No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
COMPARING COLLABORATIVE CAD MODELLING PATTERNS OF HIGH-PERFORMING AND LOW-PERFORMING TEAMS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2023
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The development of cloud-based Computer-aided design (CAD) enabled real-time CAD collaboration between multiple designers. While this technology has great potential to change the way CAD work is done, it is still little explored. This paper presents a case with two high-performing and two low-performing three-member teams monitored with non-invasive methods (log data) during a six-week design project. The results show that high-performing teams focused more on the editing of assembly, while low-performing teams focused on creating and editing a part. Furthermore, high-performing teams tended to perform consecutive deleting actions and to transition to creating and editing classes of CAD actions after performing viewing actions. Two modelling approaches which lead to high-quality CAD models were identified. One approach is characterized by frequent use of transitions between editing and Organizing-Design (collaborative actions) classes, while the other between creating, editing and reversing classes. Presented results allow design teams to gain insight into sequential patterns which led to the generation of a high-quality CAD model and to better understand the CAD modelling process.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Ahmed-Kristensen, S., Wallace, K. and Blessing, L. (2003), “Understanding the Differences between How Novice and Experienced Designers Approach Design Tasks”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 14, pp. 1–11, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0023-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C., Adams, R., Cardella, M., Turns, J., Mosborg, S. and Saleem, J. (2007), “Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96, pp. 359–379, https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celjak, R., Horvat, N. and Skec, S. (2022), “Exploring the Potential of Tracking CAD Actions in Project-based Courses”, CAD Solutions, LLC, pp. 302–307, https://dx.doi.org/10.14733/cadconfp.2022.302-307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasegaran, S.K., Ramani, K., Sriram, R.D., Horváth, I., Bernard, A., Harik, R.F. and Gao, W. (2013), “The evolution, challenges, and future of knowledge representation in product design systems”, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 204–228, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2012.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Y., Mueller, M., Rogers, C. and Olechowski, A. (2022), “The multi-user computer-aided design collaborative learning framework”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 51, p. 101446, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. and Graebner, M. (2007), “Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 25–32, https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888.Google Scholar
Eves, K., Salmon, J., Olsen, J. and Fagergren, F. (2018), “A comparative analysis of computer-aided design team performance with collaboration software”, Computer-Aided Design and Applications, CAD Solutions, LLC, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 476–487, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16864360.2017.1419649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopsill, J., Snider, C., Shi, L. and Hicks, B. (2016), Computer-Aided Design User Interaction as a Sensor for Monitoring Engineers and the Engineering Design Process.Google Scholar
Horvat, N., Becattini, N. and Škec, S. (2021), “Use of information and communication technology tools in distributed product design student teams”, Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Design ICED21, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, C., Cagan, J. and Kotovsky, K. (2017a), “Mining Process Heuristics from Designer Action Data Via Hidden Markov Models”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 139, https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4037308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, C., Cagan, J. and Kotovsky, K. (2017b), “Capturing Human Sequence-Learning Abilities in Configuration Design Tasks Through Markov Chains”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 139, pp. 1–12, https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4037185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, M.H., Gashler, M., Xie, C. and Sha, Z. (2018), Automatic Clustering of Sequential Design Behaviors, https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/DETC2018-86300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosso, P., Gopsill, J., Burgess, S. and Hicks, B. (2021), “Investigating and Characterising Variability in CAD Modelling and its Potential Impact on Editability: An Exploratory Study”, Computer-Aided Design and Applications, Vol. 18, pp. 1306–1326, https://dx.doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2021.1306-1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Um, D. (2015), Solid Modeling and Applications: Rapid Prototyping, CAD and CAE Theory, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21822-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access