activities

show abstract

“…Design reviews play an important role in ensuring that the product or design artifact meets the requirements of various stakeholders (Arthur & Groner, 2004;Hisarciklilar & Boujut, 2009;Mohan, Jain, & Ramesh, 2007). These reviews are critical in reducing risks by identifying problems, assessing the impact of the problems, and suggesting solutions to prevent the problem (Ostergaard, Wetmore III, Divekar, Vitali, & Summers, 2005;Sater-Black, K. and Iverson, 1994;Wetmore III, Summers, & Greenstein, 2010;Wetmore III & Summers, 2003). Typically, a design review is a collaborative, synchronous meeting where the current state of the solution is compared against the defined problem.…”

Section: Chapter Two: Design Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Design reviews are used iteratively and are dependent on the different stages of development, the legal requirements, the industry best practices, and the company culture. The reviews may include inputs from individuals with expertise in various domain population such as customer, development team, or suppliers (Ostergaard et al, 2005). Input from several functional groups develops a more accurate view of the design artifact, thereby improving the likelihood that failures can be identified (Wetmore III et al, 2010).…”

Section: Chapter Two: Design Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Experimental Study on the Influence That Failure Number, Specialization, and Controls Have on Confidence in Predicting System Failures1

Thimmaiah

Phelan

Summers

2016

Journal of Mechanical Design

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design reviews are typically used for three types of design activities: (1) identifying errors, (2) assessing the impact of the errors, and (3) suggesting solutions for the errors. This experimental study focuses on understanding the second issue as it relates to the number of errors considered, the existence of controls, and the level of domain familiarity of the assessor. A set of design failures and associated controls developed for a completed industry sponsored project is used as the experimental design problem. Nondomain generalists (students from an undergraduate psychology class), domain generalists (first year engineering students), and domain specialists (graduate mechanical engineering students) are provided a set of failure modes and asked to provide their own opinion or confidence on whether the system would still successfully achieve the stated objectives. The confidence level for all domain populations decreased significantly as the number of design errors increased (largest p-value = 0.0793), and this decrease in confidence is more significant as the number of design errors increases. The impact on confidence is lower when solutions (controls) are provided to prevent the errors (largest p-value = 0.0334) as the confidence decreased faster for domain general engineers as compared to domain specialists (p = < 0.0001). The domain specialists showed higher confidence in making decisions than domain generalists and nondomain generalists as the design errors increase.

show abstract

An experimental methodology for investigating communication in collaborative design review meetings

Cited by 26 publications

References 23 publications

Professional perspectives on collaborative design work

Professional perspectives on collaborative design work

A Survey of Design Reviews: Understanding Differences by Designer-Roles and Phase of Development

An Experimental Study on the Influence That Failure Number, Specialization, and Controls Have on Confidence in Predicting System Failures1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About