An empirical study of engineering knowledge dynamics in a design situation

Journal of Design Research

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 333-358

  Prudhomme, Guy ^a   Pourroy, Franck ^a   Lund, Kristine ^b  

^a LABORATOIRE G SCOP   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LUMIÈRE LYON 2   (France)

Author keywords

argumentation; collaborative distant design; design experiment; knowledge dynamics

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249160438     PISSN: 17483050     EISSN: 15691551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/JDR.2007.016388     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Baker, M.J. (1996) ‘Argumentation et co-construction des connaissances’, Interaction et Cognitions, Vol. 1, Nos. 2/3, pp.157–191, L’harmattan.
2. Baker, M.J. (1999) ‘Argumentation and constructive interaction’, in G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Espéret (Series Eds), P. Coirier and J. Andriessen (Vol. Eds) Studies in Writing: Vol. 5, Foundations of Argumentative, pp.179–202, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
3. Baker, M.J., Hansen, T., Joiner, R. and Traum, D. (1999) ‘The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks’, in P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative Learning. Cognitive and Computational Approaches, Advances in Learning and Instruction Series, Amsterdam: Pergamon, pp.31–63.
4. Baker, M.J., Lund, K., Quignard, M. and Sejourne, A. (2003) ‘Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate’, in B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen and U. Hoppe (Eds) Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp.11–20.
5. Baker, M.J., Quignard, M., Lund K. and Amelsvoort, M. (2002) ‘Designing a computer- supported collaborative learning situation for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate’, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2002), Amsterdam: Sic Sat Publications, pp.55–61.
6. Chevallard, Y. (1991) La transposition didactique, La pensee sauvage (Eds), France: Grenoble.
7. Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T. (1987) Product Development In The World Auto-Industry: Strategy, Organisation And Performance, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
8. Conklin, J. and Burgess-Yakemovic, K. (1996) ‘A process-oriented approach to design rationale’, in T. Moran and J. Carroll (Eds) Design Rationale Concepts, Techniques and Use, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.293–428.
9. Corbel, A., Girardot, J.J. and Jaillon, P. (2002) ‘DREW: a dialogical reasoning web tool’, ICTE 2002, Int. Conf. on ICT’s in Education, Badajoz, Spain.
10. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M.J., Blaye, A. and O’Malley, C. (1996) ‘The evolution of research on collaborative learning’, in E. Spada and P. Reiman (Eds), Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science, pp.189–211, Oxford: Elsevier.
11. Dyke, G., Girardot, J.J. and Lund, K. (2007) ‘L’etude des interactions humaines au travers des ojects rejouables’ [The study of human interactions through replayable objects]’, Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines, St. Etienne, Research Report, 2007–400-005.
12. Grundstein, M. (2001) ‘From capitalizing on company knowledge to knowledge management’, in D. Morey, M. Maybury and B. (Eds) Knowledge Management Classic And Contemporary Works, Chapter 12, pp.261–287, Thuraisingham, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Lee, J. and Lai, K.Y. (1996) ‘What’s in design rationale?’, in T. Moran and J. Carroll (Eds) Design Rationale Concepts, Techniques, and Use, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.21–52.
14. Lonchampt, P., Prudhomme, G. and Brissaud, D. (2004) ‘Supporting problem expression within a co-evolutionary design framework’, in H.A. ElMaraghy, W.H. ElMaraghy and H. Waguih (Eds) Advances in Design, Springer, pp.185–194.
15. Lund, K., Prudhomme, G. and Cassier, J-L. (2007) ‘Using analysis of computer-mediated synchronous interactions to understand co-designers’ activities and reasoning’, International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED ’07, August, Cite des Sciences et de l’Industrie, Paris, France, pp.28–30.
16. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Sejourne, A. and Baker, M. (in press) ‘How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate?’, accepted for publication in the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
17. MacLean, A., Young, R.M., Belloti, V. and Moran, T. (1996) ‘Question, option, and criteria: elements of design space analysis’, in T. Moran and J. Carroll (Eds) Design Rationale Concepts, Techniques, and Use, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.53–106.
18. NF EN 1325–1 (1996) Value Management, Value Analysis, functional analysis vocabulary – Part 1: Value analysis and functional analysis, AFNOR Tour de l’Europe, Paris.
19. Plantin, C. (2005) ‘L’argumentation’, Histoire, theories et perspectives [Argumentation, History, theories and perspectives], Paris, France: PUF.
20. Polyani, M. (1969) The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
21. Quignard, M. (2000) ‘Modeiisation cognitive de l’argumentation dialogue. Etudes de dialogues d’eleves en resolution de probleme de sciences physiques’ [‘Cognitive modelling of argumentation dialogue. Studies of students in physics problem-solving’], These de doctorat de sciences cognitives. Grenoble: Universite Joseph Fourier.
22. Roschelle, J. and Teasley, S.D. (1995) ‘The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving’, in C. O’Malley (Ed.) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, NATO ASI Series, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp.69–97.
23. Salomon, G. (1991) ‘Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: the analytic and systemic approaches to educational research’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 20, No. 6 (Aug.-Sept.), pp.10–18.
24. Solhenius, G. (1992) ‘Concurrent engineering’, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 41.
25. Tsuchiya, S. (1993) ‘Improving knowledge creation ability through organisational learning’, ISMICK’93 Proceedings, International Symposium on the Management of Industrial and Corporate Knowledge, UTC Compiegne, France.
26. Tsuchiya, S. (1995) ‘Commensurability, a key concept of business re-engineering’, 3rd International Symposium on The Management of Information and Corporate Knowledge, Institut international pour l’intelligence artificielle, Compiegne, France.
27. Van Engers, T.V., Mathies, H., Leget, J. and Dekker, C.C. (1995) ‘Knowledge management in the Dutch tax and customs administration: professionalisation within a knowledge intensive organisation’, Third International Symposium on the Management of Information and Corporate Knowledge, Institut international pour l’intelligence artificielle, Compiegne, France.
28. Wilson, T.D. (2002) ‘The nonsense of ‘‘Knowledge Management” ’, Information Research, Vol. 8, No. 1.
29. A stakeholder of the design process is a person concerned by a step of the product lifecycle and who is involved in the design process of the product in order to make sure his needs are met and his constraints are respected during design activity.
30. This framework is proposed by a European Standard. A function is what a product has to perform to satisfy customer’s needs. A criterion (called the appreciation criterion) is a characteristic used by designers to asses the performance of the product they design. The level is the position on the measurement scale of the criteria.
31. The ‘SCALE’ project (internet-based intelligent tool to Support Collaborative Argumentation-based LEarning in secondary schools) was financed by the European Union ‘Information Societies’ Technologies (IST) programme (IST-1999–10664) of the 5th framework between 2001 and 2004; http://www.euroscale.net, http://drew.emse.fr.