Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T17:52:13.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DESIGN MEETINGS: TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE STAGES AND ACTIVITIES THAT INFLUENCE SUCCESS

Part of: Design Organisation and Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

C. S. Bedingfield  and
P. J. Clarkson
C. S. Bedingfield*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
P. J. Clarkson
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
*
*csb76@cam.ac.uk

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.

A central part of the design process is collaboration, harnessing specialist expertise often in meetings. We understand relatively little about how meetings serve teams of designers and their work and this study uses soft systems methodology to attempt to create structures that describe and explain meetings. The results suggest extension of the boundary of interest and suggest a conceptual framework which reveals some under-addressed stages and activities which may help designers improve their meetings.

Keywords

process improvementcollaborative designsystematic approachdesign tools
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 501 - 510
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), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977), “Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Rogelberg, S. (2015), The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science, In: Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Rogelberg, S. G. (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angouri, . (2012), “Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 44 No. 12, pp. 1565–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012), Scholar Commons Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices (Textbooks), University of South Florida.Google Scholar
Bloor, M. (1978), “On the analysis of observational data: A discussion of the worth and uses of inductive techniques and respondent validation”, Sociology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, R.O., De Vreede, G.-J. and Reinig, B.A. (2002), A Theory and Measurement of Meeting Satisfaction.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkland, P.B. (1989), “Soft Systems Methodology”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchman, C.W. (1971), The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
Churchman, C.W. (1979), The systems approach and its enemies, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Crilly, N., Blackwell, A.F. and Clarkson, P.J. (2006), “Graphic elicitation: using research diagrams as interview stimuli”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, R., Rebele, R. and Grant, A. (2016), “Collaborative overload”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 164–165.Google Scholar
Delice, F., Rousseau, M. and Feitosa, J. (2019), “Advancing Teams Research: What, When, and How to Measure Team Dynamics Over Time”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 1324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R. and Mondada, L. (2010), “Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1700–1718.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guerard, S. and Seidl, D. (2011), The Role of Meetings in the Strategy Process - Towards an Integrative Framework. SSRN Electronic Journal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, M. (2016), The Agency of Meetings as Systemic Process in the Constitution of Organizations.Google Scholar
Duffy, M. and Rourke, B.K.O. (2017), The Agency of Meetings Collectively in an Organizational Setting, In The Gothenburg Meeting Science Symposium (pp. 1–20).Google Scholar
Feldman, M.S. et al. (2016), “Beyond Routines as Things: Introduction to the Special Issue on Routine Dynamics”, Organization Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S., Hao, J. and da Silva Vieira, S. (2013), Exploring a Multi-Meeting Engineering Design Project, In Chakrabarti, A. and Prakash, R.V. (Eds.), ICoRD’13 Global Product Development, p. 73.Google Scholar
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research, Aldine Transaction, London, UK.Google Scholar
Holtzblatt, K. and Jones, S. (1993), “Contextual inquiry: A participatory technique for system design”, In: Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. and Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012), “Meetings Matter”, Small Group Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 130–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Ilgen, D.R. (2006), “Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 77–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LePine, J.A. et al. (2008), “A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, P. and Busby, J. (2001), “Softening Up the Facts: Engineers in Design Meetings”, Design Issues, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, M.G. et al. (2017), “Untangling design meetings: Artefacts as input and output of design activities”, In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (Vol. Part F1311, pp. 176-183). New York, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehra, B. (2002), “Bias in Qualitative Research: Voices from an Online Classroom”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Mohr, L.B. (1982), Explaining organizational behavior, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Moreland, R.L. et al. (2009), “Behavioral Assessment Practices Among Social Psychologists Who Study Small Groups”, In: Agnew, C.R., Carlston, D.E., Graziano, W.G. and Kelly, J.R. (Eds.), Then A Miracle Occurs: Focusing on Behavior in Social Psychological Theory and Research.Google Scholar
Murray, G. (2014), “Learning How Productive and Unproductive Meetings Differ”, In: Sokolova, M. and van Beek, P. (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Cham, Springer, pp. 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, B. and Duffy, M. (2012), Strategic Discourse across Organizational Meetings: Towards a Systems Perspective. Political Science, (June).Google Scholar
Olson, G. et al. (1992), “Small Group Design Meetings: An Analysis of Collaboration”, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 347–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panko, R.R. (1992), “Managerial Communication Patterns”, Journal of Organizational Computing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogelberg, S.G., Shanock, L.R. and Scott, C.W. (2011), “Wasted Time and Money in Meetings: Increasing Return on Investment”, Small Group Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Reyes, D.L. and McDaniel, S.H. (2018), “The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead”, American Psychologist, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 93–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000334CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schön, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books Inc. USA.Google Scholar
Schwartzman, H.B. (1989), The meeting: gatherings in organizations and communities. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Tobia, P.M. and Becker, M.C. (1990), “Making the most of meeting time”, Training & Development Journal, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 34–39.Google Scholar
Ulrich, W. (1983), Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, J. and Van Der Lugt, R. (2013), “Scaffolds for design communication: Research through design of shared understanding in design meetings”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivacqua, A.S., Garcia, A.C.B. and Gomes, A. (2011), “BOO: Behavior-oriented ontology to describe participant dynamics in collocated design meetings”, In Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, pp. 1139–1147). Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, S., Sauser, B. and Nowicki, D. (2019), “A Bibliographic and Visual Exploration of the Historic Impact of Soft Systems Methodology on Academic Research and Theory”, Systems, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar