lis590cscwproject

The communication styles selected by interdisciplinary groups can lead to vastly different patterns of design [9]. Communication styles as they are selected by design teams for internal communication and for expressing their thoughts to those outside their group [1] can influence artifact creation [2], and the use of collaborative design tools [3]. The problems addressed by multidisciplinary teams are often poorly structured and require each discipline to look beyond traditional design practice. [8]

The artifacts that result from multidisciplinary design are frequently analyzed as boundary objects [11], those that evolve within a design team but can also span across different teams while maintaining a commonly held identity. Artifacts also contribute to the functioning of an effective design team. By constructing a more complete picture of the common ground on which the design is to be built, artifacts can support shared mental imagery and make the process more immediately comprehensible [6]. Some work practice produces artifacts that are hard to classify as the result of any single disciplines traditional design practice [4, 5, 7].

In these kinds of design environments, where so many disciplines are at work, effective “big picture” communication is challenging. Sonnenwald’s notion of contested collaboration [10] can be exceptionally important in understanding iterative feedback in the design process. Discipline specific knowledge is particularly hard to convey. Experience suggests that contested collaboration between disciplines is dominated by the kind of communication that a design team uses, rather than being due to the makeup of the team.

Driving questions:

• How can these features of interdisciplinary collaboration be exploited in CSCW systems?
• How can effective social practice be supported in these cases?
• What features are consistently present?
• Where in the process do they emerge as important?
• Are they perceived along similar lines by all stakeholders?

1. Geisler, C. and Rogers, E.H. Technological Mediation for Design Collaboration. 395-405.

2. Hendry, D.G., Communication Functions and the Adaptation of Design Representations in Interdisciplinary teams. in Designing Interactive Systems, (2004), 123-132.

3. Kalay, Y.E. P3: Computational environment to support design collaboration. Automation in Construction, 8. 37-48.

4. Mackay, W.E., The Interactive Thread: Exploring Methods for Multi-disciplinary Design. in Designing Interactive Systems, (2004), 103-112.

5. Perry, M. and Sanderson, D. Coordinating joint design work: the role of communication and artefacts. Design Studies, 19. 273-288.

6. Petre, M. Team coordination through externalized mental imagery. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61. 205-218.

7. Schenk, P. The role of drawing in the graphic design process. Design Studies, 12 (3). 168-181.

8. Simon, H.A. The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4. 181-202.

9. Sonnenwald, D.H. Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process. Design Studies, 17. 277-301.

10. Sonnenwald, D.H. Contested Collaboration: A descriptive model of intergroup communication in information system design. Information Processing and Management, 31 (6). 859-877.

11. Star, S.L. The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. in Hubs, M. and Gasser, L. eds. Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence 3, Morgan Kaufmann, Menlo Park, CA., 1989.