Negotiation in collaborative assessment of design solutions: an empirical study on a Concurrent Engineering process

TL;DR

This study analyzes argumentation and negotiation processes in collaborative design meetings within a concurrent engineering context, identifying three main assessment modes and their argument types through empirical analysis.

Contribution

It provides an empirical analysis of negotiation modes and argumentation processes in collaborative design meetings, highlighting three main assessment modes in concurrent engineering.

Findings

Identified three main assessment modes: analytical, comparative, and analogical.

Different argument types are used within each assessment mode.

Revealed a typical temporal negotiation process during meetings.

Abstract

In Concurrent engineering, design solutions are not only produced by individuals specialized in a given field. Due to the team nature of the design activity, solutions are negotiated. Our objective is to analyse the argumentation processes leading to these negotiated solutions. These processes take place in the meetings which group together specialists with a co-design aim. We conducted cognitive ergonomics research work during the definition phase of an aeronautical design project in which the participants work in Concurrent Engineering. We recorded, retranscribed and analysed 7 multi-speciality meetings. These meetings were organised, as needed, to assess the integration of the solutions of each speciality into a global solution. We found that there are three main design proposal assessment modes which can be combined in these meetings: (a) analytical assessment mode, (b) comparative assessment mode (c) analogical assessment mode. Within these assessment modes, different types of arguments are used. Furthermore we found a typical temporal negotiation process.