Content uploaded by Jean-François Boujut
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jean-François Boujut on Jan 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
- 1 -
Title:
A socio-technical research method for
analysing and instrumenting the design activity
Jean-François BOUJUT*
Laboratoire 3S pôle conception intégrée – BP 53 – 38041 Grenoble cedex 9
e-mail: jean-francois.boujut@inpg.fr
Henri TIGER
CRISTO – BP -BP47-38041 Grenoble cedex 9
e-mail: henri.tiger@upmf-grenoble.fr
* Corresponding author
Keywords: engineering design, participant observation, ethnography, intermediary objects,
research methodology.
Abstract :
Empirical studies are privileged means to provide an holistic view of design as in its every day
reality. In this paper we present an experience we have been carrying out for almost ten years in
Grenoble (France) between engineers and social scientists. Through this collaboration we have had
the chance to develop a common understanding of design and a core of concepts that we expose in
the text. We also drew a research method that implies fieldwork and ethnographic style research,
but also gives place to design experimentation as a complementary tool for approaching fine grain
mechanisms. We mainly studied design teams and focused on design cooperation and instrumental
settings for improving design co-operation.
- 2 -
1 Introduction
A large number of works on design are rooted in empiricism. Observation, as a method for
producing knowledge, is one of the founding principles of modern scientific practice. It is not
therefore surprising that many works are based on this. However, strange as it may seem, it was not
until recently that empirical methods began to be used to study design. We note that many of the
common “prescriptive” 1 works on design methodology are based on their authors’ detailed
understanding of industrial practices2. Although many authors may pride themselves on their vast
understanding of design in industry, we must not lose sight of the fact that empirical observation
methods have to use protocols and rules calling on more than just personal experience. The
engineering design process is considered here as a collective and social process of creating a
material artefact that is worth being finely studied as other social processes were. The methods and
concepts for describing and analysing the design situations were particularly influenced by the
works of Michel Callon and Bruno Latour. But we also draw from the engineering design
community especially when we analyse the design tools structures and the design methods
especially referring to Pahl and Beitz or Andreasen models. The interdisciplinary project between
3S and CRISTO laboratories that is at the basis of this work is rooted in these works and the wish
to go beyond the classical prescriptive literature of engineering design, and produce joint concepts
at the boundary of each discipline (engineering and sociology). The results we shall present here
are the direct outcome of our joint interdisciplinary work.
Our project goes beyond empirical data collection and engineering design analysis. We present
here a research methodology, based on interdisciplinary collaborations that allows the specification
and the implementation of new design tools/methods. We can summarise our project as follows:
“how can we develop design instruments through field research, i.e. in the same time observing
and intentionally modifying the observed situation?” This paper presents the outlines of our
research method, illustrated by some examples drawn form various cases. We stress on key points
and key concepts that are the foundation of our method.
The structure of the paper is articulated around 4 part. In the first part (section 2) we will introduce
the basis of our interdisciplinary collaboration and the success factors of the collaboration. This
collaboration is analysed as a process of jointly creating the research question, the research setting
and the concepts that allow to analyse the situations.
In the second part (section 3) we will introduce the core of our research method and present the
underlying concepts calling from various case studies.
In the third part (section 4) we will show how we can provide tools specifications and build
software prototypes from (and during) the fieldworks we carried out. We will show two different
situations: one where the development occurred during the fieldwork and the second where the
development were carried out after the fieldwork.
1 A distinction is often made between two types of models (arising from different research practices) concerning design methods:
prescriptive models and descriptive models. The first, best illustrated in the works of de Pahl and Beitz (1996) , proposes structuring
models breaking down the process into activities and sub-activities which make up a sequence that the designer is then supposed to
follow to achieve his/her goals. A good analysis of these methods can be found in Blessing (1996). The second type of model is based on
observations of effective practices and proposes detailed descriptions of how organisations operate (ethnographic studies cf. hereafter) or
of individual designers (experimental studies) hence revealing operational concepts for the analysis of complex situations. The
instrumentation of these types of work is not direct although they are fundamental to the understanding of design activity in all its
complexity.
2 See the article by Lucienne Blessing (1996) on this subject.
- 3 -
In the fourth part (section 5) we will discuss the limits we encountered, especially regarding the
actual implementation of our results and their extension to a larger perimeter.
The last section will be devoted to a proposition in terms of perspective on how to go beyond the
mentioned limitations and reconcile observation and implementation in a wider research cycle that
includes ethnographic studies, software development and design experimentations.
2 An interdisciplinary research partnership
Over the last ten years Grenoble (France) has seen an original type of working partnership develop
between social scientists and engineering design researchers. Their joint efforts have given rise to
five theses and much post-graduate work as researchers from the 3S3 and CRISTO4 laboratories
have been brought together. The originality of this working partnership, besides its long-term
nature, lies in the hybrid scientific production of doctoral students and researchers. The purpose of
this article is not to trace the history of this relationship but to present the methodological outcome
of this collaboration. In this section we will highlight what we consider as the success factors of our
collaboration.
2.1 Creating a shared set of concepts
The starting point bringing together our two disciplines was our common industrial culture. In
other words our partnership was launched from the necessity to test our developments against real
design practices and the wish to understand the “designer’s society”, especially role of the tools
from this particular point of view. Little by little we have built up our theoretical position using
field studies but also, and above all, the teachings we both give in postgraduate courses and
research seminars. The research seminars allowed to deeply confront our respective theoretical
backgrounds and then build up a comprehensive respective understanding. The courses, performed
at a graduate level forced us to jointly reformulate our findings and translate them in order to be
understood by students that are not specialists of the domain. Creating and maintaining this shared
set of concept is an important success factor of the collaboration.
2.2 Engineers onto the field
Our project of understanding the deep nature of engineering design and especially the role of the
design tools in the design process led us to naturally hire students specialised in mechanical
engineering for performing the fieldwork. This raise the question of the legitimacy of these student
in carrying out ethnographic observation from a sociological point of view. In order to overcome
this bias the researcher on the field (mostly a PhD student) had two mentors, namely a social
scientist and a researcher in engineering design. The research meetings were then composed of five
persons: the researcher, the two mentors and the industrial partner.
In our case the researchers were involved as part of the company staff, mostly as junior design
engineers, hired for limited periods of time. They were involved in design teams and immersed in
the situation they were supposed to observe. This position of participant research has been
3 3S is a laboratory of mechanics were a team specialised in engineering design research and particularly the development of tools and
methods for integrated design (for more information see http://3s.hmg.inpg.fr/ci)
4 CRISTO is a loboratory of industrial sociology, mostly centred on the study of industrial organisations (for more information see
http://upmf-grenoble.fr/cristo)
- 4 -
successfully used by other researchers among which Hales (1991) and Bucciarelli (1994) were
pioneers in the field of engineering design, although they were not social scientists themselves. In
our case, as we mentioned above the interdisciplinary research team allowed to overcome this
difficulty by providing a real support on the sociological side.
2.3 Participant observation and data collection
As for ethnographic studies, the trend here is based on social science practices founded in
anthropology. This method of observation has greatly contributed to the description and
understanding of how various groups of human society work. It mainly uses direct observation and
total immersion of the researcher in a given environment. Observation periods may be very long,
often stretching out over several years. Having access to real-life contexts makes for very rich
descriptions and reports on the complexity of situations in which actors and objects dynamically
interact. To this respect, in the field of sociology of science the work of Latour and Woolgard is
exemplary (Latour and Woolgard 1986, Latour 1993).
In this kind of studies the legitimacy of the researcher on the field is drawn from his position as an
engineer and from his ability to solve technical problems, and therefore the researcher represents a
resource for the design team. However we point out some difficulties or limitations:
1. There is a limited access to the information. The record is limited to what the researcher
lives by himself, or through the various interviews he can perform.
2. The information recorded depends on the researcher’s interpretation, mood and interest.
3. The results are qualitative, no quantitative data collection is possible if pure ethnography is
used.
But the richness of the approach provides a balance to these limitation because:
1. The researcher gets a deep insight in the situation since he lives among the designers.
2. The information recorded includes data that cannot be recorded by other means (i.e.
subjective data, informal exchanges, the implicit dimension of decisions, design choices…)
all that is now known as major factors in the design activity.
3. The researcher’s interpretation is the richness of the method when properly analysed by
means of a reflective analysis (Schön, 1991) (Vinck, 1999).
Our partnership led us to go one step further by proving that the position of a researcher involved
in such studies actually allows the researcher not only to witness the different mutations but to
trigger them also. This “intervention research” (or participant observation) premise that we share
with other researchers and notably those of the CGS5 at the “école des mines de Paris”, has an
active vocation. The researcher becomes an observer and an analyst of the modifications triggered
by his/her involvement. The idea is very well sized up by Moisdon (1997) :
It is above all a question of understanding the global workings, in other words the
way in which different local bases for reasoning link up with each other, what they
5 CGS (“centre de gestion scientifique” in French) is a management laboratory at the “école des mines de Paris that, for the past twenty
years or so, has been developing research work similar to our own on the development of management tools.
- 5 -
leave in the joins, the contradictions they lead to and the unexpected things they
create. Arriving at this understanding requires specific work in which intervention and
observation are intimately linked, insofar as the forces at play can only really be
reconstituted by trying to modify them.
2.4 A “socio-technical” research method
The studies we have undertaken therefore mainly involve intervention research for fieldwork. We
define this posture as a “Socio-technical” approach. This approach is well illustrated by Alain
Jeantet (1998) in an article describing some of the developments, contributions and advantages of
this approach. A socio-technical research method is based on participant observation and
intervention research and must rely on an interdisciplinary collaboration. We claim that the
richness of the approach stems in the mutual confrontation of scientific world often very distant,
but also and as complementary in the ability to keep a disciplinary view on the concepts that are
jointly built. The following section will introduce more in details the underlying concepts for
analysing and understanding the design situation.
3 Our project: modifying the design situations through fieldwork
3.1 A concept for understanding and analysing situated design: The intermediary design
objects
Since its creation we have extensively developed and used the intermediary object concept in our
own work. Our purpose here is not to develop the different conceptualisation frameworks put
forward by Alain Jeantet (1998).
In engineering sciences, we can say that objects6 (products and their representations in our specific
case) are constantly present as objects of research, since these sciences are linked with the physical
sciences and therefore look at matter and the way it is formed. For a engineering design researcher
the question of the object’s status, as a physical or virtual representation, is not raised. To use a
caricature, a good representation is like a good design; the problem is to represent the object in its
complexity. Paradoxically, we owe this interest in objects to social science. Indeed, as it is often
more concerned with «social facts», «the world of objects is often forgotten by social scientists», as
Jean-Paul Kaufmann (1997) reminds us; objects are often a hindrance to the social scientist. Their
immobile and apparently inert presence is seen as something stubborn. This is why we find some
social scientists trying to rehabilitate the object, going as far as promoting it the status of actor
following the work of Latour (1994). It might be said then that the concept of an intermediary
object was born from this attempt to integrate design objects in social action, with the works of
Dominique Vinck and Alain Jeantet (1995).
Bizarre as it may seem, then, our interest in objects has been triggered by sociology. Social
scientists have pointed us down a new path along which the aim is to reconcile object, actor and
action within this intermediary object concept, reminding us that intermediary objects not only
represent but also translate and mediate design action. Our field studies have all showed the
importance of representations in the design process.
6 We use here the term “object” instead of artefact, product or representation, because this term is more generic and embraces all the
different materialisation of the products that are being designed.
- 6 -
Thus, the intermediary object concept puts forward an interesting theoretical framework for
analysis objects in situ and co-ordinating action around or by these objects. It is an original
approach compared with other important works, notably those based on drafts and rough drawings
carried out by psychologists or architects (see Purcell and Gero 1998)), as it offers a means of
studying the relationship between the world of tools and objects and that of actors and social
relations. It is thus an exceptional empirical tool for analysing real design situations. A new form of
object can thus be quickly analysed in relation to its ability to mediate new situations and thus
efficiently translate or represent the needs of the actors concerned.
3.2 Understanding the dynamics of collective knowledge and learning: fostering design
cooperation
In our article on the development of design professions (Boujut and Jeantet (1998)), we underlined
the complex path knowledge takes as it is modelled and incorporated in a computing tool. But we
also showed that design action could not be summed up as the simple implementation of
knowledge contained in a computing tool and that, furthermore, when the tool is being used it
generates interdisciplinary learning between the actors involved. In our case we can say that the
tool, as part of the learning system, helped to govern the co-ordination system described in
(Hatchuel 1994): a “mutual prescription” regime. The importance of knowledge is thus primordial
in design activities since knowledge and the dynamics of knowledge have a structuring influence
on the design activity itself. When we say that «the notion of learning is inherent to action », we are
using one of the premises put forward by Hatchuel (1996) which allows us to link knowledge and
action coherently with the arguments developed above. Knowledge and action are therefore linked
in that all action mobilises knowledge and builds it at the same time.
Moreover, some authors describe design as a process of creating knowledge about the product and
process. Reddy et Al. (1998) put forward the concept of « artefact theory » to refer to this
knowledge building process that enfolds at the same time as the product design process:
The outcome of a design process typically is viewed as a manufacturable
description of the artefact consisting of detailed geometric models and drawings,
specification of materials, lists of parts and assembly specifications, etc. To reflect the
knowledge building aspect of the design process, we extend this view and propose that
design is a process of constructing a theory of the artefact, not merely constructing a
manufacturable description.
This model nevertheless suffers from the absence of relationship between process actors, offering
instead a static vision of knowledge which, if we go back to what we wrote above, is not
satisfactory. But the advantage of this artefact theory concept is that it links the object creation
process to the learning process. This approach focuses more on the object to be designed while the
management approach is geared more towards the group of actors. To carry out our research
project successfully, and hence propose new means for developing «design instruments», we need
to use both of these dimensions. The link between product modelling and learning complements
the link between learning and the dynamics of mutual prescription.
This brings us to an important crossroads between organisation and product since knowledge both
helps to set up actors, as Hatchuel reminds us in hatchuel (1996) while this same knowledge has a
specific relationship with the products since it is created as they are being implemented. There is
thus a very complex relationship between knowledge dynamics, mutual prescription, actor,
instrument and product networks.
- 7 -
3.3 Understanding the new rising role of the “interface actor”
If we now go back to a job-based point of view, the previous paragraphs underline the density of
relations between different participants. Most field studies turn up the same result: the important
thing is what happens «between» different participants. Some authors have underlined this
phenomenon like Suzan Finger et al. (1995) who, in her article entitled « concurrent design
happens at the interfaces », writes:
« Concurrent design is the links; i.e., concurrent design happens at the interfaces.
Hence, the research in concurrent design must focus on the creation, maintenance, and
extension of links between the various participants in concurrent design effort. »
Exploring these links is important for several reasons. It shows the importance of a new class of
knowledge which, while being linked to the basic jobs7, is geared towards other actors since such
knowledge is justified by its capacity to make its mobilising factor exist within the collective
action. But these links are also important since, as we have already cited, they are the design itself8.
However, there is no interface knowledge without interface actors. Nevertheless, we must not
confuse the two. As we have already seen many times in our investigation fields, interface
knowledge exists even without specific actors. This has always been the case in the most
hierarchical and segmented organisations where people have had to develop interface knowledge
in order to be able to interact. Yet, in project-team type transversal organisations, «it is a question
of catching the technicians’ interest and convincing them to spend some time on transversal
problems» (Moisdon and Weil (1992)). The previously cited authors have pointed out some
interesting characteristics belonging to these «interface actors» :
« New actors are emerging, who are more concerned with questions about the
interfaces between closely related technologies or between actors intervening at
different moments; they aim above all to open up the debate and, to use one of their
own expressions, what might be called «the truth of the debate», in other words the
explanation provided by these technicians about the local truths they defend; truths
that are often left to one side in the design process….
As far as we are concerned, rather than talk of «interface actors», we have chosen to refer to
«interface skills», which is a more cautious position and one that we feel is closer to what we have
actually observed in the field. These skills focus on explaining design choices, analysing rules and
knowledge and opposing different points of view. They are based on strong job-centred knowledge
although they cannot replace this. Such interfaces are both physical and organisational, hence
setting up a complex mesh between job hierarchies, skills and different parts of the product and
pointing us back to the fact that an actor can easily be in an interface situation at a given moment in
the project but not at another. Part of the actor’s attributions may involve developing interface
skills while the other part concerns the more practical side of the actor’s job.
7 We maintain that this knowledge is not only “relational” knowledge about how to behave or emphasise one’s point of view. It is also
specific “job-based” knowledge, a translation or reformulation of specific knowledge geared towards other actors.
8 In the sense of collaborative or concurrent design, or at least collective design, of course.
- 8 -
4 Eventually can we provide proper tool specifications and can we
implement them?
4.1 Providing tools for collective action
In this article we have chosen to consider design as a process enfolding in a complex environment,
which is at once technical, social and economic. Moreover, as shown with our first experiments in
the field, design is basically a collective action9. Considering design as a collective process means
that we can study the tool in its relations with the actors and the situation. It is through studying this
action tool-actor-situation, notably paying particular attention to the intermediary objects called
into play in the process, that we are able to put forward a new means for producing design aid
tools. The tool in itself is after all just an artefact, an object produced by a man/woman just like a
statue, a stair case or a cup of coffee. What we are interested in is studying the conditions that turn
this artefact into an instrument of action, as Guy Prudhomme so appropriately puts it in his thesis
(1999):
An object only constitutes a tool or an instrument for a designer during his work, as
procedural invariants linked to their use in specific conditions are created. Designers
call what we consider to be instrumental objects «tools», coming into play in a given
situation.
Studying tools as they are being used gives us quite a different impression of them than the one
designers themselves have.
The concept of instrument put forward by Rabardel (1995) leads us to investigate the «subject-
object» relationship in an individual context. According to Rabardel’s definition, an instrument
only exists through an actor and through action. Instruments are defined as mixed artefact (the tool
as object) and cognitive entities (action schemes). Instrumentation is therefore the process of
creating action schemes, while the instrumentalisation process is the opposite of the tool
modification or appropriation process, sometimes involving using the tool for a different purpose
than the one it was designed for.
However, we must not forget that design is above all a collective action. The instrumentation
question has to be asked in terms of mediating the relationship between design actors. The tools, as
instruments, are thus the producers of this mediation. Our hypothesis is therefore based on the fact
that the form of tool has a fundamental influence on the form of mediation and thus the way the
design process itself enfolds. Through field studies we can observe tools as instruments in a design
situation. This is moreover, as we showed in Boujut and Laureillard (2002), a very efficient way to
develop instruments geared towards co-operation and collective action.
9 Which does not mean that there is never a time when designers work on their own on a given problem. Our aim here is not to oppose
collective and individual work, but to underline an important characteristic that has been little studied up to now in technology and by
product design specialist in general.
- 9 -
Figure 1 : ID2 a tool for structuring informal information during the early phases of design
projects.
We developed an application based on java technology that allow the structuring of informal
information during the early phases of the design projects. This application is dedicated to the
support of innovative processes and was developed after a long period of participant observation
(Legardeur et al. 2002).
4.2 Understanding the double nature of design support tools
We shall now turn to an important point arising both from our interdisciplinary approach and our
field analyses. We have called it the «double nature of design aid tools», since we have seen that
design activity belongs to two worlds: that of physics and the creation of technical objects, and that
of organisation.
A first analysis shows that current CAD CAM tools can be placed in the first category, i.e. that of
aids for creating technical objects (or artefacts). They are above all used to model products and
processes. Designers mainly use them to model future products, put together assemblies, simulate
interference between parts of a mechanism, etc. But they also use them to model tools trajectories
or prepare machining using geometric models of the parts. Similarly, digital behaviour simulation
tools such as finite element structural analysis software or dynamic simulation tools are clearly
linked to modelling the future product using the laws of physics. Furthermore, these tools very
often cover areas of knowledge spanning different jobs and formalising certain aspects of these
jobs. Design aid tools «build a space for observation and knowledge without necessarily placing
any prior constraints on the range of choices available» (as state Hatchuel in Hatchuel (1994)); they
thus act as tools for representing the future product and tools for assisting with the choice of
solutions. Moreover, from the point of view of the technical data, product data management
- 10 -
systems are also used to represent and model the product by proposing architecture based on the
various product representations. But this is where we find ourselves limited since it is increasingly
difficult to remain focussed on the product without considering the design process and notably its
collective dimension.
At the same time, the organisational upheavals to which companies are subjected today are mainly
inspired by the wish to get people to communicate and thus improve the efficiency of business
processes. The design process has also undergone a certain amount of restructuring and new
project platform organisations or multi-disciplinary teams are the direct consequences of this wish.
These radical changes transform co-ordination mechanisms between actors and make them fragile.
The same applies to the tools that are supposed to help these new organisations: indicators, project
co-ordination tools, planning tools, etc. Jean-Claude Moisdon proposes to group them under the
generic heading «management tools». But project-group activity prevents us from continuing to
think of co-ordination in terms of division of labour and external co-ordination between separate
activities. These new operating modes have revealed the necessity to share knowledge, create new
skills and develop new co-operative practices. But the level of knowledge and experience take us
back to the product, the way it is broken down and structured. The new organisational modes make
the presence of the product indispensable as a learning tool.
Does this therefore mean that design aid tools should be considered as management tools? Our
field observations show, as Moisdon and Weil (1992) did, that this organisational model has two
levels with a «a slightly structured layer of self-organised technicians» and « a top layer structured
by management machinery geared towards administrative tasks». On the one hand therefore there
is a level where technical activity is structured by the product and mutual adjustments and on the
other a level where the activity is geared towards economic aspects and resource co-ordination.
The first level apparently calls on CAD tools, while the second concerns management tools.
However, detailed observation of the CAD tools being used shows that these two dimensions are
difficult to separate a priori, especially when it comes to looking at co-ordination in this level
where technicians «organise themselves ». At this level, the product has a heavy structuring
influence on the activity and its technical breakdown notably leads to organisational breakdowns
and specific co-ordination rules. Figure 2 shows a CAD model annotated by a group of designers,
composed of different disciplines. This model has been used as an intermediary object allowing co-
operation, in that case, the CAD tool was also a co-ordination tool for the group of designer.
- 11 -
Figure 2: CAD model from a case study carried out in the automotive industry.
Thus CAD tools, or product modelling tools in general, become tools of co-ordination by
providing «co-ordination spaces», by restricting or, on the contrary, encouraging certain exchanges
or learning. To paraphrase Jean-Claude Moisdon it can be said that « the design tool has, like
Janus, two faces: one turned to conforming with the laws of physics and the other to co-ordination
and learning».
5 The limits of fieldwork as a method for instrumenting design situations
Through various experiences, we have demonstrated the interest of this research method and its
efficiency in grasping informal and hybrid design practices. We also stressed on the fact that co-
operation is mainly based on informal information sharing and knowledge creation, therefore the
tools required must address these issues by providing support for structuring sharing this
information. However, some limitations to the method can be noted and we want to discuss them
here.
The development of tools and methods involves longstanding collaborations between academics
and industrial partners. If it is rather easy to perform fieldwork and observation, it becomes more
tricky to actually implement modifications in the same time. Our challenge was to trigger and
witness the organisational changes, new tools appropriation… We have been quite successful in
observing and characterising design practices (especially collaborative), and in the proposition of
specifications for new organisations and tools. The work performed in the truck industry about the
development and industrialisation of forgings is a good example. However, organisations seem to
be more versatile than computer tools. During the period of our study, the company had to face to
two major restructuring. The first one saw the externalisation of the forging plant which was one of
our main partner, and during the second one the people had to bear the merging with a competitor,
leading to a major organisational and cultural change (which is still ongoing). Of course the general
results of the study are still valid, and do not depend on these local phenomenon, but what is to say
of the local specifications and the evolutions fostered by the researcher? How can we asses our
hypothesis, when other phenomenon impact our situation and create very different conditions?
Another big issue is the time span required for the development of software tools. On the case of
figure 1, we had the opportunity to develop a tool from the observation and analysis of an 18
month fieldwork. This tool, as a prototype was a success and met he requirements on the academic
- 12 -
side and on the industrial side. However, our project goes further on, and we aim at observing the
introduction an the appropriation of the tool within the company. Unfortunately, the level of
maturity of the application is note sufficient for a direct confrontation. In our case we had just a
demonstrator with the main function implemented, but which was far to be a full and robust
application with an attractive and intuitive user interface. On the other hand we had still a need to
confront the state-of-the-art of our application in order to gain a feed back and improve the
application. If a straightforward confrontation to the users might be unsuccessful, we need to
develop mid term confrontation protocol, such as specific experimental protocols. This point is
developed in the next section.
6 The research loop a long-term experience
Our proposition can be summarised easily by the figure below (see figure 3). This proposition is
very close to the method develop by the centre for design research at Stanford. The research loop is
composed of three iterative phases. The first phase is based on ethnographic fieldwork, as
described in this paper, the second one is more usual in our research community and consists in
specifying and developing computer applications, the third phase however is more unusual and
consists in using design experiments as a tool for in-house testing of the tools and methods by
creating artificial design situations. The challenge here is to create accurate enough situations in
order to be as close as possible to actual design situations (even if we know that these situations
will always be artificial), when on the other hand creating design situations that we can monitor
and eventually learn from.
Figure 3 : the research loop
At the moment we have experienced the three elements, but the studies have been rather
disconnected. The present paper is oriented toward the first part of the loop. But we also carried out
distributed design experiments (see figure 4), within the frame of a French research group (see
http://www.3s.hmg.inpg.fr/ci/GRACC/). A lot of work needs to be done yet for connecting the
three different phases of the loop.
Analyzing
Modeling
Ethnographic studies
Developing tools
« In house » testing
Design experiments
Analyzing
Modeling
Ethnographic studies
Developing tools
« In house » testing
Design experiments
- 13 -
Figure 4: experimental setting for a distributed design experiment
Further on, if we consider that the first phase may last one or two years, the second may also last
one year, and the third phase can also take a pretty long time regarding the technical problems, we
can imagine that our loop may last at least 5 to 6 years. Considering the speed of development of
the new information technologies, the challenge appears rather tricky. This point needs to be
discussed further on and our attempt here is to launch a debate on the opportunity of such kind of
research, when on the other side we know that empirical material are very valuable for
understanding and modelling the design activity.
7 Conclusion
Our empirical position brings us to consider design tools as instruments of a collective action,
increasingly geared towards collaborative work and therefore the joint design of products and
production processes. By studying intermediary objects, we place ourselves in an ideal position for
studying interactions with multiple product and organisational interfaces.
This original premise has produced a theoretical view of design to back up the current trend in
works on design, which may be classed as constructivist. However, at the end of the day one may
ask what this type of approach produces in concrete terms of tools and changes to practices. Our
ultimate goal is to continue to improve design process performance and product quality. It remains
for us to set up the indicators allowing us to estimate and measure performance using more precise
terms than simply lead time and cost, whose definition has never been challenged.
Bibliography
Blessing, L T M (1996) Comparison of design models proposed in prescriptive litterature, in. The
role of design in the shaping of technology, proc. from the COST A4 workshop, D. Vinck J. Perrin
ed.
Boujut, JF and Laureillard, P (2002) A cooperation framework for product-process integration in
engineering design, Design studies, Vol.23, N°6.
- 14 -
Boujut, JF and Jeantet, A (1998) dynamique et evolution des métiers dans la conception,
Conception de produits mécaniques, eds M Tollenaere., Hermes, Paris.
Buccarelli, L.L. (1988) An ethnographic perspective on engineering design, Design Studies, Vol. 9,
N°3.
Bucciarelli, L.L.(1994), Designing engineers, MIT press.
Cross, N.G., Christiaans, H.H.C.M. and Dorst, K., editors (1996) Analysing Design Activity
Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Finger, S., Konda, S L and Subrahmanian, E (1995) Concurrent design happens at the interfaces,
Artificial intelligence for engineering design analysis and manufacturing, 9, 89-99.
Hales, C. (1991) A1nalysis of the engineering design process in an industrial context, Gants Hill
Publications, second edition, Cambridge.
Hatchuel, A. (1994) Apprentissages collectifs et activités de conception, Revue Française de
Gestion, 99, 109-119.
Hatchuel, A. (1996) Coopération et conception collective, variété et crises des rapports de
prescription, Coopération et conception, eds Friedberg and de Terssac,. Octarès, Toulouse.
Henderson Kathryn (1999), "On Line and on Paper", MIT Press.
Jagodzinski, P., F. Reid and P. Culverhouse (2000) Ethnographic Approaches to the Study of
Engineering Design, Design Studies, Volume 21, Number 4.
Jeantet, A (1998) Les objets intermédiaires dans la conception. Eléments pour une sociologie des
processus de conception, Sociologie du travail, N°3, pp. 291-316.
Kaufmann, JP (1997) Le cœur à l'ouvrage : théorie de l'action ménagère, Nathan, Paris.
Legardeur J., Boujut J.F., Tiger (2002), “ID² a tool for sharing information and fostering
knowledge creation during innovative projects”, IDMME 2002 (International Conference on
Integrated Design), Clermont-Ferrand, 14-16 Mai 2002.
Latour B., (1993) La clef de Berlin et autres leçons d’un amateur de sciences, La Découverte ed.,
Paris.
Latour B., (1994) Une sociologie sans objet ? remarques sur l'interobjectivité, Sociologie du
travail, n°4, 587-607.
Moisdon J.C. and Weil, B. (1992) L’invention d’une voiture : un exercice de relations sociales ?
Gérer et comprendre Annales des mines.
Moisdon, JC. (1997) Introduction générale, du mode d’existence des outils de gestion, JC. Moisdon
ed., Seli Arslan, Paris.
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996) Engineering design a systematic approach, second edition, K.
Wallace ed., Springer.
Purcell, A T and Gero, J S (1998) Drawing and the design process, Design studies, 9 (4), 389-430.
- 15 -
Prudhomme, G. (1999) Le processus de conception de systèmes mécaniques et son enseignement,
Ph.D . Thesis, université Joseph Fourier Grenoble, France.
Rabardel, P. (1995) Les hommes et les technologies : approche cognitive des instruments
contemporains, Armand Collin, Paris.
Reddy, J M, Finger, S, Konda, S and Subrahmanian, E (1998) Design as building and reusing
artefact theories: understanding and supporting growth of design knowledge, The design
productivity debate, eds A H B Duffy, Springer -Verlag.
Star S. L. (1989), “The structure of Ill-structured Solutions: Heterogenous Problem Solving,
Boundary Objects and Distributed Artificial Intelligence”, In Distributed Artificial Intelligence,
Vol 2 Huhns and Gasser (Eds)
Vinck, D. ed. (1999) Ingénieurs au quotidien, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble (PUG),
Grenoble.
Vinck, D. and Jeantet, A. (1995) Mediating and commissioning objects in the Sociotechnical
Process of Product Design: a conceptual approach,. – Management and New Technology : Design,
Networks, Strategy, eds Vinck, Mclean and Saviotti , COST Social Sciences series, CCE, 111-129.
