Development of a systematic classification and taxonomy of collaborative design activities

Figures & data

Table 1. Collaborative design taxonomy.

Team composition	Nature of the problem
Group	Type (novel, routine)
Size (number)	Concurrency (serial, parallel)
Culture (type)	Coupling (level)
Individual	Abstraction (level)
Personality (type)	Scope (number of domains)
Expertise (level)	Complexity (level)
Team member relations (positive, neutral, negative)
Leadership styles (autocratic, consultative, collective, participative, leaderless)
Communication	Information
Mode	Form (design artefact, background)
Verbal (Boolean)	Management
Written (Boolean)	Ownership (set, get, change, validate, inherit)
Graphic (Boolean)	Permission to change (set, get, change, validate, inherit)
Gestures (Boolean)	Security (set, get, change, validate, inherit)
Quantity	Change propagation (set, get, change, validate, inherit)
Frequency (number)	Perceived level of criticality (level)
Duration (time)	Dependability
Syntax	Reliability (level)
Language (type)	Completeness (level)
Translators (number)
Proficiency of the team
Techniques (level)
Technology (level)
Dependability of resources
Reliability (level)
Availability (level)
Intent (inform, commit, guide, request, express, decide, propose, respond, record)
Distribution	Design approach
People	Design tools (consistently applied, applied occasionally, not applied)
Geographically (co-located, distributed)	Evaluation of progress (self-assessment, assessed by outside parties)
Organisationally (within boundaries, outside boundaries)	Degree of structure (company policy, chosen by team, free)
Temporally (same time zone, different time zones)	Process approach (generative, variant)
Information	Stage (clarification of task, conceptual, embodiment, detail)
Geographically (co-located, distributed)
Organisationally (within boundaries, outside boundaries)
Temporally (same time zone, different time zones)

Figure 1. Dependencies among factors in the collaborative design taxonomy.

Table 2. Team composition issues in collaborative design.

Team composition		References
Group	Size (number)	Willaert et al. (1998), Hof (1992), Hudak (1992), Yesersky (1993), Denton (1997)
	Group culture (type)	Hurley (1995), Redelinghuys and Bahill (2006)
Individual	Personality (type)	Costa and McCrae (1988), Day and Silverman (1989), Digman (1990), Barrick and Mount (1991), Tett et al. (1991), Kichuk and Wiesner (1997), Reilly et al. (2002), Lopez-Mesa and Thompson (2006)
	Expertise (level)	Denton (1997), Baird et al. (2000), Broadbent and Cross (2003)
Team member relations (level)		Austin (1975), Azmodeh and Davison (1997), Leifer (2000), Lurey and Raisinghani (2001)
Leadership styles (type)		Vroom and Jago (1978), Norrgren and Schaller (1999)

Table 3. Personality/performance relationships (Reilly et al. 2002).

Personality factor	Incremental innovation team	Radical innovation team
Conscientiousness	Decreased performance	Increased performance
Extraversion	No impact	Increased performance
Stability	Decreased performance	No impact
Agreeableness	Decreased performance	Increased performance
Openness	Increased performance	Decreased performance

Table 4. Vroom–Yetton model of leadership styles (Vroom and Jago 1978).

Leadership style	Who defines problem	Who makes decisions
Autocratic	Leader	Leader (may solicit group input)
Consultative	Leader	Leader with solicited group input
Collective	Leader	Group
Participative	Group	Group
Leaderless	Varies	Varies

Table 5. Communication issues in collaborative design.

Communication		References
Mode	Verbal (Boolean)	Adler (1991), Leckie et al. (1996), Anderson et al. (2001)
	Textual (Boolean)	Adler (1991), Leckie et al. (1996), Anderson et al. (2001)
	Graphic (Boolean)	Leckie et al. (1996), Anderson et al. (2001)
	Gestures (Boolean)	Leckie et al. (1996), Anderson et al. (2001)
Quantity	Frequency (number)	Barthelemy et al. (1998), Chiu (2002)
	Duration (number)
Syntax	Language (type)	Adler (1991), Summers et al. (2001)
	Translators (number)	Adler (1991), Summers et al. (2001)
Proficiency of team	Techniques (level)	Case and Lu (1996), Deus (2000), Anderson et al. (2001)
	Technology (level)	Orlikowski (1992), Case and Lu (1996), Anderson et al. (2001)
Dependability of resources	Reliability (level)	May and Carter (2001)
	Availability (level)	Deus (2000), May and Carter (2001)
Intent (inform, commit, guide, request, express, decide, propose, respond, record)	Searle (1969), Austin (1975), Yates and Orlikowski (1992), Yoshioka and Herman (1999)

Table 6. Distribution issues in collaborative design.

Distribution		References
Personnel	Geographically (co-located, dispersed)	Lurey and Raisinghani (2001), Case and Lu (1996), Garner (2001), Lees et al. (2001)
	Organisationally (within, without)	Lees et al. (2001), Prasad et al. (1998)
	Temporally (same time, different)	Fadel et al. (2000), Lindemann et al. (2000)
Information	Geographically (co-located, dispersed)	Case and Lu (1996), Deus (2000), Garner (2001)
	Organisationally (within, without)	Case and Lu (1996), Deus (2000), Garner (2001)
	Temporally (same time, different)	Fadel et al. (2000), Lindemann et al. (2000)

Table 7. Nature of the problem issues in collaborative design.

Nature of the problem	References
Type (novel, routine)	Pahl and Beitz (1996)
Concurrency (serial, parallel)	Peart (1971), Kliem (1986), Dinsmore (1990)
Coupling (level)	Case and Lu (1996)
Abstraction (concrete, intermediate, vague)	Ullman and D'Ambrosio (1995), Denton (1997), Shah et al. (2001), Ullman (2003), Summers and Shah (2004)
Scope (number of domains)	Hazelrigg (1996), Pahl and Beitz (1996)
Complexity (level)	Summers and Shah (2003), Blouin et al. (2004)

Table 8. Information issues in collaborative design.

Information		References
Form (design artefact, background)		Shah et al. (1996), Chan and Finger (1998)
Management	Ownership (set, get, change, validate, inherit)	Ahmed et al. (1992), Rezgui et al. (1996)
	Permission to change (set, get, change, validate, inherit)	Ahmed et al. (1992), Rezgui et al. (1996), Andersson (2001)
	Security (set, get, change, validate, inherit)	Ahmed et al. (1992), Rezgui et al. (1996)
	Change propagation (set, get, change, validate, inherit)	Ahmed et al. (1992), Rezgui et al. (1996)
Perceived level of criticality (level)		Anderson et al. (2001)
Dependability	Reliability (level)	Parks and Nelson (1999), Parks (2001)
	Completeness (level)	Dixon et al. (1987), Summers and Shah (2001), Summers et al. (2001)

Table 9. Design approach issues in collaborative design.

Design approach	References
Design tools (consistently applied, occasionally applied, not applied)	Parks (2001), Ullman (2003)
Evaluation of progress (self-assessment, external assessment)	Brusseri and Palmer (2000)
Degree of structure (company policy, chosen by team, free)	Parks (2001)
Process approach (generative, variant)	Austin et al. (2001), Goel et al. (1997), Cherng et al. (1998)
Stage (clarification of task, conceptual design, embodiment design, detail design)	Austin (1975), Shigley and Mischke (1989), Pugh (1991a, 1991b), Parks (2001), Ullman (2003)

Table 10. Top-level influence matrix.

	Team	Communication	Distribution	Problem	Information	Process	Total of influencer
Team		3	1			1	5
Communication	3		3			1	7
Distribution	3	3		1	1		8
Problem	9	1			9	9	28
Information		3				1	4
Process	1	1	1		1		4
Total of influenced	16	11	5	1	11	12
Note: 9 – strong influence of the row on the column, 3 – moderate influence of the row on the column, and 1 – weak influence of the row on the column.

Table 11. Self-referencing orthogonality matrix: team.

	Team: group: size	Team: group: culture	Team: individual: personality	Team:individual: expertise	Team: relations	Team: leadership	Total of influencer
Team: group: size		1			3	3	7
Team: group: culture			1		1	3	5
Team: individual: personality					1	1	2
Team: individual: expertise						3	3
Team: relations						1	1
Team: leadership					3		3
Total of influenced	0	1	1		8	11
Note: 9 – strong influence of the row on the column, 3 – moderate influence of the row on the column, and 1 – weak influence of the row on the column.

Table 12. Self-referencing orthogonality matrix: communication.

	Communication: mode: verba	Communication: mode: written	Communication: mode: graphic	Communication: mode: gestures	Communication: quantity: frequency	Communication: quantity: duration	Communication: syntax: language
	Communication: mode: verbal					1	1	1
Communication: mode: written					1	1	1
Communication: mode: graphic					1	1	1
Communication: mode: gestures					1	1	1
Communication: quantity: frequency	1	1	1	1		1
Communication: quantity: duration	1	1	1	1	1
Communication: syntax: language	1	1	1	1
Communication: syntax: translators	1	1	1	1	1
Communication: proficiency: techniques	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Communication: proficiency: technology	1	1	1	1	1	1
Communication: dependability: reliability					1	1
Communication: dependability: availability					1	1
Communication: intent	1	1	1	1			1
total of influenced	7	7	7	7	10	9	6
Communication: mode: verbal	1			1	1		6
Communication: mode: written	1			1	1		6
Communication: mode: graphic	1			1	1		6
Communication: mode: gestures	1			1	1		6
Communication: quantity: frequency				1	1		7
Communication: quantity: duration				1	1		7
Communication: syntax: language	1			1			6
Communication: syntax: translators							5
Communication: proficiency: techniques			1	1			9
Communication: proficiency: technology		1		1			8
Communication: dependability: reliability							2
Communication: dependability: availability							2
Communication: intent							5
total of influenced	5	1	1	9	6	0
Note: 9 – strong influence of the row on the column, 3 – moderate influence of the row on the column, and 1 – weak influence of the row on the column.

Table 13. Self-referencing orthogonality matrix: distribution.

	Distribution: people: geographic	Distribution: people: organisation	Distribution: people: temporal	Distribution: information: geographic	Distribution: information: organisation	Distribution: information: temporal	Total of influencer
Distribution: people: geographic			1	1		1	3
Distribution: people: organisation	1		1	1	1	1	5
Distribution: people: temporal						1	1
Distribution: information: geographic						1	1
Distribution: information: organisation						1	1
Distribution: information: temporal							0
Total of influenced	1	0	2	2	1	5
Note: 9 – strong influence of the row on the column, 3 – moderate influence of the row on the column, and 1 – weak influence of the row on the column.

Table 14. Self-referencing orthogonality matrix: problem.

	Problem: type	Problem: concurrency	Problem: coupling	Problem: abstraction	Problem: scope	Problem: complexity	Total of influencer
Problem: type						1	1
Problem: concurrency			3	1	1	1	6
Problem: coupling		1		1		3	5
Problem: abstraction						3	3
Problem: scope						3	3
Problem: complexity							0
Total of influenced	0	1	3	2	1	11
Note: 9 – strong influence of the row on the column, 3 – moderate influence of the row on the column, and 1 – weak influence of the row on the column.

Table 15. Self-referencing orthogonality matrix: information.

	Information: form	Information: management: ownership	Information: management: change	Information: management: security	Information: management: propagation	Information: criticality	Information: dependability: reliability	Information: dependability: completeness	Total of influencer
Information: form							1	1	2
Information: management: ownership			3	3			3		9
Information: management: change		1		1	3		3	3	11
Information: management: security					3		3		6
Information: management: propagation							3	3	6
Information: criticality	1			1	1		1		4
Information: dependability: reliability	1			1	1				3
Information: dependability: completeness					1		1		2
Total of influenced	2	1	3	6	9	0	15	7
Note: 9 – strong influence of the row on the column, 3 – moderate influence of the row on the column, and 1 – weak influence of the row on the column.

Table 16. Self-referencing orthogonality matrix: design process.

	Process: tools	Process: progress	Process: structure	Process: approach	Process: stage	Total of influencer
Process: tools		3	3			6
Process: progress	3		3			6
Process: structure	3	3				6
Process: approach	3	1	1			5
Process: stage	3	1	1			5
Total of influenced	12	8	8	0	0
Note: 9 – strong influence of the row on the column, 3 – moderate influence of the row on the column, and 1 – weak influence of the row on the column.

Table 17. Cross-topic orthogonality matrix.

		Distribution
		People			Information
Communication		Geographically	Organisationally	Temporally	Geographically	Organisationally	Temporally	Total of influencer
Mode	Verbal	1		1				2
Written			1	1		1	3
Graphic	1		1	1		1	4
Gestures	1		3				4
Quantity	Duration	3		9			9	21
Frequency	1	1	3			3	8
Syntax	Language		1	1				2
Translators			1			1	2
Proficiency	Techniques		1	1		1	1	4
Technology	1	1	1	1	1	1	6
Dependability	Reliability	3	3	9	1	3	9	28
Availability	3	1	1	1	1	1	8
Intent	Inform							0
Commit			1				1
Guide		1	1				2
Request						1	1
Express							0
Decide	1	1	1	1		1	5
Propose							0
Respond			1			1	2
Record				1	1	1	3
Total of influenced			15	10	33	7	7	31
Note: 9 – strong influence of the row on the column, 3 – moderate influence of the row on the column, and 1 – weak influence of the row on the column.

Willaert , S. , deGraaf , R. and Minderhoud , S. 1998 . Collaborative engineering: a case study of concurrent engineering in a wider context . Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 15 ( 1 ) : 87 – 109 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hof , R. 1992 . From Dinosaur to Gazelle: HP's evolution was painful but necessary . Business Week , 65

 Google Scholar

Hudak , G. 1992 . “ Concurrent engineering: what are the risks and benefits? ” . In Presented at Technical program: NEPCON west 1992 Anaheim, CA

 Google Scholar

Yesersky , P. 1993 . Concurrent engineering: your strategic weapon in today's jungle . CMA Magazine: The Management Accounting Magazine , 67 ( 6 ) : 24 – 7 .

 Google Scholar

Denton , H. 1997 . Multidisciplinary team-based project work: planning factors . Design Studies , 18 ( 2 ) : 155 – 70 .

 Google Scholar

Hurley , R. 1995 . Group culture and its effect on innovative productivity . Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 12 ( 1–2 ) : 57 – 75 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Redelinghuys , C. and Bahill , A. T. 2006 . A framework for the assessment of the creativity of product design teams . Journal of Engineering Design , 17 ( 2 ) : 121 – 41 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Costa , P. and McCrae , R. 1988 . Personality in adulthood: A 6-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO personality inventory . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 : 853 – 63 .

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Day , D. and Silverman , S. 1989 . Personality and job performance: evidence of incremental validity . Personnel Psychology , 42 : 25 – 36 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Digman , J. 1990 . “ Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model ” . In Annual review of psychology Edited by: Porter , L. 417 – 40 . Palo Alto, CA

 Google Scholar

Barrick , M. and Mount , M. 1991 . The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta analysis . Personnel Psychology , 44 : 1 – 26 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tett , R. , Jackson , D. and Rothstein , M. 1991 . Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytical review . Personnel Psychology , 44 : 703 – 42 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kichuk , S. and Wiesner , W. 1997 . The big five personality factors and team performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams . Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 14 ( 3-4 ) : 195 – 221 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reilly , R. , Lynn , G. and Aronson , Z. 2002 . The role of personality in new product development team performance . Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 19 ( 1 ) : 39 – 58 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lopez-Mesa , B. and Thompson , G. 2006 . On the significance of cognitive style and the selection of appropriate design methods . Journa1 of Engineering Design , 17 ( 4 ) : 371 – 86 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Baird , F. , Moore , C. and Jagodzinski , A. 2000 . An ethnographic study of engineering design teams at rolls-royce aerospace . Design Studies , 21 ( 4 ) : 333 – 55 .

 Google Scholar

Broadbent , J. A. and Cross , N. 2003 . Design education in the information age . Journal of Engineering Design , 14 ( 4 ) : 439 – 46 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Austin , J. 1975 . How to do things with things with words , Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

 Google Scholar

Davison , R. and Azmodeh , M. Performance management of public atm networks: a scaleable and flexible approach . Presented at Proceedings of the 5th IFIP/IEEE integrated network mananement . San Diego, CA : Chapman & Hall, Ltd .

 Google Scholar

Leifer , L. The case for distributed collaborative learning-based design . Presented at CoDesigning 2000: an international conference . UK : Coventry University .

 Google Scholar

Lurey , J. and Raisinghani , M. 2001 . An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams . Information and Management , 38 ( 8 ) : 523 – 44 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vroom , V. and Jago , A. 1978 . On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model . Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 ( 2 ) : 151 – 62 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Norrgren , F. and Schaller , J. 1999 . Leadership style: its impact on cross-functional product development . Journal of Product Innovation Management , 16 ( 4 ) : 377 – 84 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Adler , N. 1991 . International dimensions of organizational behavior , Boston, MA : PWSKent Publishing Company .

 Google Scholar

Leckie , G. , Pettigrew , K. and Sylvain , C. 1996 . Modeling the information seeking of professionals: a general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals, and lawyers . Library Quarterly , 66 ( 2 ) : 161 – 93 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anderson , C. , Glassman , M. , McAfee , R. and Pinelli , T. 2001 . An investigation of factors affecting how engineers and scientists seek information . Journal of Engineering and Technology Management , 18 ( 2 ) : 131 – 55 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chiu , M. 2002 . An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration . Design Studies , 23 ( 2 ) : 187 – 210 .

 Google Scholar

Summers , J. D. , Lacroix , Z. and Shah , J. J. 2001 . “ Collaborative mechanical engineering design: representation and decision issues ” . In Presented at Le travail humain: modeling cooperative activities in design , Paris, , France : Presses Universitaires .

 Google Scholar

Case , M. and Lu , S. 1996 . Discourse model for collaborative design . Conzputer-Aided Design , 28 ( 3 ) : 333 – 45 .

 Google Scholar

Deus , L. 2000 . Collaboration marketplace evolving to meet emerging needs . The Edge Perspectives , 1 ( 1 )

 Google Scholar

Orlikowski , W. 1992 . Sloan school working paper , Cambridge, MA : MIT .

 Google Scholar

May , A. and Carter , C. 2001 . A case study of virtual team working in the european automotive industry . International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics , 27 ( 3 ) : 171 – 86 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Searle , J. 1969 . Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language , Cambridge, , UK : Cambridge University Press .

 Google Scholar

Yates , J. and Orlikowski , W. 1992 . Genres of organizational communication: a structurational approach to studying communication and media . Academy of Management Review , 17 : 299 – 326 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yoshioka , T. and Herman , G. 1999 . Cambridge, MA : MIT .

 Google Scholar

Garner , S. 2001 . Comparing graphic actions between remote and proximal design teams . Design Studies , 22 ( 4 ) : 365 – 76 .

 Google Scholar

Lees , B. , Branki , C. and Aird , I. 2001 . A framework for distributed agent-based engineering design support . Automation in Constrliction , 10 ( 5 ) : 631 – 37 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prasad , B. , Wang , F. and Deng , J. 1998 . A concurrent workflow management process for concurrent product development . Journal of Engineering Design , 9 : 121 – 135 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fadel , G. , Lindemann , U. and Anderl , R. 2000 . “ Multi-national around the clock collaborative senior design project ” . In ASME curriculum innovations awards Edited by: ASME .

 Google Scholar

Lindemann , U. , Anderl , R. , Gierhardt , H. and Fadel , G. 2000 . “ 24 Hr. Design and Development: An Engine Design Project ” . In Collaborative design , Edited by: Scrivener , S. , Ball , L. and Woodcock , A. New York, NY : Springer . Chapter B

 Google Scholar

Pahl , G. and Beitz , W. 1996 . Engineeing design: a systematic approach , New York, NY : Springer .

 Google Scholar

Peart , A. 1971 . Design of project management systems and records , Boston, MA : Cahners Books .

 Google Scholar

Kliem , R. 1986 . The secrets of successful project management , New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons, Inc. .

 Google Scholar

Dinsmore , P. 1990 . Human factors in project management , New York, NY : American Management Association .

 Google Scholar

Ullman , D. and D'Ambrosio , B. 1995 . Taxonomy for classifying engineering decision problems and support systems . Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing , 9 : 427 – 38 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shah , J. J. , Vargas-Hernandez , N. , Summers , J. D. and Kulkami , S. 2001 . Collaborative sketching (C-sketch): an idea generation technique for engineering design . Journal of Creative Behavior , 35 ( 3 ) : 168 – 98 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ullman , D. 2003 . The mechanical design process , New York, NY : McGraw-Hill, Inc .

 Google Scholar

Summers , J. D. and Shah , J. J. Representation in engineering design: a framework for classification . Presented at Design engineering technical conferences . Salt Lake City, UT : ASME .

 Google Scholar

Hazelrigg , G. 1996 . Systems engineering: an approach to information-based design , Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall .

 Google Scholar

Summers , J. D. and Shah , J. J. Developing measures of complexity for engineering design . Presented at Design engineering techinical conferences . Chicago, IL.

 Google Scholar

Blouin , V. G. , Summers , J. D. , Fadel , G. M. and Gu , J. Intrinsic analysis of decomposition and coordination strategies for complex design problems . Presented at 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference . Albany, NY : AIAA .

 Google Scholar

Shah , J. J. , Bliznakov , P. , Rogers , M. , Jeon , D. and Urban , S. 1996 . Database infrastructure for supporting engineering design histories . Computer-Aided Design , 28 ( 3 ) : 347 – 60 .

 Google Scholar

Chan , B. and Finger , S. Supporting conceptual design: a model for reflective-interactive design . Presented at Third workshop on knowledge intensive CAD . Boston, MA : Kluwer Academic Press .

 Google Scholar

Ahmed , S. , Wong , A. , Sriram , D. and Logcher , R. 1992 . Object-oriented database management systems for engineering: a comparison . Journal of Object Oriented Programming , 5 ( 3 ) : 27 – 44 .

 Google Scholar

Rezgui , Y. , Brown , A. , Cooper , G. , Yip , J. , Brandon , P. and Kirkham , J. 1996 . An information managment model for concurrent construction engineering . Automation in Construction , 5 ( 41 ) : 343 – 55 .

 Google Scholar

Andersson , A. 2001 . Information exchange within the area of tool design and sheet-metal-forming simulations . Journal of Engineering Design , 12 ( 4 ) : 283 – 91 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parks , C. and Nelson , N. 1999 . Discussion and decision: the interrelationship between initial preference distribution and group discussion content . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 80 ( I ) : 87 – 101 .

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Parks , J. 2001 . Mechanical engineering , Austin, TX : University of Texas .

 Google Scholar

Dixon , J. , Howe , A. , Cohen , P. and Simmons , M. 1987 . Dominic I: progress toward domain independence in design by iterative redesign . Engineering with Computers , 2 : 137 – 45 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Summers , J. D. and Shah , J. J. 2001 . “ Leadership style selection rules for agent architecture in engineering design ” . In From knowledge intensive CAD to knowledge intensive engineering , Edited by: Cuginin , Wozny . he Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Press .

 Google Scholar

Brusseri , M. and Palmer , J. 2000 . Improving teamwork: the effect of self-assessment on construction design teams . Design Studies , 21 ( 3 ) : 223 – 38 .

 Google Scholar

Austin , S. , Steele , J. , Macmillan , S. , Kirby , P. and Spence , R. 2001 . Mapping the conceptual design activity of interdisciplinary teams . Design Studies , 22 ( 3 ) : 211 – 32 .

 Google Scholar

Goel , A. , Bhatta , S. and Stroulia , E. 1997 . “ KRITIK: an early case-based design system ” . In Issues and applications of case-based reasoning in design , Edited by: Maher , M. and Pu , P. 87 – 132 . Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum .

 Google Scholar

Cherng , J. , Shao , X. , Chen , Y. and Sferro , P. 1998 . Feature-based part modeling and process planning for rapid response manufacturing . Computers and Industrial Engineering , 34 ( 2 ) : 515 – 30 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shigley , J. and Mischke , C. 1989 . Mechanical engineering design , St. Louis, MO : McGraw Hill, Inc .

 Google Scholar

Pugh , S. 1991a . Integrated methods for successful product engineering , London, , UK : Addison Wesley .

 Google Scholar

Pugh , S. 1991b . Total design , Wokingham, , UK : Addison-Wesley .

 Google Scholar