Doing product development activities: the role of experience and ends-in-view

Abstract

Drawing on Deweyan pragmatism and the Science-Technology-Society approach, this ethnographic research aims at understanding the role of experience and ends-in-view when handling a product development activity. The research focuses on doings conceptualised as engineer-artefact reciprocity and contributes to practice-based learning and product development studies. The analysis demonstrates that past activities embodied in experience and materialised in artefacts and, likewise, future activities embodied in ends-in-view influence the handling of an activity differently, resulting in either a derailment of handling the activity, habitual completion or reflective completion of the activity. Derailment occurs when experienced engineers are incapable of achieving a common end-in-view; habitual completion is when engineers form a vague end-in-view and no one challenges this; and past experience combined with the formation of a common end-in-view paves the way for reflective completion of the activity. Only the lastmentioned facilitates engineers to gain new experience and create usable artefacts.

Doing Transdisciplinary Studies Through the Lens of Intervention Based Research

“…When an individual(s) -scientist(s) and/or practitioner(s) is involved in doing TE, their individual logic of design enters into a kind of "means-end relation" [4]. The individuals' end-in-view (desired solution) differ [10]. By its nature, TE transcends boundaries -academic, professional, organisational and so on.…”

“…Our understanding of the basket of theories, the practice we study, and the current artefact is the fuel for our present actions and the telos for our present actions is to reach the desired situation. Thus, the desired situation that scientists and practitioners have in their views influences present action(s), but this desired situation may never be reached [10]. In other word, when doing the field test and evaluation it might be concluded that we did not successfully transform the problematic situation (S) into the desired situation (S*), but we arrived at situation (S´).…”

“…Knowledge is vital for solving societal problems [9]. Knowledge be it academic and/or practical knowledge is both the fuel for and simultaneously the telos for TE processes [10]. Knowledge is "justified trued belief" and in line with Nonaka et al [13] the focal point is "justified" rather that the "true" aspect of belief.…”

“…Rather the opposite as the journey of designing an artefact to solve a wicked problem is characterised by ongoing iterations between different design stages and testing [30]. The timewise sequence in figure 2 highlights the facts that when we -scientists and practitioners are involved in TE projects our actions are not isolated actions (see [10,11]. Past actions and what we are keen on achieving (reaching the desired situation) influence present action.…”

“…Potential differences in understandings and intentions are aligned by drawing on the principles of backward planning [8] or the outcome space framework [9]. However, intention(s) does only influence the TE logic if the individuals are acting intentionally [10,11]. Because of the TE logic has such an unfolding nature and the fact that both existing knowledge, accessible artefacts and different intentions in a nonpredetermined way have an influencing role(s) we still lack a rigour TE logic.…”