An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration

Chiu, Mao-Lin

doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00019-9

Cited by 227 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, being identified as a major or minor problem is closely related to the cost-effectiveness dimension of the defined universal usability. Because each design decision requires working with specialists from different disciplines that have a significant effect on the design process (Chiu, 2002;Kolarevic et al, 2000;Kvan, 2000;Simoff and Maher, 2000), to avoid such design errors and minimize both major and minor usability problems, this study examined how an interdisciplinary approach could contribute cost-effectively to the success of universal usability, in terms of the heuristic abilities of the evaluators.…”

Section: Need For a Cost-effective Universal Usability Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design

Afacan

Erbuğ

2009

Applied Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis study highlights how heuristic evaluation as a usability evaluation method can feed into current building design practice to conform to universal design principles. It provides a definition of universal usability that is applicable to an architectural design context. It takes the seven universal design principles as a set of heuristics and applies an iterative sequence of heuristic evaluation in a shopping mall, aiming to achieve a cost-effective evaluation process. The evaluation was composed of three consecutive sessions. First, five evaluators from different professions were interviewed regarding the construction drawings in terms of universal design principles. Then, each evaluator was asked to perform the predefined task scenarios. In subsequent interviews, the evaluators were asked to reanalyze the construction drawings. The results showed that heuristic evaluation could successfully integrate universal usability into current building design practice in two ways: (i) it promoted an iterative evaluation process combined with multi-sessions rather than relying on one evaluator and on one evaluation session to find the maximum number of usability problems, and (ii) it highlighted the necessity of an interdisciplinary ad hoc committee regarding the heuristic abilities of each profession. A multi-session and interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method can save both the project budget and the required time, while ensuring a reduced error rate for the universal usage of the built environments.

show abstract

Section: Need For a Cost-effective Universal Usability Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design

Afacan

Erbuğ

2009

Applied Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rothwell (1992) proposed that effective communication and cross-functional linkages are the primary factors for successful NPD. Communication can be made effective by transmitting symbols precisely; ensuring that the meaning is relayed correctly; receiving the intended meaning accurately; and reaching the right audience through proper distribution (Chiu, 2002). Although communication mechanisms do exist, researchers have observed that industrial designers and engineering designers still do not understand each other well (Fiske, 1998).…”

Section: Inter-disciplinary Collaboration During Npdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Translating this as a design specification, the tool should be able to communicate the meanings accurately by reaching the audience through a suitable medium (Chiu, 2002). To meet this requirement, several physical formats were developed, including matrices, flowcharts, wheel diagrams and Rolodex systems.…”

Section: Tool Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a tool for building shared representations among industrial designers and engineering designers

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of multi-disciplinary collaboration in New Product Development (NPD). As such, interactions between industrial designers and engineering designers have become increasingly important. This research project aims to build a shared understanding between the 2 disciplines during NPD. Following empirical research that revealed collaboration-related problem areas, as well as collecting data concerning the use of design representations, a card system was developed to provide information on the role and significance of design representations, leading to joint understanding, improved communication and creation of shared knowledge. When asked in the validation study if the system would foster collaboration, 68.2% of industrial designers and 63.2% of the engineering designers gave a good and excellent rating, indicating that the system could play a significant role towards the support of multidisciplinary teamwork. Despite the importance of inter-disciplinary collaboration, few studies have examined the relationship between industrial design and engineering design.For this study, industrial design encompasses the specification of product form including aesthetic judgement, semantics, user interface and social requirements (IDSA, 2006;Tovey, 1994;Flurscheim, 1983). In contrast, the term engineering design broadly encompasses mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering (Fielden, 1963), all of which employ science-based problem solving methods (Hurst, 1999 Previous research has mainly focused on inter-disciplinary collaboration between engineering design and manufacturing (Beskow, 1997;Ulrich and Eppinger, 2000) and engineering with marketing (Griffin and Hauser, 1996;Shaw and Shaw, 1998). With the exception of Persson and Warell (2003) Standardising the Use of Design RepresentationsDesign representations can be expressed through language, graphic or artefacts (Goel 1995; Goldschmidt, 1997) and they refer to models of the 6 object being symbolised (Palmer, 1987 (Goldschmidt, 1992). In comparing the differences between representations favoured by the 2 disciplines, Veveris (1994) observed that engineering designers used models associated with engineering principles, functional mechanisms, production issues; whereas industrial designers applied representations related to appearance and usability. Despite the various attempts to classify representations by other authors (Tjalve et al. 1979;Ullman, 1988;Tovey, 1989;Evans, 1992;Ferguson, 1992;Goldschmidt, 1992;Veveris, 1994;Kavakli et al., 1998; 7 Cross, 1999;Do et al., 2000;Otto and Wood, 2001;Cain, 2005 Although ambiguous representations possess benefits, their ill-defined nature makes it difficult for engineering designers to comprehend and recognise how they work in relation to a product's technical parameters (Saddler, 2001). It may be difficult for a viewer other than the originator to understand the embodied meaning, context or scale (McGown, et al., 1998). The need for accurate and effective representat...

show abstract

“…as opposed to unstructured collaborative learning activities, in which participants do not share goals, and a minimum dependency among them is required [Chi02]. Another feature that should be de ned is the set of resources supporting each learning activity [Her06a]; these resources may be tools, resources or other artifacts [Pal08].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

GLUE!: An architecture for the integration of external tools in Virtual Learning Environments

Alario-Hoyos

Bote‐Lorenzo

Sánchez

et al. 2013

Computers & Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A mis padres. AcknowledgementsThe opening lines of this document serve to close this dissertation. In them, I want to sincerely thank all those who have made this work possible, and without whom this dissertation could not have been accomplished. First, I would like to thank my supervisors Miguel and Eduardo, with whom I share the credit of this work, and who have supported me throughout all these years in which we have worked together very closely. They believed in me from the very rst moment I ran into them, and they spent much time and e ort to make this dissertation succeed.Yannis is also one of the great minds that has most in uenced me over these years, and so I owe him much of this work. He insisted in showing me the right way, and he never hesitated to give me on-the-y advice or answers to my questions, despite his busy schedule. Of course, I have to specially thank Asen, Guillermo and Adolfo, who have very closely followed my dissertation, and with whom I had deep and intense discussions.Regarding the development tasks, I have been very lucky to be supported by David and Javier; without their work, this dissertation would have needed much more time, and the de- This fellowship gave me economic stability for almost three years and allowed me to make several short research stays abroad.Despite this ideal working environment, I could never have nished this dissertation without the support of my family and friends. Among them, special words of thanks are to Martín, iii Eduardo, Natalia, Miguel Ángel, Dani, Quini and many others who stood by my side to a greater or lesser extend throughout these years. Here, I would also like to remember all my college friends which led me to the front door of this PhD after a ve-year degree in which we all shared great times and memories.My parents, Julián and Tere, deserve my best words. They raised me in the values of sacri ce and knowledge. They always backed me up in every choice, and helped me overcome the di culties, and what is more important, they still keep doing it day by day. They are the ones that encourage me to get the best out of myself.Finally, my last words of gratitude must be for Bea, because she su ered this dissertation as I did. She was always by my side and never gave up on me. She gave me the strength to face this challenge, being even able to follow me to the end of the world. This dissertation proposes a middleware integration architecture called GLUE! (Group Learning Uniform Environment) that enables the lightweight integration of multiple existing external tools in multiple existing VLEs, overcoming these limitations. GLUE! fosters this integration by imposing few restrictions on VLE and tool providers, as well as by expecting an attainable e ort from developers. Besides, GLUE! facilitates the instantiation and enactment of collaborative learning situations within VLEs, leveraging the VLEs distinctive features for the management of users and groups. By means of GLUE!, practitioners may use external tools as if they were VLE built-in tools, and w...

show abstract

An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration

Cited by 227 publications

References 11 publications

An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design

An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design

Development of a tool for building shared representations among industrial designers and engineering designers

GLUE!: An architecture for the integration of external tools in Virtual Learning Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About