Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T02:47:06.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaborative design exploration in an interactive workspace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2007

Renate Fruchter ,
Kushagra Saxena ,
Matt Breidenthal  and
Peter Demian
Renate Fruchter
Affiliation:
Project Based Learning Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Kushagra Saxena
Affiliation:
Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Matt Breidenthal
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Peter Demian
Affiliation:
Civil Engineering Department, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Architecture, engineering, and construction team members, while collaborating on building projects, rely on past experiences and content through the use of project design archives (whether in paper or digital format). Underutilization of potential knowledge in the decision-making process of data, information, and knowledge reuse is limited by access to these archives, because of sheer size, decontextualized content, and inconvenient access and presentation. This paper presents an integrated solution called CoMem–iRoom that leverages two technologies Corporate Memory (CoMem) and interactive Room (iRoom) developed at Stanford. CoMem–iRoom addresses critical limitations (content, context, visualization, and interactivity) constraining the process of collaborative exploration toward knowledge reuse and decision making.

Keywords

CollaborationCorporate MemoryDesignExplorationInteractive Workspace
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , August 2007 , pp. 279 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern Information Retrieval. Harlow: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Bright, D., & Vernik, R. (2004). LiveSpaces: An Interactive Ubiquitous Workspace Architecture for the Enterprise. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3207. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Bush, V. (1945). We may think. Atlantic Monthly 176(1), 101–108.Google Scholar
Demian, P., & Fruchter, R. (2005). Measuring relevance in support of design reuse from archives of building product models. ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 29(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: Boston Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Fruchter, R., & Demian, P. (2002). CoMem: designing an interaction experience for reuse of rich contextual information from a corporate memory. AIEDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, and Manufacturing 16, 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fruchter, R., & Demian, P. (2005). Corporate memory. In Knowledge Management in Construction (Anumba, C., Egbu, C.O., & Carrillo, P.M., Eds.), pp. 170–194. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fruchter, R., & Swaminathan, S. (2005). Reflection-in-interaction. SID2005 Social Intelligence Design Workshop, March 2005, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Furnas, G.W. (1981). The FISHEYE view: a new look at structured files. In Readings in Information Visualization (Card, S.K., et al. , Eds.), pp. 312–330. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D., Billsus, D., & Denoue, L. (2006). Seamless capture and discovery for corporate memory. The 15th Int. World Wide Web Conf. (WWW2006), May 23, 2006.Google Scholar
Johanson, B., & Fox, A. (2002). The Event Heap: a coordination infrastructure for interactive workspaces. Proc. WMCSA-2002.Google Scholar
Johanson, B., Fox, A., & Winograd, T. (2002). The Interactive Workspaces Project: experiences with ubiquitous computing rooms. IEEE Pervasive Computing 1(2), 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamping, J., & Rao, R. (1995). The HyperBolic Browser: a focus + context technique for visualizing large hierarchies. In Readings in Information Visualization (Card, S.K., Mackinlay, J., & Shneiderman, B., Eds.), pp. 383–408. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Landauer, T.K, & Dumais, S.T. (1995). A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review 106(4), 643–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosson, M.B., & Carroll, J.M. (2001). Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human–Computer Interaction. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Streitz, N.A., Geissler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Reischl, W., Rexroth, P., Seitz, P., & Steinmetz, R. (1999). i-LAND: An Interactive Landscape for Creativity and Innovation. In ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computer Systems (CHI99), pp. 120–127. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar