Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Research on Digital Design and Innovation: New Directions
Jennifer Whyte, Sunila Lobo, Carmel Lindkvist, Suha Jaradat, Sonja Oliveira, Geyang Guo,
Energy Maradza, Angelos Stasis.
DIRC Working Paper 4
version 1.1
30 March 2012
Please cite as:
Whyte, J., Lobo, S., Lindkvist, C., Jaradat, S., Oliveira, S., Guo, G., Maradza, E., Stasis, A.
(2012) Research on Digital Design and Innovation Research: New Directions. DIRC Working
Paper 4 (http://www.reading.ac.uk/designinnovation/) version 1.0
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Research on Digital Design and Innovation: New Directions
Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2 Digital design interfaces: overview of the research trajectory ............................................................. 4
2.1 Science of design ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Playful engineering ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Open innovation ........................................................................................................................... 7
3 Recent findings ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Relationships between projects and technologies ....................................................................... 9
3.2 New understandings of the digital infrastructure for delivery ................................................... 10
3.3 Data handovers ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.1 Data handover from design to construction ...................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Data handover from design to operations .......................................................................... 11
4 Ongoing work ...................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Interfaces within design .............................................................................................................. 12
4.1.1 Professional relations in BIM-enabled projects .................................................................. 12
4.1.2 Sustainable design as institutional work ............................................................................. 12
4.2 Interfaces between different digital approaches to design ........................................................ 13
4.2.1 Social media in construction firm ....................................................................................... 13
4.2.2 Standards development for BIM ......................................................................................... 14
4.3 Interfaces between design and delivery ..................................................................................... 14
4.3.1 Data and information management in Crossrail ................................................................. 14
5 Research directions and opportunities ............................................................................................... 15
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 16
About the team ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Research on Digital Design and Innovation: New Directions
Abstract
As the means of production become increasingly digitally-mediated, studies are starting to
examine how a digital infrastructure for delivery shapes design and innovation practice.
Integrated software systems, such as building information modelling (BIM), are becoming widely
used across industry, and their use is encouraged in international policy making, such as the UK
government’s construction strategy, and plan for implementing BIM in public procurement. The
Design Innovation Research Centre is an exploration group, set up with a vision of a new mode
of design in the digital economy. This working paper reviews its research agenda and
achievements in studying design in internationally-leading building and infrastructure projects,
such as High Speed 1; London 2012 Olympics and Crossrail, and harnessing the insights to
develop the next generation of tools and methods. It articulates the research strategy that guides
its ongoing work, in which the team is working with leading practice, developing a distinctive
research focus on digital design interfaces, and innovation across these interfaces to deliver
value to clients. These new directions in research on digital design and innovation, which
examine the interfaces within design processes; and over time, between the design, construction
and operation of buildings and infrastructure, have wider implications for engineering,
innovation and management research and practice in complex industries.
Keywords: digital design; innovation; integrated software; BIM.
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
1 Introduction
Computer use changes how new products, processes and services are conceived and
developed. One starting point for understanding these changes is a tradition of research on
engineering design and coordination practices, within which material artifacts are observed to
play a significant role in the work of competent practitioners (Thomas 1994; Henderson 1999;
Gherardi and Nicolini 2000; Bailey, Leonardi et al. 2010). Informed by a practice perspective,
this work does not derive prescriptions for engineering practice based on a set of theoretical
assumptions about how practitioners accomplish their work. Rather it seeks to empirically study
the work practices of competent designers and engineers as the basis of developing new
understandings and tools.
As the means of production become increasingly digitally-mediated, our studies, which are
conducted within this tradition, have started to describe a digital infrastructure for delivery
(Whyte and Lobo 2010), and to examine how it shapes design and innovation practice. This
work has practical importance as integrated software system systems, such as building
information modelling (BIM), are becoming widely used across industry, and as their use is
encouraged in international policy making, such as the UK government‟s construction strategy,
and plan for implementing BIM in public procurement. New directions in research on digital
design and innovation also have wider implications for researchers in engineering, innovation
and management and for practitioners in complex industries.
This working paper reviews the research agenda and achievements of the Design
Innovation Research Centre (http://www.reading.ac.uk/designinnovation) an exploration group,
set up with a vision of a new mode of design in the digital economy. It articulates the research
strategy and new directions, and their wider implications. Section 2 outlines the major themes
that run through the Centre‟s work. Section 3 gives an overview of recent findings. Section 4
outlines ongoing work and Section 5 highlights new research directions and opportunities.
2 Digital design interfaces: overview of the research trajectory
The idea of a digital infrastructure for delivery builds on research on coordination practices
within which ideas of „boundary‟ (Star and Griesemer 1989; Henderson 1991; Carlile 2002) or
„epistemic‟ (Rheinberger 1997; Knorr Cetina 1999; Miettinen and Virkkunen 2005; Ewenstein
and Whyte 2009) objects have been mobilised to articulate how material artifacts are
respectively used in coordination and themselves changed and updated in knowledge
development. Objects often do not exist in isolation, and to theorise the connections of systems
of objects we draw in particular on the work of Bowker and Star (1999) on classification and on
Edwards (2007; 2009) on infrastructure. Thus we conceive of the digital infrastructure of
delivery (Whyte 2010; Whyte and Lobo 2010) as consisting of:
a) repositories or storage technologies,
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
b) standards for structuring and storing design data,
c) transformational technologies for manipulating it, and
d) representations or models.
In the contexts that we study there is significant management attention to compliance with
workflows and structured processes associated with digital design work, and to reducing the
workarounds that use email and social media to accomplish tasks, the increasing pervasiveness
and use of these.
The idea of „digital design interfaces‟ draws attention to coordination activities across a
range of interfaces, such as those:
within design, between knowledge workers, roles and professions involved in both
distributed and collocated settings;
across time, between teams as handovers occur over time, between design and
construction, and design and operations;
between digital and physical, the calibration of asset information and physical
infrastructure in an ongoing process of evaluating validity, and updating representations;
and
across digital approaches, between integrated software solutions (e.g, ERP, BIM, Social
media, GIS) and their related understandings and forms of organizing design activities.
Across these digital design interfaces there are questions raised about the validity, completeness,
maturity, and level of development of the data in sets of open shareable asset information.
As integrated software solutions enable more radical integration of processes, practices that
have not previously been in contact with one another, and are differently institutionalized,
become juxtaposed. For example the facilities management role starts to become considered in
relation to the role of the building designer, though these professional identities start from
fundamentally different assumptions about what a building is, and how it is best conceptualized.
This has consequences for data handover and tools.
Research within the Centre is exploring „digital design interfaces‟, where each research
project spans across the three themes of the Centre, which are associated with different research
methods. The first, „science of design‟, involves the research out in the field alongside engineers
and designers working on major projects. The second, „playful engineering‟, brings that learning
back into the laboratory where we develop novel engineering solutions off-line from the critical
path of delivery on major project. The third, „open innovation‟, involves seeing the Centre as a
hub in an open innovation network using a digital and physical infrastructure to connect and
collaborate with leading digital economy researchers and practitioners across the globe for the
benefit of UK industry.
2.1 Science of design
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Much research on engineering design has sought to make design itself more like science.
This work has had only limited success because many real-world problems that professional
engineers address are „wicked‟ (Rittel and Webber 1973) in nature: they involve incomplete,
contradictory and changing requirements. They are too complex, have too many stakeholders,
and too many conflicting parameters for decomposition and complete mathematical analysis.
They demand socio-technical rather than purely technical solutions.
The other approach is to make the study of design more scientific. As the natural scientist
observes, measures and records the world, so in a design science, scholars can observe, measure
and record design practices and their outcomes. Schön (1983) shows how practitioners make
design decisions by engaging in local forms of inquiry as there is rarely the time or possibility of
complete rational analysis. Recent studies develop instrumentation for studying design activities
and expertise within professional design and engineering practice (Cooper, Aouad et al. 2005;
Inns 2007; Whyte, Ewenstein et al. 2008), validating and extending Schön‟s contribution, which
was based on studies in the design studio.
The Centre builds on these studies and, as part of the tradition of work on engineering
design and coordination practices, noted at the beginning, it sets out an ambitious agenda for
extending the scientific study of design. We build on a set of protocols to conduct interpretive
research in the field, and use a range of analysis techniques to synthesise across studies and
develop a repository of internationally leading practice.
2.2 Playful engineering
Visualization is central to design. The word „de.sign‟ comes from the Latin „designare‟, to
mark out, or devise and Simon argues that: ‘Solving a problem simply means representing it so
as to make the solution transparent’ (Simon 1969: 132). The gaming and entertainment
industries in particular are pioneering new visual tools and interfaces. Just as the Wii enables
more intuitive interaction with games and sports, so these emerging technologies can bring 3D
digital design models out from behind the 2D screen. Augmented reality (Feiner, MacIntyre et al.
1997) and multi-touch sensor displays (Han 2006) are technologies that are becoming viable for
use in the design industries. Yet such advanced visualization technologies only have value when
they become embedded into wider practices (Whyte 2002).
Hence in engineering research, understandings from this scientific study of design become
important in informing the next generation of solutions. Design comes into view as a functional
expertise or specialism located between, and brokering or bridging across, the crafts of making
and the experiences of using. It is associated with the work of professional actors, such as
architects and engineers. As design involves increasingly specialised and expert roles, we face
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
new challenges of getting feedback on the experience and performance of buildings and
infrastructures in use and making this visible at the design stage.
There is an opportunity to develop models that visually combine or overlay differently
structured data, such as engineering analyses of the whole design; empirical data collected from
scanning and sensor technology; and data from manufacturers on supply-chains, components and
logistics. Through more intuitive interfaces, there is also the potential to democratise innovation,
for example enabling end-users to navigate a model of their building online making choices
about how to evacuate in case of fire, with the data used to calibrate and improve existing
algorithms for simulating people movement. Such visualizations will make digital design models
more accessible in conversations between designers, manufacturers, assemblers, clients and
users. This research has started to develop the understandings required to build robust tools for
understanding the options available in design processes (e.g. Whyte, Zhou et al. 2012).
2.3 Open innovation
The distributed nature of technological opportunities and challenges in digitally-enabled
engineering mean that the closed research laboratories of the mid-20th century are less well
adapted to delivering robust solutions than open and networked forms of laboratory. Drawing on
recent research on open innovation (Chesbrough 2003), the Centre is a new kind of engineering
laboratory, not with an inward focus, but as the hub of intellectual activity, spanning across
disciplines with a virtual and physical presence and nodes in both university and industry.
A range of stakeholders are invited to test the validity of new tools and help us understand
their application, generalizability and limitations (see Figure 1).
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Figure 1: Interactions with stakeholders
In the open laboratory, public participation is treated as matter of research validity and not
just a mechanism for dissemination as broad engagement is seen as important in contextualising
and understanding the role of socio-technical solutions (Stirling 1999). New technologies and
ideas may be developed by research users before entering the laboratory, they may be developed
collaboratively or they may be used and tested in both their developmental and final forms. We
do this through a range of mechanisms, which include hosting physical and virtual workshop
sessions in which the team models and visualizes the complex problems that are faced by our
industrial collaborators and interactively play with various scenarios that result.
3 Recent findings
The team has derived lessons from studies of practices in major clients and in the delivery
of projects such as Heathrow Terminal 5; High Speed 1; London 2012 Olympics and Crossrail.
The research has tracked the development of the use of integrated software packages as a „digital
infrastructure for project delivery‟, across projects such as Heathrow Terminal 5 (Harty and
Whyte 2010), and road and railway projects (Whyte and Lobo 2010). Completed field studies
from which the team has derived research findings include those shown in Table 1:
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Table 1: Completed field studies and major projects studied by the research team
3.1 Relationships between projects and technologies
From the mid-1950s, the histories of these domains have been intertwined as developments in
one field have propagated innovations in others. Early projects, such as the SAGE defence
project in the USA in which project management techniques were developed, were also
important in the development of hardware and software industries (Whyte and Levitt 2011).
Project management practices developed in the 1950s and 1960s continue to be used in the
coordination of large building and infrastructure projects. Yet, there are important ways in which
changes in information technology begins to break the mould of these approaches (Whyte and
Levitt 2011) as more screen real-estate becomes available; more interactions are digitally-
mediated; and work-practices become globally distributed (see Figure 2). In the book chapter
Whyte and Levitt (2011) use the example of the 2000s NASA “Team X” digital mission design
environment adapted to Integrated Concurrent Engineering of construction projects at CIFE.
Below the Figure shows, using an example from the Centre, how in 2012 these practices of
visualizing data are ubiquitous across research and practice contexts.
Project Data collected Key study characteristics
Findings Outputs:
M6 Toll 27 interviews; pre-interview questionnaires; observation on-site; archival data; access to internal company extranet
Study of technology use through life
Increasingly integrated digital infrastructures for delivery. Difficulties of transferring lessons from innovative projects.
1 journal publication, 1 industry output in Arup Research Review, 4 conference papers, 1 teaching case thus far.
CTRL
Safelink
Tottenham court road station
22 interviews; observation; access to documentation
2 separate studies across design and construction
emerging hybrid practices present new opportunities and challenges for managing project delivery
1 journal paper; and 1 paper under review
London 2012 Olympics
16 interviews; 6 hours of research project meetings; access to internal guidance documentation and training
Practices of data handover
Importance of contracts and commercial incentives; the client and practices of handover to operations.
Learning legacy report; 1 paper forthcoming; 2 journal papers under review.
Velodrome
Stadium
Structures Bridges, Highway
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
1950s Whirlwind console room, which was used
in project SAGE
2012 Design Innovation Research Centre –
where many internal conversations are digitally,
and visually mediated
Figure 2: Images of project work using digital technologiesi
3.2 New understandings of the digital infrastructure for delivery
In contrast to existing literatures on coordination we have found that the digital
infrastructure for delivery is not only for cooperation across engineering disciplines but it also a
management tool, used for accountability and control (Whyte and Lobo 2010). This digital
infrastructure involves repositories and standards as well as the transformational technologies
(the computer aided design, visualization and simulation tools used to manipulate the data) and
the models and representations themselves. Our working understanding is that these solutions on
large projects are bureaucratic, in the sense that they rely on files and documents, rather than
professional judgement.
In the two years since the foundation of the Centre, the growth of remote devices, smart
phones, tablets has become more pervasive, and the interaction between integrated digital models
and social media opens up new ways to make use of technologies in building and infrastructure
projects (see Figure 3).
Integrated digital models
Transformational Technologies
Standards
Repositories
Remote
devices
Social media
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Figure 3: Simplified diagram showing relationships between different digital technologies that form the
digital infrastructure for the delivery of physical infrastructure
Our working understandings draw on the distinctions that are made in organizational
theory between loose coupling and tight coupling, where loose coupling paradoxically combines
connection and autonomy (Orton and Weick 1990). Some authors see loose coupling as the
functionality of loose linkages, which may be tightened to improve control but loosened to
enhance cushioning from external jolts (Mooney and Ganley 2007). From such a perspective,
social media may for example be seen to provide on line communications channel that enables
new forms of loose coupling across organizational members, so that they can mingle and know
one another sufficiently so that they can, as Weick (2000) suggests, anticipate the moves of one
another and coordinate actions in a loosely coupled system. Research in the team is aiming to
investigate the relationships between social media and organizational change, which are the
landscape of communication pattern and organizational structure.
3.3 Data handovers
3.3.1 Data handover from design to construction
The research exploits the potential for new engineering solutions to be developed that use
advanced visualization capabilities to enable designers and builders to discuss site safety in the
late design stages. This work highlights potential negative as well as positive consequences of
digital working for safety (Zhou, Whyte et al. 2012), and uses experimental methods to examine
which processes of using immersive displays may facilitate safety-related conversations. Using
interviews with contractors and the design models from a large station project, there is also
ongoing work to calibrate the safety issues found in a virtual model with those found on a real
construction site. Other work has been examining the different modes of coordination arising; as
well as etc.
3.3.2 Data handover from design to operations
Findings have been drawn from work with the Institution of Civil Engineers to capture lessons
from major clients that takeover information at the end of projects; and with the London 2012
Olympics (Whyte, Lindkvist et al. 2011) to examine these data handover and takeover processes.
The research examined the handover of data, on two venues, Velodrome and Stadium, and on the
structures, bridges and highways programme (see Figure 4). Findings indicate the importance of
high quality data to clients, who want to use this data for capital and operating expenditure
decisions (Whyte, Lindkvist et al. forthcoming); and also the importance of both preparation in
terms of setting up expectations; and skilled adjustment and problem-shooting in the handover
processes. It reveals an increasing „professionalization‟ of the client in this context (Jaradat et al.
forthcoming).
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Figure 4: Images of the velodrome, stadium and structures, bridges and highways
projects on which handover on the London 2012 Olympics was studied
4 Ongoing work
Studies within the Centre examine interfaces within design, between different digital approaches
to design and between design and delivery.
4.1 Interfaces within design
4.1.1 Professional relations in BIM-enabled projects
Suha Jaradat
This research examines the interfaces between digital technologies and well established
professions in the construction industry such as architecture and engineering to understand new
forms of professional work. Information and communication technologies are increasingly
playing a crucial role in most industries and changing the way people do their work.
Understanding the changing relationships among construction professionals is crucial as there is
a synthesis of integrated software solutions implemented in the industry, traditionally considered
separately, such as computer-aided design (CAD), document management (DM) and IT-based
collaboration platforms. Collectively these technologies underpin the practice of Building
Information Modelling (BIM), which has pervasive effects for example in the interactions
around design in the practices of architecture and the boundaries between project participants.
This research aims to study the practices of 3D collaborative BIM-enabled design.
4.1.2 Sustainable design as institutional work
Sonja Oliveira
This research examines from an institutional theory perspective the processes that over time
enable shifts in focus on ways that sustainable architectural design is conceptualized. Changes in
focus manifested in discourses at the field level represented in the recent debates on carbon,
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
energy and efficiency have a profound impact on the conceptualization of design practice.
Recent work examining the role of tightening regulation and heightened focus on carbon has on
design practice has found that there is a consequential lack of clarity on issues of design
responsibility and project control which lead to a fragmentation of design tasks (Fischer & Guy,
2009) all contributing towards the increasing lack of sustainable building whether judged on
design, performance or use (Williams & Lindsay, 2007). The wider debate is situated in a wealth
of technical literature which has explored ways that design practitioners can engage with and
approach sustainable building design ranging from “ecotech” (Gevorkian, 2006) ecological
(Wright, 2008.) environmental health issues considerations (Rudge & Fergus, 2000)as well as
issues of alternative construction methods and materials (Anderson, Shiers, & Steele, 2009). A
body of academic work examining the lack of sociological and ethical concerns in these “recipe”
like quantitative approaches takes on a social-constructivist view and argues that the variety of
styles should be embraced and that policy and regulations should cease seeking a uniform
consensus (Farmer & Guy, 2002; Guy & Farmer, 2001; Guy & Moore, 2004),however, little
academic work has considered how these evolving approaches and search for consensus are
developing as on-going processes of institutionalization.
By exploring the processes that over time enable shifts in focus at the broader level, an
understanding of forces that give meaning to actions, define roles for actors and ordering to
activities for organizations in the context of sustainable architectural design is provided.
4.2 Interfaces between different digital approaches to design
4.2.1 Social media in construction firm
Geyang Guo
This research will examine the potential and the challenge of mobilizing social media in
construction firms. FaceBook, YouTube, and Twitter are increasingly pervasive in our daily
lives. The concept of social media, as an online service for interactive communication, is also
mobilised by construction contractors. In construction firms, organizers, as well as project
managers, try to create new channels for communication between participants of a project team,
to make a profitable use of such social media tool in efficient and effective information sharing
and transferring. Therefore, developing a social media strategy is of interest in industrial
practice. This research focuses on the internal engagement of proper social media technologies
and employees from experienced construction firms. Thus, the existing definition and
classification scheme of Social media will be developed in this research to identify the boundary
of social media mobilized in construction firms. The position of social media in the hierarchy of
media richness is different from traditional interactive communication (e.g. telephone, electronic
mail), it is enlarging the capacity to convey information in some way, but still limited kinds of
information which is available through Physical presence (e.g. face-to-face). This research
combines the concepts of weak ties from social network theory and loose coupling from
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
organizational theory to examine the role of social media in affecting knowledge practice and the
role in changing organizational communication structure of the firm.
4.2.2 Standards development for BIM
Energy Maradza
Building Information Modelling is already influencing construction in the modern society. The
Construction Industry and UK government view BIM as a platform that could enhance
collaboration between stakeholders. However, the construction industry is traditionally known to
be fragmented and difficult to unify against a common way of practice (Green and May 2003).
A unified global standards development process is crucial to the application, adoption and
development of BIM. More so, software applications which form the fabric of digital
technologies need to interface smoothly to enhance interoperability hence the need for a common
standard (Choi, Raghu et al. 2004). Previously incompatible standards have resulted in lock-in
situations with adverse consequences to innovation and development of the industry(Björk and
Laakso 2010). Challenges encountered during standards development processes often include,
commercial interest; government policy; economic; globalisation, socio-political issues; market
protection and cost of sponsoring standards(Garud, Jain et al. 2002). This research will examine
these challenges while also building on the knowledge on developing standards and their
absorption in competing communities of practice. Institutional, technology management and
innovation theories will be utilised to test the view that current BIM standards impact adversely
on the absorption and utilisation of a common standards by user networks in the construction
industry.
4.3 Interfaces between design and delivery
4.3.1 Data and information management in Crossrail
Angelos Stasis
At a cost of 16 billion pounds, Crossrail is currently Europe‟s biggest infrastructure programme.
Passing through Essex, London and Berkshire, the new over and underground twin rail link will
stop at 37 upgraded or entirely new stations, increase London‟s accessibility and transport
capacity, and radically cut journey times between London‟s business districts and Heathrow
Airport (Crossrail, 2011).
In its new Construction Strategy, HM Government strengthens its determination for wider
improvements in the AEC industry. A critical vehicle for achieving this is by requiring that all
publicly funded projects incorporate BIM (Cabinet Office, 2011). Across the industry, which is
keen to align with Government requirements, Crossrail is seen as a flagship programme for
demonstrating what BIM can really achieve. Couple this with the sheer size of the programme, it
is not surprising that public attention is set to increase as the programme moves from design to
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
construction – especially considering that the Olympics programme is soon coming to an end.
The sustained strategic partnership between Crossrail and Bentley Systems, a global software
company specialising in sustainable infrastructure solutions, has been developed to deliver to
these expectations; in order to achieve this, BIM is key.
This industrially-based research aims at uncovering and articulating the lessons to be learnt from
Crossrail‟s Data and Information Management (IM), identifying the gaps in current knowledge
within the field, and ultimately informing the future of research and development (R&D) in Data
and IM for sustainable infrastructure across the AEC supply chain. The socio-technical
information solution that is being developed across the entire supply chain of this programme is
unlike any other seen previously in publicly-funded projects in the UK. Consequently, the DIRC
is in an excellent position to capture the very latest in industry practices, further build its
international repository of excellence, develop and test a robust and repeatable methodology for
IM impact assessment and plan for future R&D.
5 Research directions and opportunities
There are new directions of research that come into view. Two examples are the need for
researchers and practitioners to develop new ways to make the invisible visible, to better
visualize and develop sustainable infrastructure, in ways that can be articulated, managed and
measured; and the need to engage with and understand the perspectives of clients. As an
exploration group, the team is developing a distinctive research focus on digital design
interfaces; and the delivery of client value.
New research is beginning to examine these interfaces within the design process; and over
time, between the design, construction and operation of buildings and infrastructure and how
these deliver value to major building and infrastructure clients have wider implications for
research and practice in complex industries. Next steps in this research include developing a
particular strategic interest in and attention to visualization of large datasets and the calibration
of digital information with physical assets, with new techniques such as laser scanning (see
Figure 5).
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Figure 5: Screenshot of a laser scan image of a break-out room in the Centre
A further area of growing interest is in the global dimensions of work in a digital economy.
The team has a thesis in that some organizational practices are consistently more effective in
transnational design work; and is beginning to identify and study the factors expected to play a
role: a) structure of the engineering design firms; b) incentives of their regional managers; c)
transnational experience of their designers; and d) patterns of interaction on distributed projects.
Finally, the governance of complex digital infrastructures in the construction industry is a
topic of interest particularly around developing better control of emerging vulnerabilities as
systems evolve, in use. In this, and other areas that the team are working in the research has
direct relevance to practice as Building Information Modelling (BIM) and other forms of
integrated software systems become a digital infrastructure for delivery, with the associated
repositories, standards, transformational technologies and representations or models. These
infrastructures raise new opportunities for engineering research to interrogate the data and
develop the next generation of tools and processes.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the input of Nilufar Ismailova, the Centre administrator.
About the team
The team is funded by the UK‟s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
as a Challenging Engineering exploration group (£1.25m for the first five years). Established in
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
the School of Construction Management and Engineering at the University of Reading in 2010,
the exploration group spun out of, and was incubated within, the Innovative Construction
Research Centre. The focus on „design innovation‟ builds on the strength and reputation of the
School, which takes a broad view of the production process enabling the team to examine design
activities across professional roles and through the supply chain.
References
Bailey, D. E., P. M. Leonardi and J. Chong (2010). "Minding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work " Organization Science 21(3): 713-730.
Björk, B.-C. and M. Laakso (2010). "CAD standardisation in the construction industry — A process view." Automation in Construction 19(4): 398-406.
Bowker, G. and S. L. Star (1999). Sorting Things Out. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Carlile, P. R. (2002). "A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries; boundary objects in new product
development." Organization Science 13(4): 442-455. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology. Cambridge, M.A., Harvard Business School Press. Choi, B. J., T. S. Raghu and A. Vinze (2004). "Addressing a standards creation process: a focus on ebXML."
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61(5): 627-648. Cooper, R., G. Aouad, A. Lee, S. Wu, A. Fleming and M. Kagioglou (2005). Process Management in Design
and Construction, Blackwell Publishing. Edwards, P. N., G. C. Bowker, S. J. Jackson and R. Williams (2009). "Introduction: An Agenda for
Infrastructure Studies." Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10: 364-374. Edwards, P. N., S. J. Jackson, G. C. Bowker and C. P. Knobel (2007). Understanding Infrastructure:
Dynamics, Tensions, and Design. Ann Arbor, DeepBlue. Ewenstein, B. and J. Whyte (2009). "Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as
'epistemic objects'." Organization Studies 30(1): 7-30. Feiner, S., B. MacIntyre, T. Höllerer and A. Webster (1997). "A touring machine: Prototyping 3D mobile
augmented reality systems for exploring the urban environment " Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 1(4).
Garud, R., S. Jain and A. Kumaraswamy (2002). "Institutional Entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: the case of Sun Microsystems and Java." Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 196-214.
Gherardi, S. and D. Nicolini (2000). "To Transfer is to Transform: The Circulation of Safety Knowledge." Organization 7(2): 329-348.
Green, S. and S. May (2003). "Re-engineering construction: going against the grain." Building Research & Information 31(2): 97-106.
Han, J. (2006). Multi-touch interaction wall ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Emerging technologies session), Boston MA.
Henderson, K. (1991). "Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering." Science, Technology and Human Values 16(4): 448-473.
Henderson, K. (1999). On Line and On Paper: Visual representations, visual culture and computer graphics in design engineering. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
Inns, T., Ed. (2007). Designing for the 21st century: Interdisciplinary questions and insights. Aldershot, England, Gower.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Miettinen, R. and J. Virkkunen (2005). "Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and Organizational Change." Organization 12(3): 437-456.
Mooney, J. and D. Ganley (2007). Agile Information Systems: Conceptualization, Construction, Management. Oxford, Elsevier Inc.: 97-109.
Orton, J. D. and K. E. Weick (1990). "Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization." Academy of Management 15(2): 203-223.
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Rittel, H. W. J. and M. M. Webber (1973). "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy Sciences 4: 155-169.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books. Simon, H. A. (1969). The science of design: creating the artificial. The Sciences of the Artificial.
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press: 111-138. Star, S. L. and J. R. Griesemer (1989). "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations,' and Boundary Objects:
Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907 - 1939." Social Studies of Science 19(4): 387-420.
Stirling, A. (1999). "The appraisal of sustainability: some problems and possible responses." Local Environment 4(2): 111-135.
Thomas, R. J. (1994). What Machine’s Can’t Do: Politics and Technology in the Industrial Enterprise. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, University of California Press.
Weick, K. E. (2000). Making sense of the organization, Blackwell Business. Whyte, J. (2010). Digital objects and management practices on engineering design projects. Construction
Matters, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark. Whyte, J., B. Ewenstein, M. Hales and J. Tidd (2008). "Visualizing Knowledge in Project-Based Work."
Long Range Planning 41(1): 74-92. Whyte, J. and R. Levitt (2011). Information Management and the Management of Projects. Oxford
Handbook of Project Management. P. Morris, J. Pinto and J. Söderlund. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 365-387.
Whyte, J., C. Lindkvist and N. Ibrahim Hassan (forthcoming). " Value to Clients through Hand-Over of Data from Civil Engineering Projects into Operations." ICE Management Procurement and Law.
Whyte, J., C. Lindkvist, S. Jaradat and N. Hassan Ibrahim (2011). Data handover from project delivery into operations. Learning Legacy: lessons from the London 2012 Games construction project. London.
Whyte, J. and S. Lobo (2010). "Coordination and control in project-based work: digital objects and infrastructures for delivery." Construction Management and Economics 28(6): 557-567.
Whyte, J., W. Zhou, R. Sacks and A. Haffegee (2012). Building Safely by Design Readin, Final report to IOSH.
Whyte, J. K. (2002). Virtual Reality and the Built Environment. Oxford, Architectural Press. Zhou, W., J. Whyte and R. Sacks (2012). "Construction Safety and Digital Design: A Review." Automation
in Construction 22: 102-111.
Design Innovation Research Centre Working Paper, Number 4
i The first image is Courtesy of The Mitre Corporation.
