Confrontation of viewpoints in a concurrent engineering process

TL;DR

This paper empirically analyzes how viewpoints are expressed and defended in industrial concurrent engineering meetings, highlighting the role of constraints and the diversity of interpretations among specialists.

Contribution

It provides new insights into the argumentative processes and assessment modes used in concurrent engineering evaluation meetings.

Findings

Arguments often rely on constraints to defend viewpoints

Specific assessment modes are identified and their combinations analyzed

Different specialists assign different meanings and importance to the same constraints

Abstract

We present an empirical study aimed at analysing the use of viewpoints in an industrial Concurrent Engineering context. Our focus is on the viewpoints expressed in the argumentative process taking place in evaluation meetings. Our results show that arguments enabling a viewpoint or proposal to be defended are often characterized by the use of constraints. One result involved the way in which the proposals for solutions are assessed during these meetings. We have revealed the existence of specific assessment modes in these meetings as well as their combination. Then, we show that, even if some constraints are apparently identically used by the different specialists involved in meetings, various meanings and weightings are associated with these constraints by these different specialists.