Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T12:51:05.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaching Knowledge Dynamics Across the Product Development Process with Methods of Social Research

Part of: Knowledge-based Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Wei Min Wang ,
Frauke Mörike ,
Jannis Hergesell ,
Nina Baur ,
Markus Feufel  and
Rainer Stark

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.

Knowledge is a crucial factor in state-of-the-art product development. It is often provided by stakeholders from divers disciplinary and individual backgrounds and has to be integrated to create competitive products. Still, it is not fully understood, how knowledge is generated, transformed, transferred and integrated in complex product development processes. To investigate the dynamic interrelations between involved stakeholders, applied knowledge types and related artefacts, researchers at the TU Berlin conducted and evaluated a student experiment to study basic phenomena of development projects. In relation to research methods and instruments applied in this experiment, various improvement opportunities were identified. In this paper, the experimental setting and its results are critically analysed from a social science perspective in order to generate improved research design. Based on the results of this analysis, a first set of methods and instruments from social sciences are identified that can be applied in further experiments. The goal is to develop a methodological toolbox that can be used to approach research on knowledge dynamics in product development.

Keywords

Design theoryOrganisation of product developmentKnowledge managementKnowledge dynamics in product developmentEvaluation with students
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2497 - 2506
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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) 2019

References

Ahmed, S. and Wallace, K. M. (2004), “Identifying and supporting the knowledge needs of novice designers within the aerospace industry’, Journal of Engineering Design, vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 475–492.Google Scholar
Antweiler, C. (2008), “Kognitive Methoden”. In: Beer, B. (Ed.), Methoden ethnologischer Feldforschung, Reimer, Berlin, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
Ball, L. and Ormerod, T. (2000), “Putting Ethnography to Work: The Case for a Cognitive Ethnography of Design.”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0372Google Scholar
Baur, N. (2014), “Comparing Societies and Cultures. Challenges of Cross-Cultural Survey Research as an Approach to Spatial Analysis”, Historical Social Research (HSR ), Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 257–291.Google Scholar
Berggreen, L. and Kampf, C. (2016), “Stage-gate Project Management Processes as Professional Communication Practice: Connecting Technical and Marketing Communication in New Product Development’, IEEE ProComm 2016: International Professional Communication Conference: Austin, Texas, October 2-5. Piscataway, NJ, IEEE.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. (2017), “Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches”, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.Google Scholar
Butlewski, M., Misztal, A. and Belu, N. (2016), “An Analysis of the Benefits of Ethnography Design Methods for Product Modelling.”, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 145 No. 4, paper 042023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/145/4/042023.Google Scholar
Brymann, A. (2016), “Social Research Methods”. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (2009), “Complex Realist Configurational Approaches to Cases: A Radical Synthesis. In: Byrne, D.; Ragin, C. (Eds.): Case-Bases Methods. Sage, London, pp. 101–112.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. and Poth, C. (2017), “Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Davenport, T., Prusak, L. and Höhlein, H. (1999), “Wenn Ihr Unternehmen wüßte, was es alles weiß: Das Praxishandbuch zum Wissensmanagement”, 2nd ed, Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg/Lech.Google Scholar
Emerson, R., Fretz, R. and Shaw, Linda (2011), “Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Feufel, M. and Stahl, S. (2012), “What do Web-Use Skill Differences Imply for Online Health Information Searches?”, Journal of Medical Internet Research Vol. 14 No. 3, p. e87. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2051Google Scholar
Flick, Uwe (2009), “Qualitative Sozialforschung”, Eine EinführungGoogle Scholar
Flick, Uwe (2011), “Das Episodische Interview”, In: Oelerich, Gertrud; Otto, Hans-Uwe (Hrsg.): Empirische Forschung und Soziale Arbeit, Wiesbaden, (273–280).Google Scholar
Gellner, D. and Hirsch, E. (Eds.) (2001), “Inside organizations. anthropologists at work, Berg, Oxford.Google Scholar
Holstein, J./Gubrium, F. (2016), “Narrative Practice and the Active Interview. In: Silvermann, D. (eds.): Qualitative Research. Sage, London, pp. 83–100.Google Scholar
Höst, M., Regnell, B. and Wohlin, C. (2000), “Using Students as Subjects--A Comparative Study of Students and Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment’, Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 201–214.Google Scholar
Fetterman, D. (1998), “Ethnography”, In: Bickman, L. and Rog, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Sage, London, pp. 473–504.Google Scholar
Klein, G., Calderwood, R. and MacGregor, D. (1989), “Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.31053Google Scholar
Lee, S. and Yan, J. (2016), “The impact of 3D CAD interfaces on user ideation: A comparative analysis using SketchUp and Silhouette Modeler”, Design Studies, 44, pp. 52–73.Google Scholar
Madden, R. (2010), “Being ethnographic. a guide to the theory and practice of ethnography, Sage, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Märten, A., Jenek, J. F. W., Wang, W. M., Fleck, C., Meyer, H., Stark, R. and Ammon, S. (2018), “Conceptual Framework for Analysing Knowledge Dynamics in Engineering Science”, Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, May, 21-24, 2018, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Croatia; The Design Society, Glasgow, UK, pp. 1631–1642.Google Scholar
Miller, J. and Glassner, B. (2016), “The `Insidèand the `Outsidè: Finding Realisties in Interviews. In: Silvermann, D. (eds.): Qualitative Research. Sage, London, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar
Mohedas, I., Sarvestani, A., Daly, S. and Sienko, K. (2015), “Applying Design Ethnograhy to Product Evaluation: A Case Example of a Medical Device in a low-resource setting”, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15), Vol. nn: Title of Volume, Milan, Italy, 27.-30.07.2015.Google Scholar
Moser, C. and Kalton, G. (2017), “Survey Methods in Social Investigation”, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Robson, C. and McCartan, K. (2016), “Real World Research”, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Nunes, F. and Fitzpatrick, G. (2018), “Understanding the Mundane Nature of Self-care: Ethnographic Accounts of People Living with Parkinson's”, Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'18), p. 402. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173976Google Scholar
Robinson, A. (2010), “Work sampling. Methodological advances and new applications. In: Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industires Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 42–60.Google Scholar
Schoonenboom, J. and Johnson, B. (2017), “How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design”, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 107–131.Google Scholar
Self, J. (2017), “Resolving Wicked Problems: Appositional Reasoning and Sketch Representation”, The Design Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 313–331. https://doi/org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1301070Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (1985), “Plans and Situated Actions: The problem of human-machine communication”, Xerox, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. and Schwarz, N. (1996), “Thinking About Answers. The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology”, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Thierbach, C. and Lorenz, A. (2014), “Exploring the Orientation in Space. Mixing Focused Ethnography and Surveys in Social Experiment”, Historical Social Research Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 137–166. https://doi/org/10.12759/hsr.39.2014.2.137-166 Vinck, D. (ed.) (2003), Everyday Engineering: An Ethnography of Design and Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Wang, W. M., Lünnemann, P., Preidel, M. and Stark, R. (2017), “Wissen in Produktentwicklungsprozessen – ein Aktivitätenbasierter Analyseansatz”, In: Brökel, K., Grote, K.-H., Stelzer, R., Rieg, F., Feldhusen, J., Müller, N. and Köhler, P. (eds), Vo. 15. Gemeinsames Kolloquium Konstruktionstechnik: Interdisziplinäre Produktentwicklung, Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, pp. 183–192.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue (2016), “Analysing Focus Group Data. In: Silvermann, D. (eds.): Qualitative Research. Sage, London, pp. 83–100.Google Scholar
Yin, R. (2014), “Case Study Research”, Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi.Google Scholar
Yock, P., et al. (2015), “ Biodesign: The process of innovating medical technologies 2nd ed., United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar