Integrative bargaining paradigm for investigating multidisciplinary design tradeoffs

Clifford E. Brown, Jonathan A. Selvaraj, Brian S. Zaff, Michael D. McNeese, Randall D. Whitaker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In design teams, decision making entails negotiation among parties pursuing common goals with potentially divergent interests and objectives (Bucciarelli, 1988). In multidisciplinary design teams, these parties negotiate from perspectives further biased by their respective backgrounds, expertise, and roles. System design can be improved if we better understand how technical data are communicated and assimilated, how mutually advantageous tradeoffs are discovered, and how the managing of design tradeoffs can best be supported. As part of our larger research effort in Collaborative Design Technology, we are examining the processes by which integrative design tradeoffs are realized, in preparation for enhancing these processes through data visualization and communication tools facilitating mutual understanding and consensual decision making. This initial report describes our work to date in creating and validating an experimental paradigm to serve as a testbed for subsequent studies of multidisciplinary design practice. This paper describes the paradigm and the initial attempts to demonstrate its ecological validity. This initial validation effort involved a comparison of novices and experts in the field of design and their performance on the design decision making task. We found that experts performed better than novices on the design task, which provided initial validation support for the experimental paradigm.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1028-1032
Number of pages5
JournalProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Volume2
StatePublished - 1994

Fingerprint

paradigm
decision making
expert
visualization
expertise
Decision making
communication
performance
Data visualization
Testbeds
Systems analysis
Communication

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Cite this

Brown, C. E., Selvaraj, J. A., Zaff, B. S., McNeese, M. D., & Whitaker, R. D. (1994). Integrative bargaining paradigm for investigating multidisciplinary design tradeoffs. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2, 1028-1032.
Brown, Clifford E. ; Selvaraj, Jonathan A. ; Zaff, Brian S. ; McNeese, Michael D. ; Whitaker, Randall D. / Integrative bargaining paradigm for investigating multidisciplinary design tradeoffs. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1994 ; Vol. 2. pp. 1028-1032.
@article{aa6068eacc02404390ae2708dc8ca3e0,
title = "Integrative bargaining paradigm for investigating multidisciplinary design tradeoffs",
abstract = "In design teams, decision making entails negotiation among parties pursuing common goals with potentially divergent interests and objectives (Bucciarelli, 1988). In multidisciplinary design teams, these parties negotiate from perspectives further biased by their respective backgrounds, expertise, and roles. System design can be improved if we better understand how technical data are communicated and assimilated, how mutually advantageous tradeoffs are discovered, and how the managing of design tradeoffs can best be supported. As part of our larger research effort in Collaborative Design Technology, we are examining the processes by which integrative design tradeoffs are realized, in preparation for enhancing these processes through data visualization and communication tools facilitating mutual understanding and consensual decision making. This initial report describes our work to date in creating and validating an experimental paradigm to serve as a testbed for subsequent studies of multidisciplinary design practice. This paper describes the paradigm and the initial attempts to demonstrate its ecological validity. This initial validation effort involved a comparison of novices and experts in the field of design and their performance on the design decision making task. We found that experts performed better than novices on the design task, which provided initial validation support for the experimental paradigm.",
author = "Brown, {Clifford E.} and Selvaraj, {Jonathan A.} and Zaff, {Brian S.} and McNeese, {Michael D.} and Whitaker, {Randall D.}",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "1028--1032",
journal = "Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society",
issn = "1071-1813",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

}

Brown, CE, Selvaraj, JA, Zaff, BS, McNeese, MD & Whitaker, RD 1994, 'Integrative bargaining paradigm for investigating multidisciplinary design tradeoffs', Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 2, pp. 1028-1032.

Integrative bargaining paradigm for investigating multidisciplinary design tradeoffs. / Brown, Clifford E.; Selvaraj, Jonathan A.; Zaff, Brian S.; McNeese, Michael D.; Whitaker, Randall D.

In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 2, 1994, p. 1028-1032.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Integrative bargaining paradigm for investigating multidisciplinary design tradeoffs

AU - Brown, Clifford E.

AU - Selvaraj, Jonathan A.

AU - Zaff, Brian S.

AU - McNeese, Michael D.

AU - Whitaker, Randall D.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - In design teams, decision making entails negotiation among parties pursuing common goals with potentially divergent interests and objectives (Bucciarelli, 1988). In multidisciplinary design teams, these parties negotiate from perspectives further biased by their respective backgrounds, expertise, and roles. System design can be improved if we better understand how technical data are communicated and assimilated, how mutually advantageous tradeoffs are discovered, and how the managing of design tradeoffs can best be supported. As part of our larger research effort in Collaborative Design Technology, we are examining the processes by which integrative design tradeoffs are realized, in preparation for enhancing these processes through data visualization and communication tools facilitating mutual understanding and consensual decision making. This initial report describes our work to date in creating and validating an experimental paradigm to serve as a testbed for subsequent studies of multidisciplinary design practice. This paper describes the paradigm and the initial attempts to demonstrate its ecological validity. This initial validation effort involved a comparison of novices and experts in the field of design and their performance on the design decision making task. We found that experts performed better than novices on the design task, which provided initial validation support for the experimental paradigm.

AB - In design teams, decision making entails negotiation among parties pursuing common goals with potentially divergent interests and objectives (Bucciarelli, 1988). In multidisciplinary design teams, these parties negotiate from perspectives further biased by their respective backgrounds, expertise, and roles. System design can be improved if we better understand how technical data are communicated and assimilated, how mutually advantageous tradeoffs are discovered, and how the managing of design tradeoffs can best be supported. As part of our larger research effort in Collaborative Design Technology, we are examining the processes by which integrative design tradeoffs are realized, in preparation for enhancing these processes through data visualization and communication tools facilitating mutual understanding and consensual decision making. This initial report describes our work to date in creating and validating an experimental paradigm to serve as a testbed for subsequent studies of multidisciplinary design practice. This paper describes the paradigm and the initial attempts to demonstrate its ecological validity. This initial validation effort involved a comparison of novices and experts in the field of design and their performance on the design decision making task. We found that experts performed better than novices on the design task, which provided initial validation support for the experimental paradigm.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028750928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028750928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 1028

EP - 1032

JO - Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

JF - Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

SN - 1071-1813

ER -