Assessment of collaborative decision-making in design development and coordination meetings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Building design is a complex multi-disciplinary process that requires extensive collaboration to develop a coordinated design that satisfies the functional, aesthetic, and economic requirements of the owner. Today, design meetings typically take place in physical workspaces, such as conference rooms, where all the relevant members of the team work together in the same place and time. Although most project information is generated electronically, teams primarily communicate and share information using paper-based representations. Emerging technologies such as touch-sensitive large-screen displays, table-top displays, laptops, and tablet PCs offer great promise in enriching today’s paper-based workspaces to create what are known as interactive workspaces. 3D design tools are also gaining acceptance and providing significant benefits to the design coordination process. However, it remains unclear as to how such tools and technologies can be incorporated effectively in workspaces to support design coordination meetings. This research addresses this need by characterizing how people spend time performing collaborative decision-making tasks in design development meetings. I conducted a five-month field study of the design development process for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) project being constructed near downtown Vancouver, British Columbia. I observed weekly design development meetings and performed a thorough post-meeting video analysis. During the meetings, I took detailed notes documenting the meeting activities, the kind of information sources and representations used, and the interactions meeting participants had with information. The video was analyzed to identify how time is spent on different decision-making tasks and to determine the effectiveness of those tasks. This research found that the majority of time in design development meetings is spent on descriptive (35%) and explanative (42%)a sks and very little time is spent on evaluative (12%)n d predictive (11%) tasks. However, resolution rates- percentage of tasks resolved- were still quite high in these meetings. with an average of 73%. Based on the analysis, paper-based meetings were compared and an initial set of requirements for accomplishing design development tasks in a computer-supported interactive workspace were identified. In summary, successful interactive workspaces should support physical as well as digital artefacts, digital records of meetings, and digital overlays of schematic diagrams.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».