The Structural Approach to Shared Knowledge

Abstract

Objective:

We propose a methodology for analyzing shared knowledge in engineering design teams.

Background:

Whereas prior work has focused on shared knowledge in small teams at a specific point in time, the model presented here is both scalable and dynamic.

Method:

By quantifying team members’ common views of design drivers, we build a network of shared mental models to reveal the structure of shared knowledge at a snapshot in time. Based on a structural comparison of networks at different points in time, a metric of change in shared knowledge is computed.

Results:

Analysis of survey data from 12 conceptual space mission design sessions reveals a correlation between change in shared knowledge and each of several system attributes, including system development time, system mass, and technological maturity.

Conclusion:

From these results, we conclude that an early period of learning and consensus building could be beneficial to the design of engineered systems.

Application:

Although we do not examine team performance directly, we demonstrate that shared knowledge is related to the technical design and thus provide a foundation for improving design products by incorporating the knowledge and thoughts of the engineering design team into the process.

Keywords

shared mental model team cognition social network analysis space mission design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Avnet

M. S.

(2009). Socio-cognitive analysis of engineering systems design: Shared knowledge, process, and product (Unpublished dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Badke-Schaub

Neumann

Lauche

Mohammed

(2007). Mental models in design teams: A valid approach to performance in design collaboration? CoDesign, 3, 5–20.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

Converse

S. A.

(1993). Shared mental models in team decision making. In Castellan

N.J.

(Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cooke

N. J.

Gorman

J. C.

(2006). Assessment of team cognition. In Karwowski

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (2nd ed., pp. 270–275). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Janis

I. L.

(1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Kameda

Ohtsubo

Takezawa

(1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 296–309.

Kiekel

P. A.

Cooke

N. J.

(2004). Human factors aspects of team cognition. In Proctor

R. W.

K. L.

(Eds.), The handbook of human factors in web design (pp. 90–103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Klein

Crandall

B. W.

(1995). The role of mental simulation in problem solving and decision making. In Hancock

Flach

Caird

Vicente

(Eds.), Local applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems (Vol. 2, pp. 324–358). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Klein

Miller

T. E.

(1999). Distributed planning teams. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 3, 203–222.

10.

Klein

G. A.

(1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11.

Klimoski

Mohammed

(1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.

12.

Krackhardt

(1987). QAP partialling as a test of spuriousness. Social Networks, 9, 171–186.

13.

Langan-Fox

Anglim

Wilson

J. R.

(2004). Mental models, team mental models, and performance: Process, development, and future directions. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 14, 331–352.

14.

Lim

B.-C.

Klein

K. J.

(2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 403–418.

15.

Mankins

J. C.

(1995). Technology readiness levels: A white paper. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

16.

Marks

M. A.

Sabella

M. J.

Burke

C. S.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3–13.

17.

Mathieu

J. E.

Heffner

T. S.

Goodwin

G. F.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

(2005). Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–56.

18.

Mathieu

J. E.

Heffner

T. S.

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

(2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.

19.

Newman

M. E. J.

(2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45, 167–256.

20.

Rouse

W. B.

Morris

N. M.

(1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.

21.

Stout

R. J.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

Milanovich

D. M.

(1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61–71.

22.

Wasserman

Faust

(1999). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Structural analysis in the social sciences). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.