Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T15:26:30.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE CLOUD-BASED CAD PLATFORM AFFORDANCES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Tucker Marion ,
Alison Olechowksi  and
Junfeng Guo
Tucker Marion*
Affiliation:
Northeastern University;
Alison Olechowksi
Affiliation:
Northeastern University;
Junfeng Guo
Affiliation:
Northeastern University;
*
Marion, Tucker, Northeastern University, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, United States of America, t.marion@neu.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Cloud computing has had an increasing influence on engineering and design. A hallmark of sites such as Github is the promise of rapid iteration and real-time collaboration. Recently, cloud collaborative software has migrated into the realm of physical product design, with computer-aided design (CAD) software platforms such as PTC's Onshape. In this research, we suppose that the effect of cloud collaborative software is multi-faceted; that this type of tool affords a number of new capabilities and behaviours for design individuals and teams. We develop a framework on how to contextualize the changes to design tasks afforded by the unique attributes of these cloud-based, collaborative design tools. We find evidence in our research of design engineers leveraging many aspects of the framework, particularly in learning and engagement with their team, and with resources available from communities of users. However, we find that real-world design engineers are not yet utilizing the full capability of synchronous cloud-platforms with respect to real-time synchronous design iteration within teams or communities.

Keywords

Computer Aided Design (CAD)Collaborative designDesign process
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 375 - 384
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Al-Samarraie, H. and Saeed, N. (2018), “A systematic review of cloud computing tools for collaborative learning: Opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning environment”, Computers and Education, Elsevier, Vol. 124 No. May, pp. 77–91.Google Scholar
Bailey, D.E., Leonardi, P.M. and Barley, S.R. (2012), “The Lure of the Virtual”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1485–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisco, R., Whitfield, R.I. and Grierson, H. (2020), “A novel systematic method to evaluate computer-supported collaborative design technologies”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer London, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Claggett, J. L., & Karahanna, E. (2018). Unpacking the Structure of Coordination Mechanisms and the Role of Relational Coordination in an Era of Digitally Mediated Work Processes. Academy of Management Review, 43(4): 704–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, A.R., Fuller, R.M. and Valacich, J.S. (2008), “Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Business Statistics, DMR (2020). https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/github-statistics/. Accessed December 2, 2020.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eves, K., Salmon, J., Olsen, J. and Fagergren, F. (2018), “A comparative analysis of computer-aided design team performance with collaboration software”, Computer-Aided Design and Applications, Vol. 4360, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Germani, M., Mengoni, M. and Peruzzini, M. (2012), “A QFD-based method to support SMEs in benchmarking co-design tools”, Computers in Industry, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.Google Scholar
Grodal, S. 2018. Field expansion and contraction: How communities shape social and symbolic boundaries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4): 783–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horváth, I. and Vroom, R.W. (2015), “Ubiquitous computer aided design: A broken promise or a Sleeping Beauty?”, CAD Computer Aided Design, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 59, pp. 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroh, J., Luetjen, H., Globocnik, D., & Schultz, C. (2018). Use and Efficacy of Information Technology in Innovation Processes: The Specific Role of Servitization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(5), 720–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management review, 24(4), 691–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Boland, R. J. Jr (2016). Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Information Systems Journal, 26(1), 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion, T. J., & Fixson, S. K. (2020). The Transformation of the Innovation Process: How Digital Tools are Changing Work, Collaboration, and Organizations in New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management.Google Scholar
Marion, T.J., Reid, M., Hultink, E.J. and Barczak, G. (2016), “The influence of collaborative IT tools on NPD”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion, T. J., Barczak, G., & Hultink, E. J. (2014). Do social media tools impact the development phase? An exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 18-1. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion, T. J., Friar, J. H., & Simpson, T. W. (2012). New product development practices and early-stage firms: Two in-depth case studies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(4), 639–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion, T., Fixson, S., & Meyer, M. H. (2012). The problem with digital design. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 63–68.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.Google Scholar
Napoleone, A., Macchi, M. and Pozzetti, A. (2020), “A review on the characteristics of cyber-physical systems for the future smart factories”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Elsevier, Vol. 54 No. August 2019, pp. 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press.Google Scholar
Orellana, S. (2017). Digitalizing Collaboration. Research-Technology Management, 60(5): 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, D. X., Heim, G. R., & Mallick, D. N. (2014). Collaborative Product Development: The Effect of Project Complexity on the Use of Information Technology Tools and New Product Development Practices. Production and Operations Management, 23(8): 1421–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng-jun, M., Fu, Z. and Zhang, G.Y. (2012), “Data exchange method between ADAMS, CATIA and SolidWorks software”, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 143–144, pp. 422–427.Google Scholar
Phadnis, V.S., Wallace, D.R. and Olechowski, A. (2021), “A multimodal experimental approach to study CAD collaboration”, Computer-Aided Design and Applications, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 328–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollák, M., Baron, P. and Kočiško, M. (2017), “Comparison of process documentation generation in PTC Creo and NX systems”, MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 137, https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201713706004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintane, E., Mitch Casselman, R., Sebastian Reiche, B., & Nylund, P. A. (2011). Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. Journal of knowledge management, 15(6), 928–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design studies, 24(2), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spradley, J. 1979. Asking descriptive questions. The Ethnographic Interview, 1: 44–61.Google Scholar
Wu, D., Terpenny, J. and Schaefer, D. (2016), “A Survey of Cloud-Based Design and Engineering Analysis Software Tools”, Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2016, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K., 1994. Case study research - design and methods, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J., Phadnis, V. and Olechowski, A. (2021), “Analysis of Designer Emotions in Collaborative and Traditional Computer-Aided Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 143 No. February, pp. 0214011–02140110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar