Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T05:00:26.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflict mitigation system for collaborative engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Feniosky Peña-Mora ,
Ram D. Sriram  and
Robert Logcher
Feniosky Peña-Mora
Affiliation:
Intelligent Engineering Systems Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
Ram D. Sriram
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division, Building 220, Room A127, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithesburg, MD 20899, U.S.A.
Robert Logcher
Affiliation:
Intelligent Engineering Systems Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Large-scale engineering projects typically involve many different types of professionals who must interact and communicate with one another. This interaction produces conflicts that need to be resolved. A framework is presented in which the rationale used in a collaborative design environment for designing an artifact is also used for conflict mitigation. The framework contains mechanisms for checking interactions and prompting hypotheses about the reasons for the interactions. These hypotheses, once verified by the designers, improve conflict resolution by assisting them in coordinating and negotiating conflicts. This, in turn, enhances communication during the design process and consequently increases productivity in the engineering industry.

Keywords

Design RationaleChange ManagementNegotiationConflict Advance
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 101 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anandalingam, G., & Apprey, V. (1992). Multi-level programming and conflict resolution in international river management. Mimeo, Center for Research in Conflict and Negotiation, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.Google Scholar
Anson, R., & Jelassi, M. (1990). A development framework for computer-supported conflict resolution. Europ. J. Operational Res. 46(4), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, S., & Agogino, A. (1991). Design capture and information management for concurrent design. Int. J. Syst. Automat. Res. Applic. 1(2), 117–141.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (1985). Failure handling in a design expert system. Comput. Aided Des. 17(9), 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casotto, A., Newton, A., & Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. (1990). Design management based on design traces. 27th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conf. Orlando, FL, pp. 136–141. IEEE, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: A Hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans. Office Inform. Syst. 6(4), 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbert, J. (1992). Distributed object transport streams (DOTStreams™): A tool for building distributed object oriented systems. IESL Technical Report IESL-92. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Favela, J., Wong, A., & Chakravarthy, A. (1993). Supporting collaborative engineering design. Engrg. with Comput 4(9), 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G., McCall, R., & Morch, A. (1989). Design environments for constructive and argumentative design. Proc. of CHI’89, 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, N., & Hipel, K. (1988). Using the Decision Maker computer program for analyzing environmental conflicts. J. Envir. Mgmt. 27, 213–228.Google Scholar
Fromont, B., & Sriram, D. (1992). Constraint satisfaction as a planning process. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’92 (Gero, J., Ed.) Kluwer, London, England.Google Scholar
Ganeshan, R., Finger, S., & Garrett, J. (1991). Representing and reasoning with design intent. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’91 (Gero, J., Ed.), pp. 723–736. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Garcia, A., & Howard, H. (1992). Acquiring design knowledge through design decision justification. Art. Intel. Engrg. Des. Amal. Manuf. 6(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorti, S.R., & Sriram, D. (1993). CONGEN: An integrated approach to conceptual design. Int. J. CAD/CAM Comput. Graphics 8(2), 135–150.Google Scholar
Gruber, T., Tenenbaum, J., & Webber, J. (1992). Toward a knowledge medium for collaborative product development. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’92 (Gero, J., Ed.), pp. 413–432. Kluwer, London, England.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. (1993). Personal conversation.Google Scholar
Klein, M. (1992). DRCS: An integrated system for capture of designs and their rationale. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’92 (Gero, J., Ed.), pp. 393–412. Kluwer, London, England.Google Scholar
Klein, M., Lu, S., & Baskin, A. (1990). Towards a theory of conflict resolution in cooperative design. Proc. Twenty-Third Ann. Int. Conf. on System Sciences, pp. 41–50. IEEE Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems. Institute of Urban and Regional Development Working Paper 131, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Lander, S., & Lesser, V. (1989). A framework for the integration of cooperative knowledge-based systems. In Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Intelligent Control (Sanderson, A., Desrochers, A., and Valavanis, K., Eds.), pp. 472–477. IEEE Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (1990). SIBYL: A qualitative decision management system. In Artificial Intelligence at MIT: Expanding Frontiers, (Winston, P., and Shellard, S., Eds.), Chap. 5, pp. 104–133. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
OBJECTSTORE User Guide (1991). OBJECTSTORE User Guide, Release 1.1 for Unix-Based System. Object Design, Inc., Burlington, MA.Google Scholar
Peña-Mora, F. (1994). Design rationale for computer supported conflict mitigation during the design-construction process of large-scale civil engineering systems. PhD Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Peña-Mora, F., Logcher, R., & McManus, T. (1994). SCHEREC: SCHedule RECovery system. Proc. 1st ASCE Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering. ASCE, New York.Google Scholar
Potts, C, & Bruns, G. (1988). Recording the reasons for design decisions. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 418–427. IEEE Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rossignac, J., Borrel, P., & Nackman, L. (1988). Interactive design with sequences of parameterized transformation. In Intelligent CAD Systems 2: Imptementational Issues. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., & Lorensen, W. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Sriram, D., Gupta, A., Wong, A., Vemulapati, M., Gorti, S., Fromont, B., Su, V., & Vaidya, V. (1994). An object-oriented knowledge based building tool for engineering applications. IESL Technical Report IESL-91. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Sriram, D., & Logcher, R. (1993). The MIT Dice project. Comput. 26(1), 64–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sriram, D., Logcher, R., Groleau, N., & Cherneff, J. (1989). DICE: An object-oriented programming environment for cooperative engineering design. IESL Technical Report IESL-89–03. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sriram, D., Wong, A., & He, L. (1991). GNOMES: An object-oriented non-manifold geometric engine. IESL Technical Report IESL-91. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Suh, N. (1990). The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sycara, K. (1989). Cooperative negotiation in concurrent engineering design. In MIT-JSME Workshop in Computer-Aided Cooperative Product Development, (Sriram, D., Logcher, R., and Fukuda, S., Eds.), pp. 269–297, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Thompson, J., & Lu, S. (1990). Design evolution management: A methodology for representing and using design rationale. Proc. Second Int. ASME Conf. Design Theory and Methodology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
White, R., Gergely, P., & Sexsmith, R. (1972). Structural Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Wong, A., & Sriram, D. (1993). SHARED: An information model for cooperative product development. Res. Engrg. Des. Fall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar