Design Projects

Concurrent Engineering http://cer.sagepub.com

ID2: A New Tool to Foster Innovation During the Early Phases of Design Projects J. Legardeur, J. F. Boujut and H. Tiger Concurrent Engineering 2003; 11; 235 DOI: 10.1177/106329303038575 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/3/235

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Concurrent Engineering can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cer.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cer.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

CONCURRENT ENGINEERING: Research and Applications ID2: A New Tool to Foster Innovation During the Early Phases of Design Projects J. Legardeur,1,2,* J. F. Boujut1 and H. Tiger3 1

2

Laboratory 3S, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble, Cedex 9, France

Laboratory LIPSI, Technopoˆle Izarbel, 64210 Bidart, France

3

Laboratory CRISTO, BP 47, 38040 Grenoble, Cedex 9, France

Abstract: Innovation has been extensively studied both in the social sciences and in the engineering design field. In this paper we present the specifications and features of a new tool designed to coordinate the development of new solutions during the early phases of design projects. It is the result of 18 months of fieldwork within industrial companies during which we played an active role in the development of an innovative solution. We were also able to closely analyze the activities of certain actors (in this case materials experts) who are often behind proposals for new materials and processes. The Innovation Development and Diffusion (ID2) tool is geared to help innovative solutions emerge, on the one hand, and consolidate these solutions by circulating them to the company’s different specialists on the other. The tool is based on a concepts/ criteria table enabling the viewpoints of the different actors involved to be summarized during the design phase. In this paper we shall show how functional features such as links, questions, alarms, information enquiries, and the possibilities for exchanging information between actors can contribute to developing solutions for these different professionals. We will also see how the ‘‘innovative’’ solution proposed can be developed further by comparing and assessing it in relation to a list of criteria which is gradually drawn up by the actors involved in the project. This tool is designed to be managed by a coordinating actor who may also, depending on his/her strategy, consolidate the proposal by involving an increasing number of people. Key Words: innovation, information sharing, knowledge dynamics, network of actors, collaborative engineering tool.

1. Introduction This paper presents the results of pluri-disciplinary research into the integration of new technologies in upstream design stages carried out jointly by engineering design researchers and industrial sociologists. Our approach is based on intervention research. In this case the researcher is involved in the design process as a designer and uses this position for his/her fieldwork. For over 12 months we took part in the development of a project within a large company specializing in industrial vehicles. This socio-technical study was the opportunity to closely observe the practices of actors faced with a proposal for an innovative technical solution (and backed up by an expert supplier). The technical aspect of the research project was related to the development of a new application using a composite material (SMC or sheet molding compound) which was not very well known and seldom used at this time in the design office

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

we were observing. On the other hand, we very quickly found that the design office was in a relatively stabilized situation and the material choice turned out to be more often than not in the favor of steel. The situation showed that the knowledge was not equally shared between the design office and the supplier, this latter being an expert in the design and production of composite parts. However, this imbalance did not just concern the technology since the supplier was also in the process of learning about the product to be developed, and the set of associated constraints. We were thus able to observe and characterize the difficulties involved in integrating a material, different from the ones traditionally used, in a context where the actors did not hold a minimum of shared knowledge, particularly on the SMC technology [1]. Following this study we felt it would be interesting to compare our own experience in the field with the system used by the customer when integrating new technologies. Indeed, we were able to extend our field study to include the material department of our partner by following and questioning specific actors, referred to as ‘‘materials experts’’ and in charge of putting forward new product/process alternatives to the design offices.

Volume 11 Number 3 September 2003 1063-293X/03/03 0235–10 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/106329303038575 Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 ß reserved. 2003 Sage © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights Not forPublications commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

235

236

J. LEGARDEUR ET AL.

This second study enabled us to precisely characterize the problem of innovation during the predesign stage, outlined in Section 2, and also helped to draw up a proposal for a new tool, which is what we shall look at in Sections 3 and 4.

2. The Role of Materials Experts in the Preparatory Phases of Innovative Projects 2.1 Fostering Product/Process Innovation It is today a well-known fact that innovation is a key issue in any company’s development and competitiveness. In this paper we have looked at this issue from an unusual angle, that of innovation in the upstream design phases of projects through product/ process integration. Traditionally, product/process integration is presented as an efficient way to plan ahead for the production stage and reinforce coordination between those who develop the product and those who design the process. This is why we talk about the simultaneous development of the product and manufacturing process since the process requirements have to be taken into account right from the start of the product design phases in a heterogeneous and distributed environment [2,3]. Because of this, new services, new methods, and new collaborative CAD systems [4–6] have been developed to meet these objectives. However, most of these systems are designed to be implemented in a relatively stabilized environment, i.e., in which the ‘‘product’’ actors and ‘‘process’’ actors both know more or less the production processes. In our field study, presented in [1], this was not the case as the situation observed was characterized by a considerable amount of uncertainty about the product as well as the process. Furthermore, given that in the predevelopment phases the technologies were not always defined, this uncertainty was accentuated by a lack of knowledge about the process (SMC) from the ‘‘product’’ actors (i.e., the design office of the company specializing in industrial vehicles). As a matter of fact, the SMC technology is not new; it has been industrially transformed for more than 30 years; in that sense it is not an innovation. Nevertheless the material itself and its related manufacturing technology has a particular interest in our case: it is rather unknown and poorly employed in the design office. Furthermore the SMC technology is victim of persistent prejudices and disables many design habits and rules-of-thumb based on the knowledge of the manufacturing processes of steel parts. In our context, designing an industrial composite solution involves new actors, new practices and finally leads to knowledge creation. All these characteristics led

us to consider we are faced with an innovative process. And yet, it is during these phases in particular that innovative technological choices can be made from a set of several alternatives. But exploring new product/ process alternatives at this stage becomes very difficult and often off-putting as the actors find themselves devoid of knowledge in certain areas when traditional solutions are already relatively stable and advanced. However, we believe that the development and product/ process integration of new materials during the upstream phases is a real vector of innovation just as innovation can emerge from new uses or new needs. We underline that looking ahead to new technologies is a way of finding new compromises and new product/ process concepts which can open the way to innovative product alternatives. We are therefore looking to develop an additional channel for innovation: that of product/process innovation.

2.2 Conditions for Product/Process Innovation An analysis of the innovative development cases that we were able to follow shows that product/process innovation can only move forward if several dimensions have been taken into account. Indeed, we observed that in situations where a new material is being introduced, the pros and cons of the proposed technology are not enough in themselves to get a new project accepted. The process of adopting or rejecting a new material is part of a more complex process that goes beyond simply confronting different technologies. We have thus chosen three main dimensions to characterize product/ process innovation and the introduction of new technologies. 2.2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSION: STRUCTURAL CHANGES THROUGH ACTOR NETWORKING In product/process innovation situations, the goal of design work above all consists in managing a certain amount of tension between a ‘‘qualification’’ (or acceptance) system linked to the new materials set up by the promoters of a new solution, and a ‘‘de-qualification’’ (or rejection) system implemented by the promoters of a more routine-based solution. This opposition, which can also be found in [7] concerning innovation and organization, to a certain extent destabilizes the systems traditionally set up. In particular, we noticed that the design group is often called into question and finds itself faced with the need to reconfigure the networks of actors. Indeed, we underline that the dynamics of design within the framework of product/process innovation require a new network of skills to be set up and developed for the actors to deal with a totally new set of problems.

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Innovation Development and Diffusion Tool

2.2.2 DIMENSION RELATING TO THE CREATION AND SHARING OF KNOWLEDGE There can be no product/process innovation that does not involve the creation and sharing of knowledge. In our case, introducing a new technology leads most actors on the side of the design office to discover the material and the process. This double novelty is characterized by the customer design office’s lack of knowledge about the technical and economic aspects of the process and explains the tensions which can get in the way of and put a stop to these innovative projects. In this context, using a new technology in design involves developing new knowledge, which has to be updated and discussed throughout the network and this involves setting up real codevelopment with the expert supplier. However, few organizations had formal procedures in place for the management of supplier information [5]. In that case, the goal is therefore to organize the emergence and confrontation of know-how and practices on the product and process. 2.2.3 INSTRUMENTAL DIMENSION THROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS When new know-how is emerging and new actors are being introduced, the product assessment and qualification systems are inevitably called into question. Indeed, for more routine-like projects, the ‘‘map’’ of actors involved and the main criteria used are defined and stabilized fairly quickly. However, in the case of innovative projects, we saw that this map is very unstable with, notably, the progressive arrival of new actors, bringing new assessment criteria with them at different stages in the project. We were able to observe the limits of the usual assessment systems with respect to the technical aspects (choice of solutions, calculations, simulations, etc.) and the economic aspects (estimates, quotes). These systems must therefore be modified and completed in order to back up the assessment grids to which these new criteria are added taking into account that such criteria is inherently unstable in the case of any innovative project. 2.2.4 PREDEVELOPMENTS OUTSIDE OF PROJECTS: THE CONCEPT OF PREPARATORY PHASES Following our field study concerning innovative development, we were able to extend our research in the field by accompanying actors playing very specific and strategic roles in product/process innovation, i.e., the materials experts. Indeed, these people sometimes have to work during preproject periods, often with the help of several other actors, in order to explore, imagine and assess alternatives to the potential applications of a new idea or a new concept. Ideas for associating technology and application are thus developed during

237

periods of negotiation and research, which are often informal and noncontractual and which are referred to as the preparatory phases. At this level the official project has not been launched and the goal of these phases is first of all to be able to bring together a certain amount of data and information in order to justify and consolidate the idea put forward creating a configuration in which it is possible to launch a project. During these periods, the materials experts research the technical, economic, strategic elements and so on, relating to their new idea in order to define a ‘‘problematic area’’. This ‘‘problematic area’’ will be progressively analyzed by the materials expert in relation to the capacities and characteristics of the new technology. This will be gradually tested with respect to the requirements and characteristics of the existing product and processes. The preparatory data help to provide the first data that will go some way to rationalizing the decision to launch a new project by providing the elements for comparing the alternatives available. This means that even if these phases are not clearly identified today in the development process traditionally presented by companies, they nevertheless constitute in themselves a real design work which is necessary in the development of innovative solutions. Furthermore, according to our hypothesis the efficiency of this preparatory phase work could be increased if the right tooling was used. Our work therefore consists in providing a tool for these preparatory phases.

3. A New Tool for Viewpoints Synthesis and Information Sharing: ID2 (Innovation Development & Diffusion) 3.1 Target Objectives Since our analyses concern the development of innovative projects and the practices of materials experts they show up a certain lack of tools offering help during these preparatory phases. This is why we have developed a tool named ID2 (Innovation Development & Diffusion) designed to be used in a given structure with a view to improving the following four points [8]: . . . .

Setting up a network of actors, Distributing information, Providing a project guide, Learning and capitalizing on experience during the project.

One of the main difficulties is to take into account the different strategies used by actors during the preparatory phases and generally in the upstream phases of a project. The tool we are offering is a tool designed to be used mainly by the actor that is promoting the innovative solution (the coordinating actor) within

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

238

J. LEGARDEUR ET AL.

the framework of the material expert’s activity. However, the widely diffuse nature of the design activity [9] and the need to mobilize a wide variety of skills during the prospective phases has led us to propose a tool that is open to other participants operating in the network. In this way, Internet technology opens up another domain for building a new design tool environment [10,11,15]. The general objective of this tool is to propose a support to the diffusion of innovation within the organization. More precisely we propose a tool adapted to the design organization and that is dedicated to supporting the strategy of the coordinating actor in order to foster the industrialization of a new concept. We think that our tool is complementary to creativity tools supporting creativity methods such as TRIZ [12] for example. ID2 is more oriented toward the synthesis and the sharing of information about the technology and the product and provides a basis for product/ process developments by proposing a platform for negotiation. To this aim we propose a tool to provide the coordinating actor with assistance in his/her strategy by taking into account the different points of view, rationale and reasoning of the other actors involved. Using such a tool the coordinator can define project access rights for the different actors in the company (and, if necessary, for the actors in external companies). Each participant must give his/her identity before being able to consult and act on the projects in the database for which he/she has been given authorized access by the coordinator. Thus, following the identification procedure all information entered is linked to the author’s name. However, any new information must be validated by the coordinating actor before being entered in the data base. The coordinator must check each declared participant’s access by defining the read accesses to the project for all information or just a certain number of specific points. The coordinator also checks the modifications put forward by the actors by validating or putting on hold information entered by the other project participants.

3.2 The Concepts/Criteria Table (CCT) Many empirical works have highlighted the complexity of the design interactions during a project, and the necessity for developing supports at the interfaces between participants of different fields [13]. During the preparatory phases the coordinating actor must work at the interface between various fields of competencies (design, engineering, marketing, . . . ). We propose to formalize the various points of view in a comparative table called Concepts/Criteria Table (CCT), detailing

the different design alternatives. The ID2 tool is mainly based on this table which compares the alternative solutions (presented in each column) together with the assessment criteria (presented in each rows). Figure 1 below gives an example of this. The different solutions and propositions are described and discussed using specific criteria brought by the different actors who have been consulted by the material expert. The various alternatives can then be compared to a reference (the existing solution) and the criteria can also be discussed. We propose to summarize the information from the different areas of expertise (engineering and industrial design, marketing, manufacture, etc.) in the concepts/ criteria table so that all the participants can see the different elements called into play by the actors. In this table, the first column is for the reference solution, which is often the existing solution. The other columns are for the different alternatives (called concepts) which are proposed throughout the development phase. In order that the different points of view and areas of expertise can be compared, the idea is to provide a shared support tool enabling each actor to specify and explain his/her assessment criteria for the solutions. Thus, the structure of the table is dynamic and each actor can put forward new criteria (and thus new rows) as the project progresses. The criteria and information are therefore open to public viewing and discussion throughout the network. We propose to summarize the different contacts on a ‘‘map of the network’’ in order to mutually inform the actors that have been involved directly or indirectly in the preparatory phase. Moreover, any cell of the table is connected to the actor that has evaluated the criteria. Thereby, the actions regarding any aspects of the product can be discussed between the participants. The different communication supports between the actors proposed in the tool facilitate the propagation of the information within the network. The CCT is structured so that the different boxes can be gradually completed. The most recent information is displayed in each box of the table while previous information given by the different participants is stored in a tree structure (see lower part of Figure 2). Furthermore, the previous states of the TCC can be accessed using a case history and recalled for checking, explaining, or justifying some of the project decisions. More over, we propose a structure with different levels of use so that actors can formulate information simply (a value, an appraisal, a word, etc.) until this information has a more complete specification (an exhaustive report). In this way each box in the table can be linked to additional elements (texts, images, files enclosed) providing a broader description of and wider documentation on the solutions. For example, in Figure 3 we can see additional data attached to the box

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Innovation Development and Diffusion Tool

239

Figure 1. An example of a blank CCT.

Figure 2. Tree structure for one item of information.

for the alternative ‘‘Rolled system without break device’’. The result of this structure is a summary tool giving access to different write and read levels as we shall see in what follows.

The interest of the CCT is to connect a given field of competency (marketing, production . . .) to the criteria used to evaluate the solutions. A debate can occur within the network and the weight of the different

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

240

J. LEGARDEUR ET AL.

Figure 3. Additional data about an alternative.

criteria can be negotiated. In this case, the tool acts as a support to foster interactions and compromises at the interfaces among all the participants. 3.3 Annotations Good communication and knowledge sharing infrastructure are essential parts in concurrent engineering for linking people, ideas, specifications, processing, and feedback [10]. We have seen that the design situations where partners were not sharing enough common knowledge, and more especially during the preparatory phases, often leads to communication and translation difficulties between the different fields of expertise and participants involved. The concepts/ criteria table provides a multiview support where each actor can react, comment on and request explanations with regard to any aspect of the project (see Figure 4). One of the key features of this tool is the possibility of storing and sorting the results of different exchanges between project participants which helps to present the information in a global and structured way. The tool thus provides an instrumental support to guide the interactions between different specialists via

four annotation modes: links, alarms, questions, and information enquiries. . The links (shown by connecting lines on the CCT in Figure 4) allow actors to link two dependent pieces of information, whose dependency is not obvious and is worth being underlined. . The warnings (shown by the W icons on the CCT in Figure 4) indicate an actor’s remark about a specific point. . The questions (shown by the Q icons in the CCT in Figure 4) show the need to look for information about a specific point and thus also help to mark the degree of uncertainty surrounding the solution. . The information enquiries (shown by the information icons (dI ) in the CCT in Figure 4) allow actors to express their interest in a specific point of the project.

Our aim is to propose a dynamic support for the constraints propagation where the actors can modify these annotations according to the unpredictable context of project developments. Every link, question or warning can be discussed and completed by various actors. The result of this interaction is synthesized in

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Innovation Development and Diffusion Tool

241

Figure 4. Examples of links, alarms, questions, and information enquiries.

a thread. The CCT appears as a multi-actor forum of the preparatory phase where we propose to store two levels of information: information concerning technical solutions (blueprints, price estimations, material data, etc.) and information concerning design rationale (remarks on design decisions, initial context of the project, different possible choices). 4. Design with ID2 In this part we will give an example of a possible scenario for using this tool in a specific case. To do this we will give a detailed description of a basic sequence between three actors and the project coordinator. We have seen that the tool is structured to encourage actors to formulate and explain their own criteria thus facilitating discussion within the network. Thus, for example, when the manufacturing expert is asked by the project coordinator to carry out a feasibility study for the new solution, he/she can draw attention to an

assembly problem linked to the proposed material and issue a warning to indicate that it is impossible to assemble the ‘‘innovative’’ solution in place of the former solution (Figure 4). Following these new elements the buyer, who had already given a first estimation for the solution, can create a link to specify that his/her estimation will no longer be valid if the product has to be modified in line with the assembly solution. Following this exchange, the coordinator can ask the design actor, who had already assessed the new solution, to give the fastening possibilities to adapt the solution to the current assembly. This issue may remain pending due to the designer’s lack of knowledge. The coordinator can then decide to consult the supplier informally about this point and enter the answer. If the question remains pending, this means that further developments have to be pursued to find an answer to the problem. Through this simple example of interactions we can see how the solution can be developed following the exchanges between actors. Each new actor adds his or

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

242

J. LEGARDEUR ET AL.

Figure 5. Examples of data from the ‘‘technology watch’’ module.

her vision of the solution, which may be positive, neutral, or negative, resulting in a certain number of assessment criteria. The innovation is the result of an adaptation and compromise building process [15], the success of which depends on the actors who will be progressively involved in the design procedure [14]. Thus, the ID2 tool does not aim to offer help in looking for new ideas but encourages innovation by distributing information about the solution and putting it to the test. However, during earlier phases of an innovative project, one of the difficulties is to legitimate a technology in a new field of application and enrol the various actors. For this purpose, ID2 integrates a ‘‘technology watch’’ module where examples of other applications are shown (see Figure 5). It can be either products developed by competitors, suppliers, or in other industries. Thereby, the participants are informed of existing industrial applications that can generate new ideas for potential applications and legitimate the current developments.

5. Conclusion The tool ID2 provides all the enrolled actors with the different views of the project enabling them to learn

about the specialized field of the other actors. Collective learning processes [16] are very important in design and especially when a new material is being introduced. They help to create shared knowledge thus encouraging cooperation mechanisms for future projects. With ID2, the coordinating actor is no longer the only one to benefit from the new knowledge built into the action. For example, questions raised by actors on certain specific points (e.g. can the proposed material be recycled?) can lead to discussions (technical, economic, strategic, etc.) and possibly provide answers. This new information can then be shared and reused by the network of actors and possibly extended to the rest of the company. The different tree structures concerning the information, links, questions and warnings make it possible to retrace the history of exchanges between actors and discussions which these may have led to. The tool goes some way to memorizing key arguments, the names of actors involved and the context giving rise to the choices made on the project. We believe that showing these exchanges between different specialists creates a support which can improve the cooperation and learning of actors in design situations. When a new technology is introduced, the capacity to reuse former design experience and, above all, mobilize available

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Innovation Development and Diffusion Tool

company and supplier skills are often strategic elements that encourage the process of innovation. The Innovation Development and Diffusion tool is now installed and tested on pilot projects within our industrial partners and one design experiment using this tool is in progress at the laboratory 3S at Grenoble. Acknowledgment We would like to thank our industrial partners and the Re´gion Rhoˆne-Alpes for the financial and technical support they provided to this research.

References 1. Legardeur, J., Boujut, J-F. and Tiger, H. (2000). Innovating in a Routine Design Process – Empirical Study of an Industrial Situation, International Conference on Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering (IDMME’ 2000), Montreal, May 16–19. 2. Prasad, B. (1996). Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, Vol. 1, Integrated Product and Process Organization, Prentice Hall PTR. 3. Prasad, B. (1997). Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, Vol. 2, Integrated Product Development, Prentice Hall PTR. 4. Chang, H.C., Lu, W.F. and Liu, X.F. (1999). WWW-based Collaborative System for Integrated Design and Manufacturing, Journal of Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, 7(4): 319–334. 5. Huang, G.Q., Huang, J. and Mak, K.L. (2000). Early Supplier Involvement in New Product Development on the Internet: Implementation Perspectives, Journal of Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, 8(1): 40–49. 6. Zhuang, Y., Chen, L. and Venter, R. (2000). CyberEye: an Internet-enabled Environment to Support Collaborative Design, Journal of Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, 8(3): 213–229. 7. Alter, N. (1993). Innovation et organisation : deux le´gitimite´s en concurrence, Revue franc¸aise de sociologie, avril/juin, pp. 175–196. 8. Legardeur, J., Boujut, J.-F. and Tiger, H. (2001). An Interface Tool for Driving Innovation during Preparatory Phases: Application in the Design of Composite Parts, International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’01), Glasgow, August 21–23. 9. Garro, O., Brissaud, D. and Tichkiewitch, S. (1996). Toward a Design Cooperative System, International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP’96), June 12–14, pp. 375–390. 10. Tay, E.H.F., and Ming, C. (2001). A Shared Multi-media Design Environment for Concurrent Engineering over the Internet, Journal of Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, 9(1): 55–63. 11. Lee, J.Y., Kim, H. and Kim, K. (2001). A Webenabled Approach to Feature-based Modeling in a Distributed and Collaborative Design Environment, Journal of Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, 9(1): 74–87.

243

12. Altshuller, G. (1999). TRIZ The Innovation Algorithm; Aystematic Innovation and Technical Creativity, Translated by Shulyak, Lev and Rodman, Steven, Technical Innovation Center Inc., Worcester, MA. 13. Finger, S., Konda, S. and Subrahmanian, E. (1995). Concurrent Design Happens at the Interfaces, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 95(9): 89–99. 14. Akrich, M., Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1988). A quoi tient le succe`s des innovations: l’art de l’inte´ressement, l’art de choisir les bons porte-parole. Annales des Mines Se´rie Ge´rer et Comprendre, no. 11, 12. 15. Prasad, B., Wang, F. and Deng, J. (1997). Towards A Computer-supported Cooperative Environment for Concurrent Engineering, Journal of Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application, 5(3): 233–252. 16. Hatchuel, A. (1994). Apprentissages collectifs et activite´s de conception, Revue Franc¸aise de Gestion, juin/juillet/ aouˆt, pp. 109–119.

J. Legardeur Dr. Je´re´my Legardeur is Lecturer at the Engineering School ESTIA ‘‘Ecole Supe´rieure des Technologies Industrielles Avance´es’’. He graduated from the Montpellier University in 1997 and earned his PhD from the INPG ‘‘Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble’’ in 2001. His research interest is focused on the problems of methods and tools to foster innovation in design phases. His work is based both on an observation/participation of industrial design situation and the development of new computer tools to foster interaction and coordination between actors in integrated design and concurrent engineering. e-mail: [email protected]

J. F. Boujut Dr. J. F. Boujut is Professor at the School of Industrial Engineering of the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble. He graduated from the Ecole Normale Supe´rieure de Cachan in 1989 and earned his PhD in 1993 and his ‘‘habilitation’’ in 2001. Since then, he has conducted extensive research in engineering design including empirical studies. His research mainly focuses on informal processes and

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

244

J. LEGARDEUR ET AL.

informal information structuring. Developing tools and methods for supporting distant teamwork and collaborative engineering is a key issue for the global performance of the design process. For more than ten years J.F. Boujut has developed empirical research involving interdisciplinary work with social scientists and cognitive psychologists in order to understand design cooperation and the collective aspects of design. From this work a research methodology has been developed. At the educational level, J.F. Boujut also works for developing teaching methods for addressing collaborative skills at the graduate and undergraduate level. e-mail: [email protected].

H. Tiger Henri Tiger is a Research Engineer of the Sociological Research Center of Grenoble (CRISTO). He is currently the Director of the Ecole Nationale Supe´rieure de Ge´nie Industriel (ENSGI), the industrial and management engineering school at Grenoble. Tiger’s research interests include innovation deployment, industrial organization, and recycling aspects in concurrent engineering. e-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded from http://cer.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.