Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:43:20.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhetorical Design Game for Expectation Alignment

Part of: Design Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Mikael Koskela  and
Ergo Pikas

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.

While the form of building construction delivery known as Integrated Design-Build (or Integrated Project Delivery) is necessary for handling the complexity of modern projects, it raises up a host of problems due to the amount and variety of stakeholders that are brought together to co-design. Namely, the difficulty in forming a shared mental model of expectations regarding the project can cause disappointment in the results, as well as time and cost overruns. This paper is about creating an intervention to alleviate those issues. Employing knowledge from the field of rhetoric in design, and of mental models, two Integrated Design-Build workshops were analyzed to extract a set of rhetorical topics (topoi) to all such sessions. A design game was formulated around the empirical data by an iterative design process, following established design game theory. The game was found to indeed more than double the alignment of a group's individual mental models, though more testing is needed to validate this.

Keywords

RhetoricMental modelsCollaborative designTeamworkEarly design phases
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1593 - 1602
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) 2019

References

Apelgren, S., et al. (2005), “Snubesten i byggeriet. Rapport, Byg, DTU”, Vol. R-107, Department of Civil Engineering, DTU, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Atlas.ti (2018), “AtlasTI: The Qualitative Data Analysis & Research Software”, Available at: atlasti.com.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P., et al. (2011), “An observation-based method for measuring the sharedness of mental models in teams”, Coordination in human and primate groups, Springer: pp. 177–197.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P., et al. (2007), “Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration?”, CoDesign Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
Basulto, D. (2014), “AD Interviews: Bjarke Ingels / BIG”, Nov. 2018.Google Scholar
Bowker, G. C. and Star, S. L. (2000), Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences, MIT press.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2002), “Between thought and object in engineering design.” Design Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 219–231.Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (1985), “Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design practice”, Design Issues, pp. 4–22.Google Scholar
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming critical Lewes, Falmer Press). CROSS, K.P. (1987) Teaching for Learning, Bulletin of the American Association for Higher Education Vol. 39, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
Casakin, H. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2017), “Sharedness of team mental models in the course of design-related interaction between architects and clients”, Design Science Vol. 3.Google Scholar
Chuang, J., et al. (2012), “Termite: Visualization techniques for assessing textual topic models”, Proceedings of the international working conference on advanced visual interfaces, ACM.Google Scholar
DeChurch, L. A. and Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010), “The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis”, Journal of applied psychology Vol. 95 No. 1, p. 32.Google Scholar
Eckblad, S., et al. (2007), “Integrated project delivery-a working definition”, AIA California Council, Sacramento, CA Vol. 25.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C. and Nembhard, I. M. (2009), “Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 123–138.Google Scholar
Enos, T., Enos, T. J., and Publishing, G. (1996), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age, Garland Pub.Google Scholar
Fleming, D. (1998), “Design talk: Constructing the object in studio conversations”, Design issues Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar
Giacomin, J. (2014), “What is human centred design?” The Design Journal Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 606–623.Google Scholar
Halstrøm, P. L. (2017), “Rhetorical Design Studies: The Art of Making Design Choices Explicit. Design and Conservation. Copenhagen, Denmark”, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. Doctoral Dissertation, p. 130.Google Scholar
Henisz, W. J., et al. (2012), “Toward a unified theory of project governance: economic, sociological and psychological supports for relational contracting.” Engineering Project Organization Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1-2, pp. 37–55.Google Scholar
Krueger, J. (2013), “Watsuji's phenomenology of embodiment and social space”, Philosophy East and West, pp. 127–152.Google Scholar
McKeon, R. P. and Backman, M. (1987), Rhetoric: Essays in Invention and Discovery, Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
Rapp, C. (2016), “Aristotle's Rhetoric”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. N., Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.Google Scholar
Robson, C. (1993), Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioners-researchers, Blackwell Pushers, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Siebken Schultz, C. (2012), Byggeriets produktion af svigt i et strukturationssperspektivet studie af reaktive og proaktive problemlosningspraksisser, Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
Smyth, M. M. and Morris, P. E. (1994), Cognition in action, Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Thuesen, C. (2007), “Anvendelse af den rette viden - et studie af byggeriets kulturelle organisering”. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, p. 271.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. and Hard, B. M. (2009), “Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking”, Cognition, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 124–129.Google Scholar
Urup, L. (2016), “Integrated Design-Build Management - Studying Institutional Processes to Understand Project Coordination & Performance. Chalmers, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Construction Management”, 2016, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Doctoral Dissertation, p. 181.Google Scholar
Vaajakallio, K. (2012), “Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure. School of Arts, Design and Architecture”. Aalto University: Helsinki, Finland Doctoral Dissertation, p. 243.Google Scholar