Visual representations for communication in geographically distributed new product development projects

References

• Agosti, M., G. Bonfiglio-Dosio, and N. Ferro. 2007. “A Historical and Contemporary Study on Annotations to Derive Key Features for Systems Design.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 8 (8): 1–19. doi:10.1007/s00799-007-0010-0.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, T. J., B. Tomlin, and O. Hauptman. 2008. “Combining Organisational and Physical Location to Manage Knowlegde Dissemination.” International Journal of Technology Management 44 (1/2): 234–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, T. J., M. L. Tushman, and D. M. S. Lee. 1979. “Technology of Function Spectrum Through from Transfer Position in a the Technical Development to Services.” Academy of Management Journal 22 (4): 694–708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barczak, G., and E. F. McDonough, III. 2003. “Managers at Work: Leading Global Product Development Teams.” Research-Technology Management 46 (6): 14–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechky, B. A. 2003. “Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: the Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor.” Organization Science 14 (3): 312–330. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becvar, A., J. Hollan, and E. Hutchins. 2008. “Representational Gestures as Cognitive Artifacts for Developing Theories in a Scientifc Laboratory.” In Resources, Co-Evolution and Artifacts, edited by M. S. Ackerman, C. A. Halverson, T. Erickson, and W. A. Kellogg, 117–143. London, UK: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Beech, N., R. MacIntosh, and D. MacLean. 2010. “Dialogues Between Academics and Practitioners: The Role of Generative Dialogic Encounters.” Organization Studies 31 (9–10): 1341–1367. doi:10.1177/0170840610374396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergiel, B. J., E. B. Bergiel, and P. W. Balsmeier. 2008. “Nature of Virtual Teams: A Summary of Their Advantages and Disadvantages.” Management Research News 31 (2): 99–110.
   Google Scholar
• Boujut, J.-F. 2003. “User-defined Annotations: Artefacts for Co-ordination and Shared Understanding in Design Teams.” Journal of Engineering Design 14 (4): 409–419. doi:10.1080/09544820310001606885.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boujut, J.-F., and E. Blanco. 2003. “Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-Operation in Engineering Design.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 12: 205–219.
   Google Scholar
• Boutellier, R., O. Gassmann, H. Macho, and M. Roux. 1998. “Management of Dispersed Product Development Teams: the Role of Information Technologies.” R&D ManagementD Management 28 (1): 13–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile, P. 2002. “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development.” Organization Science 13: 442–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile, P. 2004. “Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries.” Organization 15: 5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, P., E. A. Dekoninck, and S. Ahmed-Kristensen. 2017. “Supporting the Development of Shared Understanding in Distributed Design Teams.” Journal of Engineering Design 28 (3): 147–170. doi:10.1080/09544828.2016.1274719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, P., and A. Maier. 2016. “Prototyping with Your Hands: The Many Roles of Gesture in the Communication of Design Concepts.” Journal of Engineering Design 27 (1–3): 118–145. doi:10.1080/09544828.2015.1126702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceci, F., and A. Prencipe. 2013. “Does Distance Hinder Coordination? Identifying and Bridging Boundaries of Offshored Work.” Journal of International Management 19 (4): 324–332. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2013.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C. Y., Y. C. J. Wu, and W. H. Wu. 2013. “A Sustainable Collaborative Research Dialogue Between Practitioners and Academics.” Management Decision 51 (3): 566–593. doi:10.1108/00251741311309661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crilly, N., A. Maier, and P. J. Clarkson. 2008. “Representing Artefacts as Media: Modelling the Relationship Between Designer Intent and Consumer Experience.” International Journal of Design 2 (3): 15–27. doi:10.1108/17506200710779521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crilly, N., J. Moultrie, and P. J. Clarkson. 2004. “Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design.” Design Studies 25 (6): 547–577. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dooley, L., and D. O’Sullivan. 2007. “Managing Within Distributed Innovation Networks.” International Journal of Innovation Management 11 (3): 397–416.
   Google Scholar
• Dougherty, D. 1992. “Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms.” Organization Science 3 (2): 179–202. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.2.179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, M. K. 1989. “Building Theories From Case Study Research.” The Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, Y., P. Johansson, and P. Björndal. 2011. “Showing Actions in Pictures. Information Visualization.” 2011 15th International conference on information Visualisation (2011), London, July 13–15, 2011, pp. 403–408. doi:10.1109/IV.2011.104.
   Google Scholar
• Eris, O., N. Martelaro, and P. Badke-Schaub. 2014. “A Comparative Analysis of Multimodal Communication During Design Sketching in co-Located and Distributed Environments.” Design Studies 35 (6): 559–592. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, B., and J. Whyte. 2009. “Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as “Epistemic Objects”.” Organization Studies 30 (1): 7–30. doi:10.1177/0170840608083014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frishammar, J. 2005. “Managing Information in New Product Development: A Literature Review.” International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 2 (3): 259–275.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbert, M., W. Ruigrok, and B. Wicki. 2008. “What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study?” Strategic Management Journal 29 (13): 1465–1474. doi:10.1002/smj.722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 2007. “To See Eye to Eye: The Role of Visual Representations in Building Shared Mental Models in Design Teams.” CoDesign 3 (1): 43–50. doi:10.1080/15710880601170826.
   Google Scholar
• Gustavsson, M., and K. Säfsten. 2017. “The Learning Potential of Boundary Crossing in the Context of Product Introduction.” Vocations and Learning 10 (2): 235–252. doi:10.1007/s12186-016-9171-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, M. Y. 2000. “Visualizing for Thinking, Planning, and Problem Solving.” In Information Design, edited by R. Jacobson, 206–125. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hietikko, E., and E. Rajaniemi. 2000. “Visualized Data—Tool to Improve Communication in Distributed Product Development Projects.” Journal of Engineering Design 11: 95–101. doi:10.1080/095448200261207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinds, P. J., and D. E. Bailey. 2003. “Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams.” Organization Science 14 (6): 615–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinds, P. J., and M. Mortensen. 2005. “Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication.” Organization 16 (3): 290–324. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/abicomplete/docview/213831869/fulltextPDF/50C77E5BB1774D24PQ/14?accountid=465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hisarciklilar, O., and J.-F. Boujut. 2007. “An Annotation-Basd Approach to Support Design Comunnication.” International conference on engineering design (ICED 07), August, pp. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinschmidt, E., U. De Brentani, and S. Salomo. 2010. “Information Processing and Firm-Internal Environment Contingencies: Performance Impact on Global New Product Development.” Creativity and Innovation Management 19 (3): 200–218. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00568.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinsmann, M., and R. Valkenburg. 2008. “Barriers and Enablers for Creating Shared Understanding in co-Design Projects.” Design Studies 29 (4): 369–386. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinsmann, M., R. Valkenburg, and J. Buijs. 2007. “Why Do(n’t) Actors in Collaborative Design Understand Each Other? An Empirical Study Towards a Better Understanding of Collaborative Design.” CoDesign 3 (1): 59–73. doi:10.1080/15710880601170875.
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen, K. 2005. “Metaphoric Boundary Objects as Co-ordinating Mechanisms in the Knowledge Sharing of Innovation Processes.” European Journal of Innovation Management 8 (3): 323–335. doi:10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216.
   Google Scholar
• Kostelnick, C., and M. Hassett. 2003. Shaping Information: The Rhetoric of Visual Communication. IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakemond, N., et al. 2012. “From Product Development to Production – on the Complexity of Geographical and Organizational Dispersion.” Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research 2 (3): 125–137.
   Google Scholar
• Lakemond, N., and C. Berggren. 2006. “Co-locating NPD? The Need for Combining Project Focus and Organizational Integration.” Technovation 26 (7): 807–819. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakemond, N., C. Berggren, and A. Van Weele. 2006. “Coordinating Supplier Involvement in Product Development Projects: a Differentiated Coordination Typology.” R&D Management 36 (1): 55–66. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00415.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letens, G., J. Farris, and E. Van Aken. 2011. “A Multilevel Framework for Lean Product Development System Design.” EMJ - Engineering Management Journal 23 (1): 69–85. doi:10.1080/10429247.2011.11431887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levina, N., and E. Vaast. 2005. “The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and use of Information Systems.” MIS Quarterly 29 (2): 335–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C., C. McMahon, and L. Newness. 2009. “Annotation in Design Processes: Classification of Approaches.” In International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, 24-27 August 2009, 251–262. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Morgan and Claypool Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Lindlöf, L. 2014. Visual Management - on Communication in Product Development Organizations. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Luck, R. 2014. “Seeing Architecture in Action: Designing, Evoking, and Depicting Space and Form in Embodied Interaction.” International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 2 (3): 165–181. doi:10.1080/21650349.2013.875488.
   Google Scholar
• Lupton, E. 2010. Thinking with Type. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lupton, E., and J. C. Phillips. 2015. Graphic Design. The New Basics. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maier, A. M., M. Kreimeyer, U. Lindemann, and P. J. Clarkson. 2009. “Reflecting Communication : A Key Factor for Successful Collaboration Between Embodiment Design and Simulation.” Journal of Engineering Design 20 (3): 265–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majchrzak, A., P. H. B. More, and S. Faraj. 2012. “Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams.” Organization Science 23 (4): 951–970. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marheineke, M., H. Habicht, and K. M. Möslein. 2016. “Bridging Knowledge Boundaries: the use of Boundary Objects in Virtual Innovation Communities.” R and D Management 46: 1084–1094. doi:10.1111/radm.12216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, C. 2009. “Reading and Writing the Electronic Book.” In Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services, edited by C. H. Gary Marchionini. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Morgan and Claypool Publishers. doi:10.2200/S00215ED1V01Y200907ICR009.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Mollerup, P. 2015. Simplicity: A Matter of Design. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Mortensen, K., and C. Lundsgaard. 2011. “Preliminary Notes on ‘Grooming the Object’: The Example of an Architectural Presentation.” in Partipatory Innovation Conference. In Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference. University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg (pp. 99–104). pp. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Moultrie, J. 2015. “Understanding and Classifying the Role of Design Demonstrators in Scientific Exploration.” Technovation 43–44: 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2015.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riege, A. M. 2003. “Validity and Reliability Tests in Case Study Research: A Literature Review with “Hands-on” Applications for Each Research Phase.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 6 (2): 75–86. doi:10.1108/13522750310470055.
   Google Scholar
• Säfsten, K., G. Johansson, N. Lakemond, and T. Magnusson. 2014. “Interface Challenges and Managerial Issues in the Industrial Innovation Process.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 25 (2): 218–239. doi:10.1108/JMTM-10-2013-0141.
   Google Scholar
• Sosa, M. E. E., S. D. Eppinger, M. Pich, D. G. McKendrick, and S. K. Stout. 2002. “Factors That Influence Technical Communication in Distributed Product Development: An Empirical Study in the Telecommunications Industry.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49 (1): 45–58. doi:10.1109/17.985747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. 1989. “The Structure of ill-Structured Solutions: Heterogenous Problem Solving, Boundary Objects and Distributed Artificial Intelligence.” In Distributed Artificial Intelligence, edited by M. N. Huhns and L. Gasser, 37–54. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Tjell, J., and P. M. Bosch-Sijtsema. 2015. “Visual Management in Mid-Sized Construction Design Projects.” Procedia Economics and Finance 21: 193–200. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00167-7.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K., and S. Eppinger. 2016. Product Design and Development. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A., and P. Johnson. 2006. “Knowledge for Theory and Practice.” Academy of Management Review 31 (4): 802–821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, C., N. Tsikriktsis, and M. Frohlich. 2002. “Case Research in Operations Management.” International Journal of Operations and Management ProductionManagement 22 (2): 195–219. doi:10.1108/01443570210414329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
   Google Scholar