Brereton - 1996 - Collaboration in Design Teams How Social Interact Crop

15 Collaboration in DesignTeams: How SocialInteraction Shapes theProductMargot F. Brereton, David M. Cannon, Ade Mabogunje andLany J. LeiferStanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA

Modem interdisciplinary design demands that engineers learnto work well in teams. Teamwork requires individuals toexpress ideas and misgivings, listen, negotiate, etc" that is tocollaborate. Engineers need to be aware of various characteristics of collaboration so that they can identify successful andpoor strategies within their own work practice.

Engineering design students at Stanford University, commenting on the usefulness of design process models and prescriptive design methods in their seven- month design project,noted that while the models and methods told them what to do,they provided little insight into how to do it. In particular,students wanted more help with group dynamics, solutiondevelopment and project management.

The Delft Protocol Analysis Workshop presented us theopportunity to examine a two hour long videotape of a team ofpractising designers developing a preliminary solution for aproduct that mounts luggage onto a mountain bike. Videotapeallows us to take a close, careful look at how the moment-tomoment activity steers the course' of the design solution.Through repeated observation, analysis and discussion we candevelop a better understanding of how professional designersdo such things as collaborate, develop design solutions andmanage their work. This chapter explores the collaboration of

Collaboration in Design Teams

the design team. Early in the session the designers reveal different solution agendas and different ways of working. Theyreconcile their differences through effective collaboration. Wefind that the content of the evolving design depends heavily onnegotiation strategies, among other more subtle and ubiquitoussocial processes. We describe how the design evolves throughdesigners' negotiation strategies and through topic shiftsprompted by the design activity itself.

We made a deliberate attempt to come to the tape with an openmind, trying to consider several facets of design activity, sometimes looking at long segments of tape to get a broader perspective, other times looking at short segments over and over again.We took a qualitative approach focusing on describing designerinteraction, rather than a quantitative approach focusing oncounting design acts or design content. In the quantitativeapproach, which is most common in design protocol analysis, theresearcher develops a coding scheme that categorizes the designactivity by topic and then spends the bulk of the research effortcoding, quantifying and analysing the data looking for interesting patterns in graphs or informative statistics. We consideredthe design activity to be so rich that reducing the activity downto a set of categories without considerable qualitative analysis ofthe raw data would make considerable assumptions about whatwas important and run the risk of overlooking interestingaspects of the activity. We needed to immerse ourselves in theraw video data until interesting patterns emerged because wedid not yet know what to look for. So we took the approach ofVideo Interaction Analysis", in which an interdisciplinary teamobserves tape segments looking for standard and interestingpractices. The team stops the tape frequently to discuss hypotheses and it tests them by reviewing the tape segment. Only thosepractices confirmed by interdisciplinary scrutiny that occurrepeatedly in different parts of the tape are admissible in theanalysis. Using this method we did develop a scheme of categories. It is intended to illustrate our interpretation of collaboration in the design team, We illustrate the scheme against fiveminutes of raw transcript data so that the reader may evaluate itsmerits. However we do not attempt to quantify the scheme.

The analysis team consisted of four researchers with engineering design and design research backgrounds. Watching the

iBrereton, Cannon, Maboaunje and Leifer 3211

tape for the first time to make general observations, all teammembers found it difficult not to engage in designing the Iproduct! We were drawn into judging the content of eachlproposal. With each viewing, more facets of the activity Iappeared. In particular, it helped us to watch the tape with aniinterdisciplinary team of social scientists, anthropologists,computer scientists and engineers. The tape served as a catalyst, Iprovoking recall of hypotheses based on experience from Ioutside the tape as well as from within. Repeated video Iwatching determined which hypotheses were validated byseveral occurrences of supporting events in the tape. I

The time limit and restricted setting of the protocol for the Ipurpose of video taping emphasized certain aspects of design Isuch as time pressure and decision making, whereas other Iaspects such as information gathering, organizational context,the ability to mull over ideas Or engage in opportunistic solu- Itions were restricted or removed from context. All participants Ifelt out boundaries of what was within the 'rules' to a greater or Ilesser extent. Collaboration was chosen for analysis both Ibecause of our interest in this area and because it was considered relatively insensitive to the protocol design. The analysis Iexplores how the group works together under the given condi- Itions, whatever they might be. Also, it became evident that Isocial interaction strongly influenced the content of the Iemerging product.

2 An.'ys;sOverview

3 Roles andSolutionPreferences

Section 3 introduces the members of the design team. As the. session progresses the designers reveal quite different pre

ferences towards ways of approaching the design problem. Fur.thermore, the designers reveal preferences for different types ofsolution. These differences in ways of working and solutionpreferences require the designers to negotiate skillfully asolution. Section 4 describes how the design discussion transitions from one topic to another. It describes the designers'negotiation strategies. It describes how they express their commitment to proposed solutions. Section 5 summarizes ouranalysis of the collaboration.

As if in a novel or play, the characters begin to reveal themselves in their opening lines (Transcript 1). Kerry, who hasworked on products for bikes, bids to look at the hardware

322 Collaboration in Design Teams

(comment no. 1). John, who often steps back to look at theprocess, counters by proposing that they develop a sharedunderstanding of the problem (comment no. 2).

Transcript 1[All sitting at table with problem statement]00:07:001 K what do we need? I guess we should look at their

existing prototype huh?2 J yeah, em, let me think we could also just sort of

like try to quantify theproblem because what's your understanding of theproblem first of all?

Throughout the early stages of the session Kerry is engagedby the existing hardware and concepts. She seeks to ground theproblem by examining the existing hardware and concepts indetail (Transcript 2; comments 1; 3, 6, 8). John observes thisprocess and then bids to work back at a higher level to get abroad view of the process they will follow before diving in(comment 9).

Transcript 200:19:001 K yeah you have to put a lot of tension on to these

em bolts 'cos that's the opening is in the directionof the

2 I right3 K loading the force it'd be nice if you could have the

forks coming more like that sothat

4 I right5 J mmmm

K the bouncing7 J it sounds like8 K these'd have to be self-attached9 J it sounds like in a way we're starting to move on to

ideation already but uh have have we kinda fleshedthese major things out or

Transcript 3 illustrates how John begins to seek out ambiguityin the problem statement (comments 5, 9). He negotiates for

Brereton, Cannon, Mabogunje and Leifer 323

flexibility in wanting to consider internal and external framebackpack designs as well as all types of mountain bikes(comment 22). Kerry seeks to ground the problem! counteringthat the problem statement suggests that they only consider theHiStar external frame backpack (comments 4, 12, 14, 16, 18).Ivan's role is emerging as one of arbitrator. He considers bothpositions and falls to either side. As we enter Transcript 3 theyare discussing the backpack ...

Transcript 300:09:001 J OK I missed that2 I which part did you miss?3 J oh the fact that 1 thought I picked up that they

were going to that they were conceiving of makingan internal frame pack but em I guess that's notwhat they're saying you're saying that they makeexternal frame packs currently?

4 K nun hmm they make external5 J does it say that they want to stick with that or6 I well it doesn't say anything about going uh

external or internal so that I think that you raised agood point

7 K they just yeah8 I yeah that we have that freedom right now9 J OK maybe we could get something that we're

gonna propose to them that if it has any ad vantagein this application right

10 I sure11 J OK12 K but they wanna use it with this external frame

backpack it looks like13 I right with this well let's see14 K because the HiStar this this is a best-selling

backpack the mid-range HiStar15 1 right and they have their best-selling bike right16 K they've decided to develop an exes accessory for

the HiStar17 I yeah18 K this is the HiStar backpack the HiStar (holding

sample backpack)


00:10:0019 j where do you see that?20 I at the top here21 K very beginning22 J yeah here it is on the basis of this marketing report

HiAdventure has decided to develop an accessoryfor the HiStar and these are the two kinda functional criteria it says a special carrying fasteningdevice that would enable you to fasten and carrythe backpack on mountain bikes and then thedevice would have to fit on most touring andmountain bikes so it doesn't sound like it's specificto this one

Kerry has managed temporarily to gain an agreement fromJohn and Ivan that they design for the HrStar backpack. But inthe last statement of transcript 3, John, in agreeing to designingfor the HiStar opens up a bid to design for most touring bikes(comment 22). This is counter to an earlier suggestion in00:08:00by Kerry to 'make it a special mountain bike so it couldhave the stuff required attachedlsomething] to it', tacitly agreedto by the group.

Kerry's preference to try to pin down part of the solution is

repeated throughout the tape, as is John's preference for preserving ambiguity. Table 15.1 illustrates their design solution preferences for key issues.

The group's roles are summarized in Table 15.2. Clipsthroughout the paper will illustrate the development of these

Table 15.1 Design solution preferences. Two of the three designersexhlbited consistent preferences on how to approach the problem

Pin down solution (Kerry)

Design for HiStar backpack andBatavus Buster bike

Focus on rear placement(most promising candidate)

Design for a fixed position

Use emerging industry standardattachment method (braze-oris)

Preserve ambiguity Oohn)

Design for various backpacks andmountain bikes

Consider all possible placements

Make device adjustable

Use attachment method usable by allbikes

Brereton, Cannon, Mabogunje and Leiter 325

Tabl~ 15.2 Designer roles. These emerged during the first quarter ofthe design task

Ivan John Kerry

• Whiteboard manager • Theorist: abstracts• Arbitrator process from• TimekeeperI keeps contextgroup on track • Uses process

rationale ascommentary tokeep group ontrack

• Bike expert and useradvocate

• Seeks out context anddetailed knowledge

• Seeks to groundthe design withspecific solutionalternatives

4 MakingProgress • Fociand TransitionsMediated throughSocial Interaction

4.1 Designing fromContext

roles. Ivan gradually emerges as an organizer, timekeeper andoccasional arbitrator between John and Kerry. He manages thewhiteboard lists and generally keeps the group on track Arethese roles predetermined or adopted? From the tape we cannotknow whether the characters play the same roles in other designsituations. Nor can we tell how the emergence of one roledepends on that of another. However, it is likely'that a certainamount of compensating occurs, each designer seeking to fill ingaps they perceive in the group approach. Kerry exhibits behaviour noted by Cutndorr' to be consistent with that of domainexperts, quickly pruning the search space to promising solutions. In Section 4 we characterize how the individuals reconciletheir different positions to engage in effective collaboration.

Many researchers have characterized design as being opportunistic or chaotic: moving fluidly between requirements anddetails in response to information or ideas uncovered that areworthy of immediate exploration'. The session is replete withdesigners abstracting from the context to gain perspective andseeking context to ground the design with affordable, manufacturable alternatives. They develop requirements by consider-

326

4.2 AScheme toDescribe Design ProgressMediated through SocialInteraction


ing candidate solutions and user scenarios and tinkering withhardware. For example, requirements for easy attachment, lowcentre of gravity and strap containment all emerge from thecontext of the problem, by working with the backpack aroundthe bike or examining the user specifications. (The structureddesign methods do not address how to seek out alterna tives andgenerate solutions from the context of the problem.)

As the design team negotiates the problem space, each designermakes bids to have issues they think important discussed by theteam. Having called focus on an issue, the other designers mightengage in the focus, adding ideas towards a partial solution.The content of design then evolves through discussions addingincremental solution additions, use scenarios, justifications andinformation-seekingquestions. The designers acknowledge othercontributions with nods and short phrases or they call intoquestion an aspect of a proposed solution. They align themselves with various aspects of the evolving solutions andapproach and distance themselves from others. We looked forevidence presented in the videotape that designers were happywith the alignment of the team and, if not, how they sought tochange it.

We characterize the design discussion as focusing in on issuesand then transitioning topics. However, there is evidence thatthe designers are continuously engaged in multiple activities atdifferent levels. Although they focus in on issues, they continuously monitor the progress of the solution from the point ofview of various requirements and solution alternatives. 'Theyreflect on their course of action, monitoring and modifying theirprocess. There is evidence that they monitor their team-mates'utterances and actions on a moment-to-moment basis andmoderate their talk accordingly, It is difficult to represent such arich process in a scheme of categories. However, we havechosen to do so to try to illustrate how the evolution of thedesign content is governed by the social interaction in the team.

A scheme to describe how the design discussion focuses andtransitions are mediated through social interaction is proposedin Table 15.3. Before offering an example of the use of the categories in this scheme, a few notes regarding their status andpurpose are appropriate. The categories draw upon those usedby other researchers, such as Guindon's 'partial solution' term2

,

but are not an exact copy of anyone set1,3- ti. Many different

Cannon, Mabogunje and Leifer

Table 15.3 Classification Scheme for Focus and Transition,Categories are chosen as an aid in conveying the notion of focus ingroup setting by enabling a more detailed examination of theparticularly the utterances,

call-focus - Asks for attention, attempting to focusthe grouparound an issue of concern

start-partial~solution - Begins to describe a solution orspecification proposed for consideration

add!refer-to-partial-solution - Adds or refers to some detailor constraint in the current partial solution or specification

~.5~~~qt;~UJr~~ -, Illustrates a proposed detail, with a usagescenario

justifylrefer-to-higher-principle/req.. - Gives rationale, referringto requirements, higher principles or standard practices.

aU into question - Asks for reconsideration, of some part ofa partial solution! justification! process etc.

acknowledge - Shows that one is paying at least partialattention, using, e.g., a short utterance or a sentencecompletion

needs-information - Expresses a need!request for someinformation or further filling-in of a detail

coding schemes are possible, each appropriate when taking aparticular point of view on the subject materiaL We make noclaim that these categories are entirely mutually exclusive; manyof the phrases in the transcript carry some force in more thanone of the categories, However! the ambiguities are few enoughthat classification and interpretation provide useful insight intothe dynamics of the group and problem.

Our presentation focuses on a five-minute piece of transcript70 minutes into the design session. The team members areattempting to persuade each other of the merits of their suggestions on rack attachment. We begin by looking at how thecontent of the discussion evolves. Then we examine the socialinteraction at work.

328

4.3 Focus: Building aPartial Solution

conaborancn in Design Tearns

The segment begins with several calls-for-focus on the issue ofwhere and how to attach the rack to the bike (Transcript 4a:comments 1, 3). Kerry then outlines a basic proposal for apartial solution (comment 4), with a use scenario to justify it;this is in part a restatement of one of the options that hasalready been identified. J and I offer acknowledgments(comments 5, 6) indicating that they now share her focus on this'partial solution. Then, in a series of statements (comments 7, 9),K adds details and justifications to this proposed solution,which I and J acknowledge. J then calls a piece of the proposedpartial solution into question (comment 10)1 offering some alternatives to a detail that is being considered; K and I bolster theinitial proposal (comments 11, 12) with several references toboth scenarios and broad principles such as strength andreliance on standards- Acknowledgments (comments 13, 14)indicate that each continues to be engaged by the focus.

Transcript 4a[K and I have been looking at attachment to the bike. Kleaves the bike to see if she can read Dutch on thedrawing, noted by J. J and I are now around the bike andK is at the table]

r 01:10:30 J1 I let's see we're just thinking of2 J of wlwt (laugh)

3 1 we Were thinking of ways of er put the brackethere -

[K moves toward bike]4 K this is our idea of orientation ~o. t~~~ .'o/~, ~q.7!.g~!y~~

?7~!~!~ ,U!!~J!~~~ .~~~~$. ~i.t~?~t, ~~.~~~1.!~ .t!~~ (inaudible)[gestures with hardware]

5 J the Toll back J agree with that

6 I right

7 K and then ern I think it makes a Iota sense to have agood compre~~!~n member to hold this portion uE

8 T mm mm9 K and then then I think we can do that reliably kind of

a la Blackburn rack use their kind of [points to standard

attachment feature location on biked10 J~ really wan.....3 use these lugs for speed

Brereton. Cannon, Mabogunje and Leifer 329

4.4 Strategies ofPersuasion

Common sense

Higher principles/requirementsltheories

of disassembly or does it make more sense to like~

have something that like a plastic ferrule or something that goes arol.md this tha t you

[ 01:11:00 ]

11 I this is probably a bit stronger

12 K this is strong and er ~{1~,11: .<fJ!~1}.c~~s. ~r~. p~~~tY. standard

~~ .~~ ~~r:Y!1!8. ~~~!,.~q ,~1'!~. ;/~'!?~~.

13 J bike anyway14 K on a back on a bike

lS [ Blackburn, they include it with the(inaudible) iust throw itin there (inaudible) Allan wrench is practically free

Y!J.~'.rr.l?~Y.if!g fifty. dol~a~s.fC!~ Y'!1:~ SO you just includeit and these threads arc standard or el~~.YQu justinclude it in that tube

16 J yeah

17 K rom mm

Notice that John and Kerry demonstrate commitment to theirideas and adopt persuasive strategies. The designers masterfullyinvoke the support of neutral parties such as common sense,higher principles or theories, and expert or standard practices tosupport their opinions. These serve to depersonalize the debate,in addition to being means of persuasion and explanation ofrationale.

Appealing to common sense is a tactic to build support for

an idea from commonly held beliefs. Kerry's suggestion 'itmakes a lotta sense' in Transcript 4a (comment 7) prefaced with'I think', suggests she is embarking on a persuasive strategy butis open to negotiation. John counters with the same strategy incomment 10 suggesting of his idea: 'does it make more sense?'.

Appealing to higher principles, theories or requirements alsoappears frequently in designers' efforts at persuasion. Incomment 9 Kerry suggests 'I think we can do that reliably'; in

comment 12 'this is strong, Allen wrenches are standard.' John

counters with 'do we really wauna use these lugs for speed ofdisassembly' in comment 10 and 'it just doesn't seem real elegant

330

Expert witnesseslneutralparties:

4.5 Commitment


to me' in comment 21. These higher principles or broad requirements serve as both explanation and means of persuasion.

A third persuasive strategy is to appeal to established methodsby established experts. Kerry in comment 9 suggests 'I think wecan do that reliably kind of ala Blackburn rack use their kind of[attachment]'.An even stronger appeal is made outside thissection of transcript in the 62nd minute: 'I mean if you reallyneed adjustment I think all these Blackburn racks would haveadjustments'.

Before continuing with Transcript 4, a brief transcript fromearlier in the session during brainstorming illustrates how differently the designers behave before they develop a strong commitment to a solution. The speakers are much more committedto their positions in Transcript 4a than in Transcript 5.

In Transcript 5, J is seated on the bike and K is experimentingwith backpack position, while I lists on the whiteboard. Irepeats sentences as he writes on the whiteboard (comments 4,6) explicitly communicating his interpretation of what J and I<are doing. K places the backpack in several positions suggestedby J, offering advice like 'see if you can steer' (comment 8). InTranscript 5, the designers offer little commitment to each statement, prefacing statements with 'maybe', 'what about', 'wouldit be too funky to', They are proposing suggestions that don'tnecessarily constitute opinions and paying extensive attention tocommunicating their actions. Calls to question, accompanied byrationale, are quickly agreed to (comments I, 2,~3). The designers complete each other's sentences, perhaps to communicatethat they understand the other's concerns. There are no justifications or reiterations of position.

Once designers begin to preface statements with 'I think' or'my opinion is', they are dearly in the realm of offering anopinion. However, depending on the context or intonation,these can be interpreted as either 'I think, but I don't know torsure' or '1 think and I don't care what anybody else thinks'.Thus there are several linguistic cues to determine the speaker'slevel of commitment to a proposition, as described in Schiffrin7.

As they begin to embark on strategies of persuasion, partiesmay lessen commitment in the interests of negotiation, usingphrases like 'it seems to me' and 'the way I.see it'. 'It seems tome' rather than II think' somewhat lessens the control of the


4.6 OpportunisticStrategies of Persuasion- Give and Take

speaker, serving to depersonalize the debate. Skilful use of persuasive strategies, paying attention to communicating assumptions and appropriate moderation of commitment, maintains thenegotiation process.

Transcript 5

U is seated on the bike and K is experimenting withbackpack position, while 1 lists on the white board]00:27;00'1 K so we want to put.it in there ~et'6 see if you

get

[K places backpack ncar triangle]

2 J yeah you'd never really be ABle to3 K you "'louldf\lt be able to get your .knees pedaling

~ now what about maybe we ought to have aprototype that kinda h~s it this way

[K places backpack at rear, behind J]

4 I is it facing fur ? ~.ah thaes right facing forward5 J would it be too funky to have it on the like pro-

jecting from the front wheel? -6 I handlebars? yeah trY that7 J or off this handlebar stem even because that's fixed

but if it's off the handlebars y.~'!.~~9~.i(~ h~ .a.~.ol~.bi~~. ~~~~~~ ,t~.t. ~fl;Y, .l!~~ .t~~ .v.v.i!J:t~. ~f.Q~. (laugh)

[K places backpack on handlebars]

8 K See if you <;.~n steer. It tends to9 J well, you could tu:{Il it long ways10 I or if you could get it down low where the

We return to Transcript 4, where the group is still engaged infocusing on rack attachment. In Transcript 4a, Kerry backed byIvan has tried to persuade John that they should use thestandard hex bolt attachment method. John remains uncon-


vinced (Transcript 4b: comments 18, 20), using the higher principle of elegance as a reason for his doubt} and Ivan and Kerryagain offer justifications for the initial proposal (comments 21,22). Each designer is maintaining their position. There isevidence of an impasse.

DUring this impasse, Kerry bids to shift the debate to moreneutral territory (comment 23). She assumes tacit agreement onthe issue of primary attachment with hex bolts (using Allenwrenches) and then seeks to address John's concern aboutelegance elsewhere in the design, offering several possible alternative solution details for secondary attachment, John joins thenew focus with an altemative partial solution to secondaryattachment (comment 24). Kerry has been successful in shiftingthe debate by using an opportunistic strategy of give and take.Seeing the discussion had reached an impasse she sought tomove to another part of the design space, taking tacit agreementon primary attachment and giving ways to address the eleganceconcern through other means.

Transcript 4b

18 J just doesn't I dwmo19 K (imwaible)

20 J it just doesn't seem real elegant to me but21 K it's there you might as weB use it and that reduces parts yeah

22 I YP.U: .~~tf?4. ~~~. f~ yeah like a. ~~~. .c~t..s.C!~ versus acouple otpieces or three plastic parts yeah

23 K mm mm and then the issue that I think ldnda remains ishow to get this attached nicely to some portion ofthe bike back here and !hat's where you wanna getcome up with your nice injection mould bracket thai

really works well or has a little bit of product identity

maybe from a product standpoint from a marketing stand

point might be cool if there's some24 J maybe [01:12:(0) maybe you put this down down to

the er ~.~~at d'you ._~.~ll the~.Jugs [lifts backpackframe into vertical position] and the!!__you er have a~~.ist strap that goes ClrOlmd your waist and youdon't ne~~ to attaf!l to (inaudible)

25 r oh yeah

26 K yeah that could be cool

Brereton, Cannon, Mabogunje and Leifer

27 J mtght-get too much28 I yeah

29 J at-ymtr··baek30 K yeah (inaudible)

4.7 Transitions

333

Topic shifts to avoid orpostpone conflict

Ideas gracefully losesteam

Topic promptedtransitions

In addition to an opportunistic means of persuasion throughgive and take above, Kerry's topic shift away from the primaryattachment to secondary attachment serves to avoid or postponeconflict in the group, since the group is at an impasse. Severalother types of topic transition are identified in this section.

The group encourages John's partial solution for secondaryattachment, but he then calls it into question and no-oneprotests. This appears to be mutual recognition that the idea isnot worth further consideration at this time. Rather than state asmuch, the idea simply loses steam. (Processes such as listingalso tend to lose steam as ideas become exhausted.) This opensan opportunity for a bid for focus which Ivan takes and so atransition of focus occurs, In Transcript 4c1 Ivan calls for focus(comments 31}" 33) on a discussion of rack width, which hascaught his attention as John gestures with the backpack frame.He develops a concern that the rack might be too wide forgeneral riding, drawing upon the context of rack use.

John follows up with a question confirming Ivan's concern andIvan bids to look for marketing information to answer theirconcern. He moves to the table to look for information on marketing research, and the group follows. As Ivan searches for theinformation, John also calls for focus on a current use scenarioof bungee cords (comment 42) drawn from the comparison withthe partial solution the group was working on; Ivan pursues hisfocus bid in parallel, rather than giving full attention to [ohn'sproposal. John laughs occasionally at his suggestions andprefaces them with 'maybe' indicating he has a low level ofcommitment. Kerry offers acknowledgments and supportingcomments but does not engage in developing the idea. There issome sense of exploration in the conversation but nobody bidsto change the topic except for John himself, indicating the group

334

Halting to seekinformation

Returning to key issues


is not unhappy with the process or that perhaps they arerelaxing. One topic seems to prompt another. The current usageof bungee cords prompts the concern that their product mustcompete with that, leading to the notion that they could

purchase rather than manufacture a good solution, leading to arequest for information on the manufactured rather than salescost, leading to an assumption about the manufactured cost as apercentage of the sales price.

Ivan does not lind information in the marketing survey relatingto rack use to resolve the issue of rack width, hut this is neverexplicitly stated within the group which is now following alongwith Iohn's comments. The group does not return to the issue ofrack width for another 25 minutes. It is worth noting that information seeking often halts a focus in the activity. Further, whenthe designers find information they often do not use it in waysobservable to us, and if they do not find it, still they oftenreturn to a different topic. Information seeking serves tobroaden the designers' knowledge of options, yet it rarely addsto the knowledge space in a predictable way, which perhapsexplains why transitions of focus often occur during informationseeking.

The group eventually and repeatedly returns to issues, such aspositioning, attachment and materials, indicating that these arekey issues to them in the design problem. This perhaps indicatestheir ability to shift topics effectively to stay productive. HalesB

argues that design Inanagers need to 'window QUe and'window in'; 'concentrating effectively on the detail, while at thesame time keeping the wider context in mind, a crucial aspect ofmanaging engineering design', In transitioning from topic totopic and yet returning to key issues, we see evidence of how agroup manages itself in monitoring the broader problem yetfocusing to define details, through social interaction.

Transcript 4c

31 I what what I was thinking is32 J (laugh)

33 I if we have like a like a Blackburn rackth:e-etllyproblem that I see with it if you put'that back up

Brereton, Cannon. Mabogunje and Leifer 335

mm mm

here [J raises backpack frame back to verticalposition so the width is visible] is that it it's fairly

!l~rrow I mean :J.~~ .~~'?~~ .U:~~,t,q.~~~~ .t~~.t~~ this wideright

j~S.t.~~ $.~~~~~1. :~~i.~~

38 J

34}

35 I36 K37 I but ~.f you had one that was c1os~ and !~~~. y,o.~ ~~.l~l~

j~~~~ .~~~t~,did it say that people would want to use it as a regularrack or or is that a feature

39 I mm mm

40.r that we could incorporate41 I [imtlgine let's see where's the marketing research42 J I mean I'm sure what people do right now probably is ..KQ

yuy a bike rack and bungee c~rd this down ontOthe bike rack

43 I yetJh44 K mm mm that's definitely within the product target spat:e

45 J maybe we should sell them !. Blackburn r~ck withtwo bungee cords for fiftyfive bucks

46 I (laugh)

47 J 50 hey you're right in there !~t!Y, ~~~l. ~~~~~ ff!~ forty. ~~P~s. so48 K rnm mm y.~~ .~~~?4 .~~y. .SP~~. !~~? ,r:~~~ .~Jf1}g~e. ~P.'~~. fl?~

that49 J the purchased ..solution (laugh)

[ 01:13:00 ]50 I they say never make it if you can buy it out of a cab.logue

51 J no tooling (laugh) make bad your tooling on your filSt otder

urn but out out of fifty-five dollars I'm wonderingif there's any sort of price breakdown that urnpeople want like you know in other words what's'the .manUfactured coot if the sales cost is fifty-fivedollars , , , .

.52 I y~~h 'tinaudible)53 J is there any sort of urn cost specification for we

know the sal~? price is fifty~five dollars but urn54 K landed cost or55 J the manufactured cost of the product is there a

target for that56 X I'm sorry say again Kees57 J is there any is there58 X No, I'm asking for the my assistant to say again

336

59 J60 K61 J


have to estimate their own ratios OK yep you haveto estimate your own

oh w~J~.~~~~.!~t_our own ratios OKso we'll assume that is sell it to a retaileruse the standard ~l}e fourth model

4.8 Process PromptedTransitions (Calls toOrder)

In the short phrases that follow (Transcript 4d: comments 62~

74), the group seems to be mentally relaxing, exploring the topicof acronyms for their own amusement rather than exertingthemselves to resolve issues raised recently. Interspersed in this,Ivan makes three repeated bids for a new focus (comments 75,83, 85), indicating he is ready to move on and not happy withthe current process of the group,one of relaxation. He calls tofocus on an issue of process: what should we do next? Thegroup continues to wander but he finally engages them by specifically proposing to strike issues he considers resolved fromthe whiteboard list] bidding for focus with comment 96 (notshown): 'positioning have we thrown out the folds in themiddle?' The group responds by attending to the issues heraises from the whiteboard list.

Transcript 4d

62 I yeah63 K mm mm mm mm

64 J manufactured costs tuill be one fourth the the MSRP

65 I yeah

[ 01:14:00 166 K ltulnujacturtr'e sU8gt$ted retail

67 JII suggested retail price

68 I yeah69 K from a I at an IBD ... inde~ndent bicycle dealer70 J (laugh)

71 I OK72 J I alWflY5 wondered wlwt that footnote meant IBID

73 K IBID

74 J and now 1 know it means independen: independent bicycle dealer

(laugh)

75 I let's get a stock of where we are76 J OK. •. so what's a quarter of fifty~five bucks er

twelve er J:!~:~tye fotg'!~en bUf~


OK (inaudible) some nice round numbers

tw~Jve fifty plus a dollar twenty-five. fifteenseventy-fiveOJ( fourteen

77 I78 J

you're eating into the margin there (laugh)those engineers always like to take the (inaudible)

the expensive way

OJ( urn so where are we are we going toI think we should goal (inaudible) (laugh)let's talk about the decisions that we've made so far... shall we do it basedon the' er based o1!Jhe er brainstorming sort of

[ 01:15:00 ] _..

79 I80 J81 K82 J83 I

.84 J85 I

4.9 Breakdowns andArbitration

In Transcript 6 Ivan senses an impasse and actively jumps in asan arbitrator to negotiate the conflict between John and Kerry,who are committed to opposing positions. Following anextended discussion in which Kerry has proposed the bikedimensions will not vary enough to merit an adjustablesolution, John makes a strong bid for an adjustable solution(comment 1). John supports his opinion with appeals to theoryof good human factors and the absent users' preference, indicating he is strongly committed to 'it should be adjustable'.Kerry shrugs, indicating she has stated her position and will notoffer any more argument. The standoff is apparent to Ivan whotakes upon the role of arbitrator and offers a compromise:'whatever idea we come up with, we can look at ways ofmaking it adjustable'. Since they are not making progress theydefer the discussion of adjustability until there is a specificsolution to consider and more progress can be made.

Having made a strong statement to which Kerry offers noresponse, John lessens his commitment with 'em, that's myopinion, opinion, not fact', in apparent effort to lower anytension that may have arisen. John then shifts the topic.

Transcript 6

[00:60:0011 J I think good human factors says it should be adjustable

so that p'e.opl~, ~q~.fi!'.~ .t~.e. rf'.s!~i?!~ /~~y. !iJe.~2 K [shrugs shouldersJ


3 I right OK4 J em that's n1Y opinion5 I whatever we idea..~e come up with (inaudible)6 J opinion not fact (laugh)7 I we can look at ways of making it adjustable8 J OK OK so well it's getting the materials

4.10 ContextualStrategies of Ptrsuasion:Stories

There are few stories in this session, perhaps because of thetimeframe, but the designers use some techniques of storytelling. Schiffrin7 offers a framework to describe how stories(or reporting) are used in persuasion, noting that story tellersuse:

• Selective interpretation - recounting aspects of the event preferred by the narrator

• Evaluative devices - highlighting parts of the experience fromthe narrator's perspective, to show the narrator taking anorientation to what is being talked about

• Deictic shifts - shifting time, place and participants fromthe conversational world (storytelling world) to the storyworld

• Contextualization - framing an event within the story world.

John's ski pole story, in Transcript 7 (comment 2), though brief,appears to give a much more persuasive argument againstselecting aluminium, than would be given by simply stating'thin walled aluminium tube fractures easily in the cold', Theparticipants in the conversation are shifted to Denver and theski pole fracture is highlighted in the context of skiing. There isno need to describe the wall thickness or pole length to anyonefamiliar with ski poles and skiing (although the temperature isopen for debate),

Transcript 7

1 K steelpainting isn't that expensive is it2 J no but the only the only thing I know that's wrong

with aluminum is .if.Yc!1;l.'~}~. ~F~r. ~~!~4. J)19~. ,ffJ.Y. .~~i

p.o.l~~ fr~~t1f:~, ~~. ~~ .i'} !~~~ly' ~~!4. ~ep:tpe:~,t':l.'.e~. q'.t~ ~:. ~!f~~ .~~i.it:g .i~. p~~l?e!. ~:t.e..t~l!1.e. a!~4 .~y .s.kj. pole .~~1!~ .iJ1~lf. qt:~..~~~ .~f!~Y. .4~4 .~t..~e.r~1. ~tf .~~lf. .if. br0i?!. ~J~~ff, !~p~~ -

Brereton. Cannon. Mabogunje and Leifer

3 I yeah

4 J ,~~~a.~~e. !~ .w9~. ~~ .~~l~5 I and you could fall on it yeah ... OK 50 now

6 K and what material are yot! saying

339

5 Conclusion

Without even telling a complete story, selective interpretationand reframing of past design experiences or even of the problemstatement (see Transcript 3), and creation of scenarios play animportant role in developing, representing and communicatingpartial design alternatives.

The content of the evolving design depends heavily upon negotiation strategies and other more subtle and ubiquitous socialprocesses that shape design work Minnernan' has also demonstrated that design emerges from social interaction. Teammembers' orientation to a solution or process is demonstratedby levels of commitment in utterances (and gestures). Depending on their level of commitment and other team members'alignment they adopt appropriate strategies of persuasion. Theycarefully moderate their commitment to their ideas to remainamenable to negotiation. They appeal to common sense, designtheories, standard practices, expert practices, user preferenceand demonstrations with physical hardware in order topersuade.

Many solution proposals and interpretations of requirementsdearly arise from designers' interacting with availablehardware. They also emerge as part of the ongoing activity. Wehave focused on the designers as actors that interpret thehardware, examining how their utterances steer the activity. Acompelling analysis would also result from examining howhardware ads as a negotiator to steer the activity.

The design progresses as the group focuses and transitionsfrom topic to topic. Still there is evidence that team membersare continuously engaged in monitoring multiple issues atmultiple levels of attention. Transitions occur when:

• team members seek to shift the debate to another topic• team members seek to change the process• prompted by related topics• losesteam

340

Acknowledgments

References


• processes lose steam• team members stop to seek informatjon.

We conjecture that the collaboration is successful because thegroup is well balanced in their roles and manages their negotiation well. Kerry seeks to pin down solution alternatives, Johnseeks to preserve ambiguity and characterize the ongoingprocess, and Ivan keeps the solution progress on track and actsas an arbitrator between John and Kerry.

This is a story of one group of designers that we have used toillustrate strategies of design collaboration. There are surelymany other methods and interpretations. However, the tapeprovides a valuable means of introspection and reflection for thedesign student. Watching, discussing and reflecting upon suchtapes provides a means for design students to become aware ofthe variety of productive and counterproductive strategies andprocesses available to them. The tape makes these processesavailable and identifiable. With this awareness it becomes easierto identify when oneself or members of one's own team are following counterproductive strategies. Videotapes offer theopportunity of process examples with the context nt'Cessary forthe student to gain a fuller appreciation of strategies that workwell in design.

The authors wish to thank the other members of the XeroxPARe Design Studies Group (David Bell, Natalie [eremiienko,Steve Harrison, Catherine Marshall, Scott Minneman, SusanNewman, Lucy Suchman and Randy Trigg) for reviewing thetapes with us and providing feedback on a draft paper. Theauthors take full responsibility for the analysis presented. Wealso wish to thank the University of Delft Faculty of IndustrialDesign Engineering and the participating designers for makingthis protocol analysis possible.

Minneman, S., The social construction ofa technical reality, PhD thesis,Stanford University (1991)

2 Guindon, R., Designing the designprocess: exploiting opportunisticthoughts, Human-Computer Interaction, 5 (1990) 305-344

3 Baya, V., et al' f An experimental study of design information reuse,4th Int. Con]. 011 Design Theory and Methodology -- DTM '92, ASME,Design Engineering Division, DE v. 42, New York (1992), pp. 141147


4 Stauffer, L.A. and D,G. Ullman, Protocol analysis of mechanicalengineering design, Proc. 1987 11'11. Con! on Engineering Design,Boston, MA; ASME, New York (1987)

5 Christiaans, H. and K Dorst, Cognitive models in industrial designengineering: a protocol study, 4th International Conference on DesignThe01Y and Methodology ~ DrM '92/ASME, Design EngineeringDivision, DEv, 42, New York (1992) pp. 131-140

6 Tang, J.e. and L.J. Leifer, Observations from an empirical study ofthe workspace activity of design teams, Proc. 1st Int. Con! on DesignTheory and Methodology, Montreal, Quebec;ASME, New York(1989)

7 Schriffin, D., The management of a. co-operative self: the role ofopinions and stories, in A.D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic lnuestigation: of Arguments in Conversations, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge (1990)

8 Hales, C, Managing Engineering Design, Longman, London (1993)9 Jordan, B. and Henderson, A, Interaction analysis: foundations and

practice, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1) (1995).

Documents

Brereton - 1996 - Collaboration in Design Teams How Social Interact Crop