American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1

Capstone Design Project Challenges in Inter-institutional,

Geographically Dispersed Teams

Philipp Witte1,

School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30313-0150

Warwick Cann 2

School of Aerospace, Mechanical, & Manufacturing Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology,

Melbourne, Australia

and

Hernando Jimenez3,

School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30313-0150

It is well known that engineering design instructors seek to expose students to the

inherent challenges of design practice while attempting to integrate theoretical elements with

empirical ones in capstone design projects. As instructors strive to realize an educational

experience that truly responds to the needs of industry and government, inter-institutional

geographically dispersed teams participating in international design competitions such as

those administered by the AIAA represent a valuable mechanism to offer said experience. A

team comprised of students from the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Royal

Melbourne Institute of Technology entered the 2008-2009 AIAA undergraduate team

aircraft design competition. Based on observations by student team members, different

challenges to the design process are identified and documented. The approaches, solutions,

and various considerations adopted to address these challenges are also presented, along

with an internal team assessment of their effectiveness. The benefits and lessons learned of

the overall experience are synthesized and presented.

I. Introduction

HOUGH a definition of “design” that is universally applicable across the entire spectrum of trades and

professions is notably absent, some of its most salient features are generally recognized and provide a

fundamental context with which it can be conducted as a practice and taught as a discipline in its own right. For

instance, it is widely accepted that design is cognitive activity involving the transformation of information and the

generation of new knowledge,1 whether it be incidental or planned. For instance, engineering design transforms

system requirements into a complete system definition and generates understanding about the system itself.

However, since requirements are often in conflict with each other, design is also a problem-solving activity

requiring analyses so that compromise solutions can be negotiated among stakeholders’ objectives. In turn, design is

also a decision-making activity that leverages on said analyses to implement the negotiation of design choices.2,3

Knowledge about the system in question, along with the information required to begin analyses and design efforts,

are usually absent in the early phases of the process, and the use of approximations as a starting point inevitably

make design an iterative process whereby more reliable and accurate estimates are continuously produced as more

information is gathered and greater understanding about the design space is accrued.3,4

Equally important in

engineering design practice is its multi-disciplinary nature, inevitably leading to a collaborative formulation of the

design process featuring disciplinary specialists and requiring an important integration effort.5

1 Graduate Research Assistant, Georgia Institute of Technology, Student Member.

2 Student, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Student Member.

3 Senior Graduate Researcher, Georgia Institute of Technology, Student Member.

T

48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition4 - 7 January 2010, Orlando, Florida

AIAA 2010-893

Copyright © 2010 by Witte, Cann, and Jimenez. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2

These inherent features in design pose a wide variety of challenges in its practice that have been observed over

time, particularly as teams have become significantly larger and have been deployed at a global scale. For instance,

collaboration among discipline experts raises the issue of how much understanding should be common to all

participants in the construct of a common knowledge base. Likewise, the negotiation of design choices necessitates

effective means of communication that, ideally, overcome geographic and temporal disparity among design process

participants and help document the decision-making process itself as well as the context in which the decisions are

made. Yet another issue is the use (and often times misuse or abuse) of technological resources to support design

functions and overcome difficulties in design practice. Certainly not least of all challenges are programmatic and

resource management issues that are naturally exacerbated in the presence of organizational/cultural disparity and

geographic dispersion.

An interesting situation arises when these issues are considered in the context of engineering design education. It

is well known that the current paradigm for teaching design strives to balance theoretical and practical approaches

because the cognitive features of design require both the acquisition of knowledge through instruction and the

development of analytical skills through practice. Today, design instruction is inevitably a result of its own historical

evolution: it is seeded in practical applications and individual trial-and-error experience during its early years,

evolved dramatically into a more collaborative form due to disciplinary specialization in the WW II era, shifted to a

strong theoretical focus as engineering sciences matured, and now attempts to balance all aspects.6,7

Hence, the

importance of a practical design exercise in aerospace educational programs through a capstone design project is

readily revealed as the primary means to culminate several years of theory-intensive education. Design competitions

such as those administered by the AIAA offer an ideal vehicle for said capstone design projects while offering a

mechanism for academic institutions to benchmark themselves. In recent years a growing number of efforts to

immerse aerospace engineering students in a contemporary and realistic design environment have been observed.

Whereas classroom-based team projects have long been part of educational design exercises, more recent efforts

have expanded the concept to internationally distributed teams, exposing students to the challenges of design in a

global setting.8,9

This paper documents one of such efforts where a team composed of six students from the Georgia Institute of

Technology in Atlanta, GA, and four students from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Melbourne

Australia, entered the 2008-2009 AIAA undergraduate team aircraft design competition as a single, international

team. Based primarily on their collective input and observations, this paper first presents a discussion of the key

challenges the team experienced with respect to the implementation and application of the design process in their

capstone project. Next, the various considerations and adopted approaches to mitigate said difficulties are explained

in terms of specific adaptations of the design process itself, programmatic and project management efforts, and

technology-enabled solutions. Finally, the results of an internal team assessment are presented whereby the benefits

of an international team for capstone design project, associated challenges, and success of these adopted solutions,

are discussed.

II. Challenges to the Design Process

One of the most obvious challenges faced by the international team was the substantial time difference between

the two groups. The 14 hour time difference between Atlanta and Melbourne meant that there was a limited time the

two groups could converse without significantly inconveniencing either of them. In terms of the team’s productivity,

this meant limited time for simultaneous cooperation on a single task, a delay in response for requested data, and a

delay in receiving feedback on analysis or results. The inherent geographic dispersion between the two groups also

presented additional communication issues. Several files were too large to e-mail or upload to an online repository,

such as CATIA files. The inability for the whole team to be physically present in a single location also made it

difficult to convey a design or feature, especially when these were graphic or visual in nature.

The two groups also featured distinct differences in their respective educational backgrounds, which expanded

the team’s overall knowledge base, but limited the common knowledge base and initially impeded the decision

making process. For instance, whereas students from the Georgia Institute of Technology (GT) were moderately

more inclined towards traditional design processes associated with historically-influenced configurations, students

from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) appeared to be somewhat keener and open to

revolutionary configurations. Students in the team noted that this mild difference in design preferences is correlated

with the experience base of capstone design instructors. The GT capstone design course was taught by a professor

with substantial experience in past military programs such as the C-130H. On the other hand, the RMIT capstone

design course was taught by a professor with considerable academic research experience in blended wing cargo

aircraft concepts.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

3

The differences in educational background between the two groups also included familiarity with software

packages. A very important program for aircraft design is a drawing package. A simple 2-D scaled drawing is useful

for the internal layout of the aircraft, while a detailed 3-D model is useful for an accurate measure of the aircraft’s

wetted area, and moments of inertia for aerodynamic and stability analyses respectively. Unfortunately, there was

not a single parametric solid modeling tool the entire team was familiar with. This discrepancy in software

familiarity was also experienced in statistical analysis, analysis tool integration frameworks, and optimization

software. These software knowledge issues were compounded by license limitations, as well as export control

considerations for some of the sizing and synthesis legacy codes. As a result, the half of the team that was unfamiliar

with a certain software package was also unable to acquire it in order to build up experience with it.

Although it had a more minor effect on team collaboration, cultural differences between the two groups were

also noticeable. The two groups were accustomed to different units, standards, and spelling. The group from GT was

familiar with the United States Customary System of Units, while the group from the RMIT was accustomed to

using the metric system of units. Differences in spelling and paper size format convention of the respective countries

of the two groups were found to be a moderate inconvenience during the writing and compilation of the final report.

When it came to sharing documents, the RMIT group used the ISO/DIN A4 and ISO/DIN A3 paper formats, while

the GT group used the ANSI A and ANSI B paper formats. The Australian team members wrote using British

English, while the American team members wrote using American English. The American English spelling of terms

relevant to aircraft design such as “fiber”, “aluminum”, and “optimization”, are “fibre”, “aluminium”, and

“optimisation” in British English.

III. Adopted Approach, Solutions, and Considerations

A. Design Process Considerations

Regular weekly meetings were established to maintain adequate communication between the two groups. The

members within each of the two groups met each other on a nearly daily basis due to physical proximity and in some

cases common classes during the course of the project. But without a regular weekly meeting, communication

between the two groups would have been interrupted. The weekly meetings with the entire team were held in the

evening local Atlanta time, which corresponds to early morning in Melbourne time. Each weekly meeting was

conducted based on a meeting agenda of items to be discussed. The responsibility of writing the agenda and holding

the meeting alternated between the team leaders of the two groups. The GT group had a weekly workday where all

of the GT members could work in close proximity for collaboration and instant feedback. This proved very useful

for disciplines that share information back and forth in several iterations such as layout, weights & balance, and

stability & control. The GT group lead usually reported their status and any problems to the RMIT group lead at the

end of the workday.

The process of making decisions usually fell into three categories based on scope and importance, although they

all entailed some form of brainstorming followed by the final decision. Decisions were either general and critical

such as the initial configuration selection, more specific and less critical such as internal layout changes, or very

specific and minor such as a change in the wheel diameter. For very general and critical decisions such as the design

configuration selection, each member of the group individually researched the advantages and disadvantages of each

alternative. Then each member of the group presented his or her findings to the group after which the there was a

short open discussion. The ultimate decision was reached either by a majority vote, or the proponents of a decision

convincing the opposition of their decision’s merits. More specific and less critical decisions such as internal layout

changes were made in a similar manner, although the responsibility of researching and explaining the advantages

and disadvantages fell to the team member assigned to the relevant discipline instead of the entire team. The last

category of minor and very specific changes were either handled by the individual team member responsible for that

discipline, or in a group of 2 or 3 team members when their disciplines were affected by the change. The advantage

of the last category of decisions was that these could usually be made by one of the two groups and did not require

collaboration amongst the entire team. The first two categories required the entire team’s input, which meant such

decisions were either made during the weekly team meeting or during an ad-hoc team meeting depending on the

decision’s urgency.

B. Organizational and Programmatic Considerations

A team leader was selected for each of the two groups to maintain leadership within each group and improve

communication between the two groups. The two team leaders were in more frequent contact than the team as a

whole in order to provide each other with regular updates on the progress and problems encountered by the groups.

Initial individual team member responsibilities were assigned based on the individual’s expertise and prior

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

4

experience. These were determined during the first teleconference during which each team member had the

opportunity to introduce themselves and provide their area of specialty and any prior experience.

Short-term milestones were set during weekly teleconferences. The responsibility of setting the milestones

usually fell to one of the two team leaders, or to the member completing the work if they were a better judge of how

long it would take. Long-term deliverables and milestones were dictated by the GT capstone course and AIAA

submission deadlines.

Flexible team organization played a large role in the successful implementation of international collaboration.

Initially the sub groups were split so that each discipline had pairs of one GT and one RMIT student. The four

primary disciplines after the design configuration selection were Aero/Stability, Structures/Weights, Performance,

and Layout. The groups eventually adapted and split to deal with challenges in communication. Some of the groups

found it difficult to maintain regular communication for parallel work. The layout group was modified to only

include GT members, because it proved too difficult to share large CATIA files, and the layout group needed to

work closely with the individual at GT responsible for performance. The structures group was modified to only

include RMIT members, because of RMIT group’s strong focus on structures and knowledge of structural analysis

software. In the end, performance was the only subgroup that still consisted of one GT and one RMIT student.

Maintaining communication and passing on of existing work enabled seamless transitions to new sub-groups.

C. Technologies and Resources

An online videoconference software was used to allow communication and file sharing between the GT group

and RMIT group. Sometimes the entire GT group was at one location, and the entire RMIT group in another

location, but other times the entire team was dispersed across the globe. At one point during the competition, team

members were spread across the United States, Australia, China, and India. In such cases of widespread dispersion,

there were some issues with sound clarity and file transmission speeds. The same teleconference software was used

to allow the RMIT group members to present their work at the midterm presentation of the GT capstone course,

which took place in front of the entire senior design class at the GT School of Aerospace Engineering. The ability to

hold a videoconference sessions allowed for successful communication, although video signal transmission often

encountered quality disruptions. The videoconferencing capabilities made the long-distance interaction closer and

more personal relative to other “faceless” means of synchronous communication. Unfortunately, the software

limited the video feed sharing to only one web-camera at a time for a group conference.

An online document repository was used to make documents accessible to the entire team. These documents

ranged from meeting minutes to presentations and reports. The repository had a total storage limit of 100 MB, so old

documents were occasionally removed to make space. The repository was limited to a 10MB upload limit, so large

CATIA files could not be uploaded. Such large files were sent using the aforementioned online teleconference

software with file sharing capabilities. In addition to the online repository, a special PDF account was set up as a

repository for background research materials. Although the account was limited to PDFs, it was very convenient and

easy to use. Reports could be categorized by the person who uploaded it, report title, or date uploaded.

Software challenges were overcome by selecting software accessible to both teams whenever possible. The

majority of the scripts and routines developed by the team members were written in MATLAB because of common

access and experience. Friction2K6 and PABLO were selected as the primary aerodynamic analysis codes, because

both are open source and available in a MATLAB format. AutoCAD and CATIA were used as the primary drawing

packages. CATIA was selected as the primary 3D feature-based parametric solid modeling tool, because as least one

member in each group had experience with it. One GT member with experience in CATIA set up regular working

sessions to teach CATIA to two other GT members. For situations in which no common software could be found,

one group used the software and shared allowable data results for review.

IV. Benefits

Working on an international team proved to be beneficial to the project itself and the personal development of

the team members. Many of the issues initially perceived as challenges also had inherent benefits. The differences in

the educational background of the two groups broadened the collective perspective on design and made the whole

team consider more options for software, approaches, analyses, and configurations. It helped each group draw upon

the experience and knowledge of the other half of the team, ultimately resulting in a richer and more balanced

learning experience across design perspectives. For instance, students in the GT agreed that they may have

maintained a more traditional and risk-adverse perspective for configuration selection and analysis had they not been

exposed to the more revolutionary configuration development perspective of the RMIT group. In a similar fashion,

RMIT students acknowledged the adoption of a more cautious approach to technical feasibility and economic

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

5

viability considerations of advanced configurations with noteworthy technology assumptions, based on the general

design approach of the GT group. The RMIT group introduced the GT group to aerodynamic codes and structural

analysis methods the GT group was not familiar with, while the GT group introduced the RMIT group to new

performance and data analysis tools.

Although the significant time difference between the two groups was a hindrance for communication and

simultaneous cooperation, it enabled a round-the clock work schedule commonly referred to as the “follow the sun”

principle. Since the time difference was such that one group’s evening was the other’s morning, one half of the team

could start a task in the morning, work on it all day and then pass it off to the other half of the team in the evening,

which corresponded to their morning. In this manner, tasks could be worked on constantly with a round-the-clock

work-schedule that would not have taken place if the entire team were situated in the same time zone.

Group productivity was also enhanced by leveraging on areas of proficiency to enhance the specialization of

tasks and independent research conducted by both parts of the team. Despite the physical and temporal separation

between the two groups, each was able to work on tasks without major hindrance due to critical dependence on work

by the other. For instance, during the configuration selection process the tube-and-wing and joined-wing

configurations were explored concurrently by the two groups. The joined wing is a more revolutionary concept that

requires considerable focus on aerodynamics and structures, so it was explored by the RMIT group. The GT group

explored the more traditional baseline leveraging on the accuracy of existing modeling capabilities.

The inter-institutional and geographically-dispersed collaboration also proved to be beneficial to the personal

development of the team members, by forcing them to acquire or enhance their non-technical skills such as

communication and negotiation. Because of the geographic separation and inability to effectively communicate

design features in a graphical manner, communication needed to be more concise and explicit. Also, the different

cultural and educational backgrounds of the two groups meant that more focus was required on ensuring that the

communication was tailored to the recipient. Sometimes, additional explanation or background information was

required for items or software the other group was not as familiar with due to their different educational background.

Because of the predispositions and educational backgrounds of the two groups, the decision making process was

considerably more difficult and required a traceable process. It also meant that the team members acquired the skills

of both defending and being willing to compromise their point of view.

Particularly for the two team leaders, geographically-dispersed collaboration demanded more planning and

scheduling, while at the same time stressing leadership skills to ensure the whole team remained motivated and on

the same page. Without acquiring the skills of scheduling and planning, it would not have been possible for the two

groups to work on a single task simultaneously or consecutively. The need for motivational skills from the two team

leaders was especially crucial because the two groups were on different semester rotations, such that one group was

usually on break while the other group was in school.

V. Internal Assessment

An internal assessment was conducted with the entire team in an attempt to support and complement the

observations presented thus far. The internal assessment was organized into the same three sections following the

structure of the paper: challenges, approaches, and benefits.

In the challenges section, the team members were asked to score and rank the degree to which time difference,

different approaches to design, software familiarity, and different standards, units, and formats, represented key

challenges to the team. The average score and rank of these challenges are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Scores and ranks of challenges.

Challenge Average score

(1: significant, 5: insignificant)

Rank

(greatest challenge to least)

Time difference 2.875 2

Design Approaches 3.250 3

Software familiarity 2.375 1

Standards/units/formats 4.250 4

Of the challenges, time difference and software familiarity were seen as the most significant. On a prompt asking

the group members to expand upon the issues regarding the time difference, one student commented: “due to the 16

hour time difference, it was almost impossible for the team to work simultaneously. It was more like 2 teams

working at two different times and converging at the end of the day or night”. This challenge is readily observed in

today’s global industry partnerships, particularly in those where aircraft manufacturers have become airframe

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

6

integrators working with a myriad of manufacturing partners that are scattered all over the globe and are responsible

for different airframe parts. Consider for instance the 787 program, where Boeing signed 43 supplier partners

located at over 135 sites around the globe, and engaged them actively to finalize the aircraft’s configuration and later

in the detailed design phase.10

In regards to software familiarity, the selection of a drafting and solid modeling package that both groups were

familiar with evolved into an important issue. All of the RMIT students were familiar with CATIA, while all of the

GT students were familiar with Solid Edge. As one GT student commented, “as soon as we chose CATIA, we had to

scramble to make sure everyone understood it and was sufficiently proficient”. Furthermore, software license and

export restrictions were cited by several students as a challenge. The sizing and synthesis tool available to GT

students is subject to export control limitations whereby input and output flat files can be shared but the executable

file cannot. One RMIT student wrote that this tool “was restricted and we still don’t really know how it worked!

This resulted in a ‘trust the results’ mentality”. This particular issue is often observed with industry partnerships or

collaboration between governments, where many codes are proprietary or subject to export control and only final

data can be shared between partners within the same project.

Different design approaches and standards were not seen as significant challenges. In fact, several students

actually cited different design approaches as a benefit. One student claimed that the groups from the two universities

were able to benefit from each other’s areas of expertise.

The section of the internal assessment pertaining to the different approaches taken to address challenges

contained several rating questions and short-answer prompts. The section focused on management techniques such

as regular meetings, distribution of tasks, concurrent task allocation, group voting, and initial team composition. The

section also covered the usefulness of tools such as online teleconferencing software, an online document repository,

and MATLAB as a universal coding language. As seen in Table 2, of the management approaches, regular meetings

and group voting were seen as the most effective.

Table 2. Scores and ranks of effectiveness of management techniques.

Management Technique Average score

(1: effective, 5: ineffective)

Rank

(most effective to least)

Regular Meetings 1.625 1

Distribution of tasks 2.125 3

Concurrent task allocation 2.375 4

Group voting 2 2

Initial Disciplinary Teams 2.5 5

Regular meetings were seen by one student as the most effective means of dealing with the time difference,

arguing that “regular scheduled meetings and clear task delegation were important for minimizing negative effects

of time difference”. Most of the short-answer prompt responses on the effectiveness of voting were also positive.

One student argued that “all of the major design decisions were unanimous, meaning that enough data and

information was presented for everyone to agree”. Other students were a little more hesitant regarding the

usefulness of voting, arguing that it often took too long to discuss design decisions. Ideally, all design decisions

should be preselected by leadership for either group voting or individual decision making based on importance and

priority.

Of the tools used to aid communication, Table 3 suggests that the online document repository and a single

“universal” coding language were seen as the most effective.

Table 3. Scores and ranks of effectiveness of tools.

Tool Average score

(1: effective, 5: ineffective)

Rank

(most effective to least)

Online Teleconference Software 2.125 3

Online document repository 1.250 1

Single coding language 1.750 2

The results do not suggest that the online telecommunication software was ineffective. However, it did suffer

from several problems such as slow transmissions, poor sound quality, and lag. Also, at the time no

telecommunication software was publicly-available that allowed for video transmissions of all group members

simultaneously. One student suggested putting more emphasis on team speakers to remedy some of the issues

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

7

associated with telecommunication software. Even though the online document repository was seen as the most

effective tool for global team work, one student cautions that “care needs to be taken about the archiving

procedure”. Despite some of the deficiencies in the technologies used, one student commented: “I don’t know how

we could have accomplished this [project] without these [tools]. Ten years ago, this would have been extremely

difficult”. One student added that “this project definitely shows that technology can replace face-to-face meeting.

The project was completed successfully with no actual meeting of the RMIT/GT constituents! I feel that this

undertaking was a successful if not more successful than a completely domestic team”.

Although many students commented on some of the issues of global teamwork, the majority agreed that the

benefits ultimately outweighed the challenges. According to Table 4, gaining new communication and negotiation

skills was seen as the most beneficial aspect of global teamwork.

Table 4. Scores and ranks of benefits.

Benefit Average score

(1: beneficial, 5: harmful)

Rank

(most beneficial to least)

New perspective on engineering 1.875 3

New software, design insight 1.625 2

Communication and negotiation skill 1.250 1

In regards to benefits from international cooperation, one student commented that he “learned how to coordinate

and communicate effectively in a geographically dispersed team environment”. Besides the benefits to personal

development, several students commented on the benefit of being able to work on the project around-the-clock with

the “follow the sun” principle. Students in one time zone were able to work on the project, and then pass it off to the

next time zone to continue and so forth. The majority of the team agreed that the principle was used effectively, but

its implementation was limited to a few instances during the project. As one student put it “the follow the sun

principle allowed for dramatic increases in work output when it was required for short bursts”.

VI. Concluding Remarks

Participating in a design competition as a geographically-dispersed team presented many challenges. The

significant time difference between the group of students in Atlanta and the group in Melbourne led to inconvenient

teleconference meeting times. The two groups had different areas of expertise and were acquainted with different

software packages. The team required more regular and concise communication than would be required of a team

residing in a single location. In order to give the two groups some autonomy when direct communication between

them was not possible, two group leaders were assigned. To maintain communication between the groups, the two

group leaders communicated almost daily, and the entire team met virtually for a weekly teleconference.

Technology was the primary enabler for global cooperation. Teleconferencing software was used for regular

communication and an online document repository was used for sharing of drawings, reports and meeting notes.

Whenever possible, publicly available codes were used in place of licensed or export-restricted software.

Despite some challenges, international cooperation brought many advantages. The geographic-dispersion led to

increased productivity because the expertise of the two groups could be leveraged. Also, the time difference meant

that adoption of the follow-the-sun working principle was possible. And finally, the experience led to significant

personal development of all team members. The geographic dispersion of the team demanded concise and clear

communication, advanced planning, and acquisition of negotiation skills of all team members. Despite some

setbacks compared to teams at a single university, every team member agreed that international cooperation was a

valuable learning experience. In fact, one of the team members is already involved in another internationally-

dispersed project and adopting many of the approaches and tools that were adopted in this effort.

Through its different student competitions, the AIAA continues to provide an ideal mechanism with which

instructors around the world can offer a unique learning experience to their students. As academic institutions

continuously strive to better prepare students for today’s professional environment by enabling the development of

necessary skills, considerations for international collaboration and geographically dispersed partnerships must be

granted the attention they deserve. In this sense, geographically dispersed cross-institutional teams participating in

AIAA student competitions offer a unique experience to students, and should be considered on a more regular basis

by senior design capstone project instructors in academic institutions around the world.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

8

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Cees Bil of the School of Aerospace, Mechanical, & Manufacturing

Engineering at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and Prof. William T. Mikolowsky of the School of

Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, for their vision and continuous support of this

international effort.

References 1 Nahm, Y.E. and Ishikawa, H., “Integrated Product and Process Modeling for Collaborative Design Environment,”

Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2004, pp. 5-23 2 Tormey, D., Chira, C., Chira, O., Roche, T., Brennan, A., “The Use of Ontologies for Defining Collaborative Design

Processes,” National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway Mayo Institute of Technology. 3 Jimenez, H., Mavris, D. N., “A Framework for Collaborative Design in Engineering Education,” 45th AIAA Aerospace

Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2007. 4 Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 3rd ed., AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Reston, VA, 1999, pp.

xvii - 2. 5 Arias, E., Eden, H., Gerhard, F., Gorman, A., Scharff, E., "Transcending the Individual Human Mind—Creating Shared

Understanding Through Collaborative Design," ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Vol. 7, No. 1,

March 2000, pp. 84-113. 6 McMasters, J. H., and Cummings, R. M., “Airplane Design as a Social Activity: Emerging Trends in the Aerospace

Industry,” 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2002. 7 Cardenas, J. A., “Enhancing Higher Education Science & Technology Learning through Exploration,” AIAA Space 2006

Conference & Exposition, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2006. 8 Williams, M. D., et al. “International Design Synthesis Exercise on an ISS Return Vehicle,” 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences

Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2008. 9 Roling, P., Cooper, R., and Curran, R., “International Design Synthesis Exercise 2006: Design of an Interceptor UAV,”46th

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2008. 10 The Boeing Company, “Boeing 787 Dreamliner Will Provide New Solutions for Airlines, Passengers”, Online, URL:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/background.html, Accessed: 12/1/2009.