This paper reports the results of the first phase of an ongoing research study undertaken at a real-world production facility. The purpose of this phase was to use a context-based, ethnographic approach to understand and identify issues relevant to the design of a system to support the product development process. The results of this study yielded information that could not have been obtained by a formal, controlled study in a laboratory setting. In general, the results suggest a need for more efficient storage and retrieval of critical information, for increased communication of that information, and for alternative media to supplement paper-based communication. It appears that a computer-based system could be designed to support a more responsive, more collaborative approach to the product development process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CaldwellB.S. (1994). Quantitative approaches to team communication and performance: harmony of systems analysis tools. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 38th annual meeting, (pp. 769–773). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
2.
EmeryF. E.TristE. L. (1960). Sociotechnical systems. In ChurchmanC.WVerhulstM. (Eds.), Management Sciences, Models And Techniques II. London: Pergamon.
3.
ErM. C.NgA. C. (1995). The anonymity and proximity factors in group decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 14, 75–83.
4.
FellersJ.W. (1989). The effect of group size and computer support on group idea generation for creativity tasks: an experimental evaluation using a repeated measures design. Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University.
5.
FerrisS.T. (1995). An investigation of the role of computer-mediated communication as a media choice in the facilitation of task performance in small groups. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
6.
GoldmanS.L.NagelR.N.PreissK. (1995) Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
7.
HendrickH.W. (1996). Presentation at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
8.
HendrickH. W. (1991). Ergonomics in organizational design and management, Ergonomics, 34, 743–756.
9.
HendrickH. W. (1986). Macroergonomics: A conceptual model for integrating human factors with organizational design, Human Factors in Organizational Design and Managemen II.
10.
HendrickH.W. (1984). Waging the tail with the dog: organizational design considerations in ergonomics. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 28th annual meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
11.
HendrickH.W. (1979). Differences in group problem solving behavior and effectiveness as a function of abstractness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 518–525.
12.
InzanaC.M.WillisR.P.KassS.J. (1994). The effects of physical distribution of team members on team cohesiveness and performance.Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 38th Annual Meeting. (pp. 953). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
13.
JinY.LevittR.E.ChristiansenT.R.KunzJ.C. (1995). The Virtual Design Team: Modeling Organizational Behavior. In Concurrent Design Teams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 9, 145–158.
14.
JohnsonP.C. (1994). Newly formed group results: a study of computer-supported group performance and non-computer supported group performance within and between groups. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
15.
KandelJ.J. (1991). The effects of group homogeneity-heterogeneity based on cognitive style on the quality of group decision making. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland.
16.
LucasH.C.BaroudiJ. (1994). The role of information technology in organizational design. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 9–23.
17.
MeyerC., (1994). How the right measures help teams excel. Harvard Business Review, 6, 95–103.
18.
PerrowC. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208.
19.
PetrovicO.KricklO. (1994). Traditionally moderated versus computer supported brainstorming: A comparative study. Information and Management, 27, 233–243.
20.
RouseW.B.Cannon-BowersJ.A.SalasE. (1992). The roles of mental models in team performance in complex systems. IEEE Transactions on System Man, and Cybernetics. 22, 1296–1307.
21.
TroyerL. (1995). Team embededness: the relations between team social structures, organizational social structures, and team performance. Unpublished Dissertation. Stanford University.
22.
ValacichJ.S. (1991). Group size and proximity effects on computer-mediated idea generation: a laboratory investigation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Arizona.
23.
WeaverJ.L.UrbanJ.M.ManiamN.BowersC.A. (1994). Team skill acquisition: team and individual effects of feedback. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 38th Annual Meeting. (pp. 1209–1213). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
24.
ZalenskyM.D.SalasE., (1992). Measuring process in team performance and training. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 36th Annual Meeting. (pp. 1342–1345). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
