Post on 24-Jan-2023
Supporting Engineering DesignCommunication through a Social Media
ToolDESIGN 2014
James A. Gopsill
May, 2014
Introduction
“Communication is an essential part of any designprocess”
Clarkson and Eckert [2005]
“Numerous studies corroborate the claim thatengineers spend a majority of their time
communicating [Hailey, 2000]. Estimates usually rangefrom 40 to 60% of their work time [Hertzum and
Pejtersen, 2000], but may be as high as 75% [Nagle,1998].”
Tenopir and King [2004]
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 1 / 14
Research Gap - Descriptive Research
Research Data Captured Research
Structured Interviews Curtis et al. [1988]
Survey Kraut and Streeter [1995]
Observational Guinan [1986]
Video Recordings Walz [1988], Olson et al. [1992]
Audio Recordings Minneman [1991]
Observation & Interviews Sonnenwald [1996]
Examples of Empirical Research (Adapted from: Sonnenwald [1996])
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 2 / 14
Research Gap - Descriptive Research
Research Data Captured Research
Structured Interviews Curtis et al. [1988]
Survey Kraut and Streeter [1995]
Observational Guinan [1986]
Video Recordings Walz [1988], Olson et al. [1992]
Audio Recordings Minneman [1991]
Observation & Interviews Sonnenwald [1996]
Examples of Empirical Research (Adapted from: Sonnenwald [1996])
Little Prescriptive Research
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 2 / 14
Tool Development IDefine Engineering Design Communication
Understand the importance of Engineering Design Communica-tion in the context of Engineering Design
Define the concept of Social Media
Understand the technologies commonly associated with Social Media
Elicit the engineers requirements for supporting Engineering Design Communication in a comput-er-mediated environment
Elicit the best practice considera-tions when applying technologies in a Social Media manner.
Develop Social Media Approach
Instantiate within Social Media Tool
Validate the requirements and considerations from a use persepc-tive
Secondary analysis of user behav-iour to understand the impact the tool has made
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 3 / 14
Tool Development II
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 4 / 14
Generating a Communication
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 5 / 14
Generating a Communication
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 5 / 14
Generating a Communication
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 5 / 14
Generating a Communication
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 5 / 14
Generating a Communication
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 5 / 14
Generating a Communication
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 5 / 14
Generating a Communication
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 5 / 14
Generating a Communication
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 5 / 14
Study
I Formula StudentI 33 engineersI Multi-disciplinary projectI 11 Weeks
Course: No.
Mechanical Engineering 17
Automotive Engineering 13
Integrated Mechanical & Elec-trical Engineering (IME)
3
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 6 / 14
Dataset Overview
Summary Information Value
Total number of E-Mails 509
Total number of Social Media messages 2,441
Number of original E-Mail communications (i.e. no replies or forwards) 194
Number of original Social Media communications (i.e. no replies) 488
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 7 / 14
Insights - Communication Generation
I Little impact on the overalllevel of communication
I Creation of acommunication between2-4 mins
I Compared to 6 mins of ane-mail of the same length[Karat et al., 1999]
I Consistent level of creationtime
I Outliers due to creation ofthe image of the artefact
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Week
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
ns
Cre
ate
d
Original E−Mails Created
PartBook Communications Created
Week6 7 8 9 10 11
Tim
e Sp
ent
(min
s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 8 / 14
Insights - Communication Habits
Network analysis comparison between E-Mail and PartBook
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 9 / 14
Insights - Types of Communication
I Idea generation atthe early stages ofthe project
I Two humps ininformation request
I Decisions peak atweek 6
I Ideas tend to belonger conversations
I Observations tend tobe short but has along tail
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
5
10
15
20
25
Idea
Issue
Confirmation
Information Request
Decision
Action
Week
Count
Obs
erva
tion
Clar
ification
Idea
Prob
lem B
reak
down
Issue
Help
Projec
t Man
agem
ent*
Con
firmation
Info
rmation Req
uest
Disc
ussio
n*
Dec
ision
Projec
t Upd
ate*
Com
paris
on
Spon
sorship*
Action*
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Purpose of Communication
Num
ber
of R
eplie
s per
com
m
* Additional Purposes Added by the Engineers
[2.4] [2.3] [2.5] [2.1] [3] [2.4] [1.8] [2.6] [2.7] [2.4] [2.7] [3.4] [2.2] [1.5] [1.7]
Mean Average Engineers Involved in the Communications grouped by Purpose
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 10 / 14
Insights - Potential Implications on PM
I Differentiate engineersbased upon theircommunication behaviour
I Identification ofknowledgeable engineers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Engineer
Discussion
Information Request
Idea
Clarification
Action Required
Observation
Help
Confirmation
Comparison
Issue
0
3
6
9
12
>15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Engineer
Purpose of Communication Replies to Purposes of Communication
Disucssion in Discussion
Opinion in Information Requests
Opinion in Discussions
Observation in Discussions
Confirmation in Information Requests
Opinion in Ideas
Experience in Information Requests
Discussion in Information Requests
Opinion in Help
Confirmation in Discussion
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 11 / 14
Conclusion
I The overall communication workload between the engineersremained largely unaffected.
I The time taken to create an Engineering Design Communicationis reduced (compared to e-mail).
I A Social Media tool that has been built specifically to support thattype of Engineering Design Communication has the potential toprovide a more collaborative method of communication.
I Levels of normality could be defined for various purposes ofcommunication and deviation may indicate an area of potentialinterest for the Project Management Team.
I The levels of various purposes of communication over time mayindicate current stage of the project.
I Engineers can be differentiated from one another based onpurpose of communication, replies to communications andartefacts that are discussed, potentially leading toknowledgeable engineers being identified.
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 12 / 14
Conclusion
I The overall communication workload between the engineersremained largely unaffected.
I The time taken to create an Engineering Design Communicationis reduced (compared to e-mail).
I A Social Media tool that has been built specifically to support thattype of Engineering Design Communication has the potential toprovide a more collaborative method of communication.
I Levels of normality could be defined for various purposes ofcommunication and deviation may indicate an area of potentialinterest for the Project Management Team.
I The levels of various purposes of communication over time mayindicate current stage of the project.
I Engineers can be differentiated from one another based onpurpose of communication, replies to communications andartefacts that are discussed, potentially leading toknowledgeable engineers being identified.
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 12 / 14
Conclusion
I The overall communication workload between the engineersremained largely unaffected.
I The time taken to create an Engineering Design Communicationis reduced (compared to e-mail).
I A Social Media tool that has been built specifically to support thattype of Engineering Design Communication has the potential toprovide a more collaborative method of communication.
I Levels of normality could be defined for various purposes ofcommunication and deviation may indicate an area of potentialinterest for the Project Management Team.
I The levels of various purposes of communication over time mayindicate current stage of the project.
I Engineers can be differentiated from one another based onpurpose of communication, replies to communications andartefacts that are discussed, potentially leading toknowledgeable engineers being identified.
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 12 / 14
Conclusion
I The overall communication workload between the engineersremained largely unaffected.
I The time taken to create an Engineering Design Communicationis reduced (compared to e-mail).
I A Social Media tool that has been built specifically to support thattype of Engineering Design Communication has the potential toprovide a more collaborative method of communication.
I Levels of normality could be defined for various purposes ofcommunication and deviation may indicate an area of potentialinterest for the Project Management Team.
I The levels of various purposes of communication over time mayindicate current stage of the project.
I Engineers can be differentiated from one another based onpurpose of communication, replies to communications andartefacts that are discussed, potentially leading toknowledgeable engineers being identified.
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 12 / 14
Conclusion
I The overall communication workload between the engineersremained largely unaffected.
I The time taken to create an Engineering Design Communicationis reduced (compared to e-mail).
I A Social Media tool that has been built specifically to support thattype of Engineering Design Communication has the potential toprovide a more collaborative method of communication.
I Levels of normality could be defined for various purposes ofcommunication and deviation may indicate an area of potentialinterest for the Project Management Team.
I The levels of various purposes of communication over time mayindicate current stage of the project.
I Engineers can be differentiated from one another based onpurpose of communication, replies to communications andartefacts that are discussed, potentially leading toknowledgeable engineers being identified.
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 12 / 14
Conclusion
I The overall communication workload between the engineersremained largely unaffected.
I The time taken to create an Engineering Design Communicationis reduced (compared to e-mail).
I A Social Media tool that has been built specifically to support thattype of Engineering Design Communication has the potential toprovide a more collaborative method of communication.
I Levels of normality could be defined for various purposes ofcommunication and deviation may indicate an area of potentialinterest for the Project Management Team.
I The levels of various purposes of communication over time mayindicate current stage of the project.
I Engineers can be differentiated from one another based onpurpose of communication, replies to communications andartefacts that are discussed, potentially leading toknowledgeable engineers being identified.
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 12 / 14
Questions
Thank you for your attention
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 13 / 14
References
J. Clarkson and C. Eckert. Design process improvement: a review of current practice. Springer Verlag, 2005.
Bill Curtis, Herb Krasner, and Neil Iscoe. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun. ACM, 31(11):1268–1287, November 1988. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/50087.50089. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/50087.50089.
Patricia J Guinan. Specialist-generalist communication competence: a field experiment investigating the communicationbehavior of information systems developers. PhD thesis, 1986.
J.C. Hailey. Effective communication for emc engineers. In Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2000. IEEE International Symposiumon, volume 1, pages 265 –268 vol.1, 2000. doi: 10.1109/ISEMC.2000.875575.
Morten Hertzum and Annelise Mark Pejtersen. The information-seeking practices of engineers: searching for documents as wellas for people. Information Processing & Management, 36(5):761 – 778, 2000. ISSN 0306-4573. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00011-X. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645730000011X.
Clare-Marie Karat, Christine Halverson, Daniel Horn, and John Karat. Patterns of entry and correction in large vocabularycontinuous speech recognition systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, CHI ’99, pages 568–575, New York, NY, USA, 1999. ACM. ISBN 0-201-48559-1. doi: 10.1145/302979.303160. URLhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/302979.303160.
Robert E. Kraut and Lynn A. Streeter. Coordination in software development. Commun. ACM, 38(3):69–81, March 1995. ISSN0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/203330.203345. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/203330.203345.
Scott L. Minneman. The social construction of a technical reality: Empirical Studies of Group Engineering Design Practice. PhDthesis, 1991.
J.G. Nagle. Communication in the profession. Today’s Engineer, 1(1), 1998.
Gary M. Olson, Judith S. Olson, Mark R. Carter, and Marianne Storrosten. Small group design meetings: An analysis ofcollaboration. Human Computer Interaction, 7(4):347–374, 1992. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci0704 1. URLhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327051hci0704_1.
Diane H. Sonnenwald. Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process. Design Studies, 17(3):277 –301, 1996. ISSN 0142-694X. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(96)00002-6. URLhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0142694X96000026.
Carol Tenopir and Donald W. King. Communication Patterns of Engineers. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Pr, 2004. ISBN047148492X.
Diane B. Walz. A longitudinal study of the group design process. PhD thesis, 1988.
Supporting Engineering Design Communication through a Social Media Tool DESIGN 2014 James A. Gopsill 14 / 14