Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:56:37.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formality in design communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2013

Claudia Eckert ,
Martin Stacey  and
Christopher Earl
Claudia Eckert*
Affiliation:
Design Group, Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Martin Stacey
Affiliation:
Faculty of Technology, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom
Christopher Earl
Affiliation:
Design Group, Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
*
Reprint requests to: Claudia Eckert, Department of Design, Environment and Materials, Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How designers communicate within design teams, and with users, suppliers, and customers, differs in formality both between industries and between different situations within one project. This paper identifies three layers of structure in design communication, each of which can be more or less formal: the design process, the interaction between participants, and the representations of design information that are constructed and used. These layers can be formal across a spectrum from explicit rules to habitual conventions. The paper draws on a range of contrasting case studies in mechanical engineering and knitwear design, as well as a larger corpus of cases comparing design domains more generally, to analyze how formality affects design interaction in different situations and process contexts. Mismatches in the understanding of formality can lead to misunderstandings, in particular across expertise boundaries and between designers and their clients or customers. Formality can be modulated in the mannerism of communication, the rhetoric employed, and how representations are constructed, to make communication more effective. The effort and skill put into modulating formality is greater in domains where designers work with end users, like architecture, than it is in companies where designers interact mainly with other professionals.

Keywords

AmbiguityDesign CommunicationDesign ProcessFormalityInteractionRepresentation
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 2: Studying and Supporting Design Communication , May 2013 , pp. 91 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aguilar, F.J. (1984). Cray Research Inc. (Case No. 385-011). Boston: Harvard Business School Case Services.Google Scholar
Berger, T., & Luckmann, P. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A.D., Eckert, C.M., Bucciarelli, L.L., & Earl, C.F. (2009). Witnesses to design: a phenomenology of comparative design. Design Issues 25(1), 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2005). Towards supporting evocation processes in creative design: a cognitive approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 63, 422–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boujut, J.-F., & Blanco, E. (2003). Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, T., & Ramasesh, R. (2007). Survey of activity network-based process models. Production and Operations Management 16, 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994). Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clancey, W.J. (1997). Situated Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Schaefer, E.F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N., Maier, A.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2008). Representing artefacts as media: modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience. International Journal of Design 2(3), 15–27.Google Scholar
Cross, N.G., Christiaans, H.H.C.M., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing Design Activity. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
de Weck, O., Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2007). A classification of uncertainty for early product and system design. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Engineering Design. Paris: Design Society.Google Scholar
Earl, C.F., Johnson, J.H., & Eckert, C.M. (2005). Complexity. In Design Process Improvement—A Review of Current Practice (Clarkson, P.J., & Eckert, C.M., Eds.), pp. 174–196. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M. (2001). The communication bottleneck in knitwear design: analysis and computing solutions. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 10, 29–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M. (2006). Generic and specific process models: lessons from modelling the knitwear design process. Proc. Tools Methods Competitive Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 681–692. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Delft University of Technology and University of Ljubljana.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Blackwell, A.F., Bucciarelli, L.L., & Earl, C.F. (2010). Shared conversations across design. Design Issues 26(3), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Blackwell, A.F., Stacey, M.K., Earl, C.F., & Church, L. (2012). Sketching across design domains: roles and formalities. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2004). If only I knew what you were going to do: communication and planning in large organisations. In Methods and Tools for Co-operative and Integrated Design (Tichkiewitch, S., & Brissaud, D., Eds.), pp. 375–384. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2010). Planning development processes for complex products. Research in Engineering Design 21,153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Earl, C.F., Stacey, M.K., Bucciarelli, L.L., & Clarkson, P.J. (2005). Risk across design domains. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Engineering Design. Melbourne: Design Society.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Kerley, W., Clarkson, P.J., & Moss, M. (2008). Design for service: the new challenge for long-life products. 7th Int. Symp. Tools Methods Competitive Engineering, pp. 545–552. Izmir, Turkey: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M., & Stacey, M.K. (2000). Sources of inspiration: a language of design. Design Studies 21, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., & Stacey, M.K. (2003). Sources of inspiration in industrial practice: the case of knitwear design. Journal of Design Research 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Stacey, M.K., Wyatt, D., & Garthwaite, P. (2012). Change as little as possible: creativity in design by modification. Journal of Engineering Design 23, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, T., Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2007). Externalizing tacit overview knowledge: a model-based approach to supporting design teams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design and Manufacturing 21, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1998). Creative architectural design: reference versus precedence. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 15, 258–270.Google Scholar
Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, and Human Values 16, 448–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, K. (1999). On Line and on Paper. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heylighen, F. (1999). Advantages and limitations of formal expression. Foundations of Science 4, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Kanter, R.M. (1989). When Giants Learn to Dance. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Kilpinen, M.S. (2008). The emergence of change at the systems engineering and software design interface: an investigation of impact analysis. PhD thesis. Department of Engineering, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies 29, 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, B.R. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Design Studies 25, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, T. (2002). Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and designs: some philosophical issues. Design Studies 23, 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J.G. (2000). What does it mean to say that logic is formal? PhD thesis. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Maier, A.M., Eckert, C.M., & Clarkson, P.J. (2006). Identifying requirements for communication support: a maturity grid-inspired approach. Expert Systems With Applications 31(4), 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (Eds.). (2009). About: Designing: Analysing Design Meetings. Leiden: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Minneman, S.L. (1991). The social construction of a technical reality: empirical studies of group engineering design practice. PhD thesis. Stanford University, Department of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Morand, D.A. (1995). The role of behavioral formality and informality in the enactment of bureaucratic versus organic organizations. Academy of Management Review 20, 831–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, I., & Lee, J. (1994). Conversations with graphics: implications for the design of natural language/graphics interfaces. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 40, 509–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pei, E., Campbell, I.R., & Evans, M.A. (2011). A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. Design Journal 14, 64–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Ranson, S., Hinings, B., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, A.W. (1987). The interaction order Sui Generis: Goffman's contribution to social theory. Sociological Theory 5, 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, A.W. (2010). Social order as moral order. In The Handbook of the Sociology of Morality (Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S., Eds.), pp. 95–121. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repenning, N. (2001). Understanding fire fighting in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reymen, I.M.M.J. (2001). Improving design processes through structured reflection: a domain-independent approach. PhD Thesis. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their function in designing. Design Studies 13, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R. (1962). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. (1971). The Theory of Organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Stacey, M.K., & Eckert, C.M. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12, 153–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, M.K., Eckert, C.M., Earl, C.F., Bucciarelli, L.L., & Clarkson, P.J. (2002). A comparative programme for design research. Proc. Design Research Society 2002 Int. Conf.: Common Ground. Runnymede, London: Brunel University.Google Scholar
Star, S.L., & Griesemer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tang, J.C. (1989). Listing, drawing and gesturing in design: a study of the use of shared workspaces by design teams. PhD Thesis. Stanford University, Department of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Visser, W. (2006). The Cognitive Artefacts of Designing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Henderson, A.M., & Parsons, T., Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar