Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:42:12.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making sense of engineering design review activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2007

Gregory Huet ,
Stephen J. Culley ,
Christopher A. McMahon  and
ClÉment Fortin
Gregory Huet
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Stephen J. Culley
Affiliation:
University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
Christopher A. McMahon
Affiliation:
University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
ClÉment Fortin
Affiliation:
École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Engineering design reviews, which take place at predetermined phases of the product development process, are fundamental elements for the evaluation and control of engineering activities. These meetings are also acknowledged as unique opportunities for all the parties involved to share information about the product and related engineering processes. For product development teams, the knowledge generated during a design review is not as secondary as it may seem; key design decisions, design experiences, and associated rationale are frequently made explicit. Useful work has been carried out on the design review process itself, but little work has been undertaken about the detailed content of the meeting activity; it is argued that understanding the transactions that take place during a meeting is critical to building an effective knowledge-oriented recording strategy. To this effect, an extensive research program based on case studies in the aerospace engineering domain has been carried out. The work reported in this paper focuses on a set of tools and methods developed to characterize and analyze in depth the transactions observed during a number of case studies. The first methodology developed, the transcript coding scheme, uses an intelligent segmentation of meeting discourse transcriptions. The second approach, which bypasses the time consuming transcribing operation, is based on a meeting capture template developed to enable a meeting observer to record the transactions as the meeting takes place. A third method, the information mapping technique, has also been developed to interpret the case study data in terms of decisions, actions, rationale, and lessons learned, effectively generating qualitative measures of the information lost in the formal records of design reviews. Overall, the results generated by the set of tools presented in this paper have fostered a practical strategy for the knowledge intensive capture of the contents of design reviews. The concluding remarks also discuss possible enhancements to the meeting analysis tools presented in this paper and future work aimed at the development of a computer supported capture software for design reviews.

Keywords

Design Control ActivitiesInformation and Knowledge ManagementInformation CaptureMeetingsTeam Communication Analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , August 2007 , pp. 243 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Badke-Schaub, P., & Gehrlicher, A. (2003). Patterns of decisions in design: leaps, loops, cycles, sequences and meta-processes. Proc. ICED'03 Conf.Google Scholar
Bekker, M.M., Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S. (1995). Analysis of gesture in face to face design teams provides guidance for how to use groupware in design. Proc. Symp. Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., & Chakrabarti, A. (1999). A Design Research Methodology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Boston, O.P. (1998). Technical liaisons in engineering design: understanding by modeling. PhD Thesis. University of Bath.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R.H., Ahmed, S., & Wallace, K.M. (2004). DRED and design folders, a way of capturing, storing, and passing on knowledge generated during design projects. Proc. ASME DETC & IEC Conf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, S.R., & Agogino, A.M. (1990). Knowledge capture for concurrent design. Proc. ASME Production Engineering Division, pp. 241–248.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution. (1993). Reliability of Systems Equipment and Components, Part 14: Guide to Formal Design Review (BS5760-14). London: British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
Buckland, M.K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42(5), 351–360.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Standards Association. (1996). Formal Design Review (CSA 1160-96). Ottawa: Standards Council of Canada.Google Scholar
Choo, C.W. (1998). The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, K., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organisation and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Conklin, J. (2003). Dialog mapping: reflections on an industrial strength case study. In Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making Kirschner, P.A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., & Carr, C.S.117–136. London: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, J.E., & Begeman, M.L. (1988). gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 6, 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, P., Ellis, C.A., Graf, M., Rein, G.L., & Smith, T. (1987). Project Nick: meetings augmentations and analysis. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 5(2), 132–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R.G. (1993). Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process From Idea to Launch. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
Court, A.W., McMahon, C.A., & Culley, S.J. (1996). Information access diagrams: a technique for analysing the usage of design information. Journal of Engineering Design 7(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Astous, P. (1999). Mesure et analyse des activités coopératives lors de réunions de révision technique du processus de génie logiciel. PhD Thesis. École Polytechnique de Montréal.Google Scholar
D'Astous, P., Détienne, F., Visser, W., & Robillard, P.N. (2000). On the use of functional and interactional approaches for the analysis of technical review meetings. Proc. Workshop of Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pp. 155–170.Google Scholar
D'Astous, P., Robillard, P.N., Détienne, F., & Visser, W. (2001). Quantitative measurements of the influence of participant roles during peer review meetings. Empirical Software Engineering 6, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derr, R.L. (1985). The concept of information in ordinary discourse. Information Processing and Management 21(6), 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, A. (2006). Concept formation as knowledge accumulation: a computational linguistics study. AIEDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, and Manufacturing 20(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzbor, M., & Zdrahal, Z. (2001). Towards a framework for acquisition of design knowledge. Proc. 27th Design Automation Conf., Paper No. DETC01/DAC-21049, Pittsburgh, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Maier, A., & McMahon, C.A. (2005). Communication in design. In Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice Clarkson, P.J., & Eckert, C.M., Eds.), pp. 232–261. London: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, C.A., Gibbs, S.J., & Rein, G.L. (1991). Groupware: some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM 34(1), 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, C.A., Rein, G.L., & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1989). Nick experimentation: selected results concerning effectiveness of meeting support technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 6(3), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elrod, S., Bruce, R., Gold, R., Goldberg, D., Halasz, F., Janssen, W., Lee, D., McCall, K., Pedersen, E., Pier, K., Tang, J., & Welch, B. (1992). Liveboard: a large interactive display supporting group meetings, presentations and remote collaboration. Proc. CHI'92, pp. 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, S., & Dixon, J.R. (1989). A review of research in mechanical engineering design, part I: descriptive, prescriptive and computer based models of design processes. Research in Engineering Design 1(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, C., & Huet, G. (2007). Manufacturing Process Management: iterative synchronisation of engineering data and manufacturing realities. International Journal of Product Development 4(3/4), 280–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardoni, M. (1999). Harnessing of non-structured information and knowledge and know how capitalisation in integrated engineering. Case study at Aerospatiale Matra. PhD Thesis. Université de Metz.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., & Maher, M.L. (1993). Modelling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hales, C. (1987). Analysis of the engineering design process in an industrial context. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, E. (1980). Defining information: an analysis of the information content of documents. Information Processing and Management 16, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huet, G., Culley, S.J., & McMahon, C.A. (2004). A classification scheme for structure and content of design meetings. Proc. Design 2004, pp. 1363–1369. New Haven, CT: The Design Society.Google Scholar
Huet, G., McMahon, C.A., Sellini, F., Culley, S.J., & Fortin, C. (2006). Knowledge loss in design reviews. Proc. IDMME 06 Conf. Paris: CIRP Publications.Google Scholar
International Electrotechnical Commission. (1992). Formal Design Review (IEC 1160). Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission Publications.Google Scholar
Janin, A., Baron, D., Edwards, J., Ellis, D., Gelbart, D., Morgan, N., Peskin, B., Pfau, T., Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., & Wooters, C. (2003). The ICSI Meeting Corpus. Proc. ICASSP 2003.Google Scholar
Karsenty, L. (1996). An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents. Proc. ACM CHI'96 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conf., pp. 150–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J.M., Pinelli, T.E., & Barclay, R.O. (1997). The production and use of information by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists—from research through production to technical services. In Knowledge Diffusion in the U.S. Aerospace Industry: Managing Knowledge for Competitive Advantage Pinelli, T.E., Barclay, R.O., Kennedy, J.M., & Bishop, A.P., Eds.), pp. 263–323. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Krishnan, V., Eppinger, S.D., & Whitney, D.E. (1997). A model-based framework to overlap product development activities. Management Science 43(4), 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labrousse, M. (2004). Proposition d'un modèle conceptuel unifié pour la gestion dynamique des connaissances d'entreprise. PhD Thesis. École Centrale de Nantes.Google Scholar
Lee, J., & Lai, K.-Y. (1996). What's in design rationale? In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M., Eds.), pp. 21–51. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, J. (2001). Knowledge Management: Learning From Knowledge Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, T. (2004). I hate reviews! Academy Sharing Knowledge Magazine 10. Accessed November 17, 2005, at http://appl.nasa.gov/ask/issues/10/features/10_reviews_little.html[a]Google Scholar
Lloyd, P. (2000). Storytelling and the development of discourse in the engineering design process. Design Studies 21, 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, J.R. (1997). The capture and utilisation of experience in engineering design. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Minneman, S.L. (1991). The social construction of a technical reality: empirical studies of group engineering design practice. PhD Thesis. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Minneman, S.L., & Harrison, S. (1993). Where were we: making and using near synchronous, pre-narrative video. Proc. Mulimedia'93 Conf., pp. 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minneman, S.L., Moran, T.P., Harrison, S., Janssen, B., Kurtenbach, G., & Smith, I. (1995). A confederation of tools for capturing and accessing collaborative activity. Proc. ACM Multimedia'95 Conf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M. (1996). Overview of design rationale. In Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M., Eds.), pp. 1–20. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moran, T.P., Palen, L., Harrison, S., Chiu, P., Kimber, D., Minneman, S.L., Van Melle, W. & Zellweger, P. (1997). “I'll get that off the audio”: a case study of salvaging multimedia meeting records. Proc. CHI'97, pp. 302–309.Google Scholar
Morgan, N., Baron, D., Bhagat, S., Carvey, H., Dhillon, R., Edwards, J., Gelbart, D., Janin, A., Krupski, A., Peskin, B., Pfau, T., Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., & Wooters, C. (2003). Meetings about meetings: research at ICSI on speech in multiparty conversations. Proc. ICASSP 2003.Google Scholar
Morgan, N., Baron, D., Edwards, J., Ellis, D., Gelbart, D., Janin, A., Pfau, T., Shriberg, E., & Stolcke, A. (2001). The Meeting Project at ICSI. Proc. Human Language Technologies Conf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (1993). Integration definition for function modelling (IDEF0) (Publication 183). Washington, DC: Federal Information Processing Standards Publications.Google Scholar
New Oxford American Dictionary. (2005). New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, G.M., Olson, J.S., Storrøsten, M., & Carter, M. (1993). Group work close up: a comparison of the group design process with and without a simple group editor. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 11, 321–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, G.M., Olson, J.S., Storrøsten, M., Carter, M., Herbsleb, J., & Reuter, H. (1996). The structure of activity during design meetings. In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M., Eds.), pp. 217–240. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, E., McCall, K., Moran, T.P., & Halasz, F. (1993). Tivoli: an electronic whiteboard for informal group meetings. Proc. INTERCHI'93 Conf., pp. 391–398.Google Scholar
Perry, M., & Sanderson, D. (1998). Coordinating joint design work: the role of communication and artefacts. Design Studies 19, 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R., Neailey, K., & Broughton, T. (1999). A comparative study of six stage–gate approaches to product development. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 10(5), 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, M.S. (1985). Elements of Engineering Design. London: Prentice–Hall International.Google Scholar
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Enquiry and Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Regli, W.C., Hu, X., Atwood, M., & Sun, W. (2000). A survey of design rationale systems: approaches, representation, capture and retrieval. Engineering with Computers 16, 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitmeier, S., Chiu, P., Kapuskar, A., & Wilcox, L. (1999). Meeting capture in a media enriched conference room. Proc. CoBuild'99 Conf.Google Scholar
Robillard, P.N., D'Astous, P., Détienne, F., & Visser, W. (1998). An empirical method based on protocol analysis to analyse technical review meetings. Proc. Conf. Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar
Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Zimmermann, B., Palus, C., Drath, W., Horth, D., Domingue, J., Motta, E., & Gangmin, L. (2001). Compendium: making meetings into knowledge events. Proc. Knowledge Technologies 2001.Google Scholar
Shipman, F., & McCall, R. (1997). Integrating different perspectives on design rationale: supporting the emergence of design rationale from design communication. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 11(2), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., & Baron, D. (2001). Observations on overlap: findings and implications for automatic processing of multi-party conversation. Proc. Eurospeech 2001.Google Scholar
Sierhuis, M., & Selvin, A.M. (1996). Toward a framework for collaborative modelling and simulation. Proc. Workshop on Strategies for CSCW'96.Google Scholar
Sim, S.K., & Duffy, A.H.B. (2003). Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Research in Engineering Design 14, 200–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sim, S.K., & Duffy, A.H.B. (2004). Evolving a model of learning in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 15, 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibel, B.J. (2003). The Manager's Guide to Effective Meetings. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Tang, J.C., & Leifer, L.J. (1996). An observational methodology for studying group design activity. In Mechanical Design: Theory and Methodology Waldron, M.B., & Waldron, K.J., Eds.), pp. 52–70. New York: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tropman, J.E. (2003). Making Meetings Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wallace, K.M., Ahmed, S., & Bracewell, R.H. (2005). Engineering knowledge management. In Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice Clarkson, P.J., & Eckert, C.M., Eds.), pp. 326–343. London: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, A., Liker, J.K., Cristiano, J.J., & Sobek, D.K. (1995). The second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Management Review 36(3), 43–61.Google Scholar
Weynton, B. (2002). Organise Meetings. Sydney, Australia: Software Publications.Google Scholar
Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World. New York: Rawson Associates.Google Scholar
Wynn, D., & Clarkson, P.J. (2005). Models of designing. In Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice Clarkson, P.J., & Eckert, C.M., Eds.), pp. 34–59. London: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, S.J. (2000). Capturing multimodal design activities in support of information retrieval and process analysis. PhD Thesis. Stanford University.Google Scholar