Designing collaborative environments for strategic knowledge in design

Designing collaborative environments for strategic knowledge in design

T. Kvana,*, L. Candyb

aDepartment of Architecture, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, People's Republic of ChinabLUTCHI Research Centre, Department of Computer Science, Loughborough University, UK

Received 1 February 2000; accepted 7 June 2000

Abstract

This paper considers aspects of strategic knowledge in design and some implications for designing in collaborative environments. Two key

questions underline the concerns. First, how can strategic knowledge for collaborative design be taught and second, what kind of computer-

based collaborative designing might best support the learning of strategic knowledge? We argue that the support of learning of strategic

knowledge in collaborative design by computer-mediated means must be based upon empirical evidence about the nature of learning and

design practice in the real world. This evidence suggests different ways of using computer support for design learning and acquisition of

strategic design knowledge. Examples of research by the authors that seeks to provide that evidence are described and an approach to

computer system design and evaluation proposed. q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Collaborative design; Strategic knowledge; Empirical studies; Computer support

1. Designing in collaboration

In this paper, we bring together two lines of research to

consider the nature of strategic knowledge in design and

some implications for designing in collaborative environ-

ments. Two key questions underline the concerns of the

paper. First, how can strategic knowledge for collaborative

design be taught (it obviously can be learned since some of

us do acquire it) and second, what kind of computer-based

collaborative designing might best support the learning of

strategic knowledge? We argue that the support of learning

of strategic knowledge in collaborative design by computer-

mediated means must be based upon empirical evidence

about the nature of learning and design practice in the real

world.

The focus on the role of strategic knowledge in collabora-

tive design is based upon current developments in global

organisations and the resulting needs and expectations of a

new generation of designers and engineers. There is also a

growing interest in how to advance creativity and the

knowledge level of work in design in order to gain com-

petitive advantage (see e.g. the strategies for fostering

creativity that emerged from the founder's experiences of

establishing Nissan Design International (NDI) [1]).

Designing in collaborative environments is considered

rather than individual design because co-located and

remotely located team design is becoming the norm in

organisations across the world, particularly where projects

are highly complex. Designers of today are routinely

expected to work across electronic networks and inter-

national boundaries and yet the computer systems that are

supposed to facilitate this are not optimal. Our understand-

ing about how to effectively use or improve these tools is

limited in part by a lack of research into the relationships

between strategic knowledge in design and the role of

support tools. There is a need to bring to bear existing

knowledge about how designers learn to design on the

development and use of computer systems. In particular,

the role of strategic knowledge in creative thinking has

implications for designing computer tools to support

collaborative design [2,3].

2. Strategic knowledge in design

The essential nature of strategic knowledge in design has

been characterised in different ways. Hori [4] has described

strategic knowledge as the knowledge that is applied outside

the perception±action loop. This meta-knowledge is applied

by the designer when his activities within the perception±

action loop break down and progress is inhibited. Strategic

knowledge has a role beyond this particular loop, being

brought into play for example when we ®rst approach a

problem and structure the goals and sub-goals of a task.

Knowledge-Based Systems 13 (2000) 429±438

0950-7051/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S0950-7051(00)00083-6

www.elsevier.com/locate/knosys

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1852-2859-2125; fax: 1852-2559-6484.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Kvan),

[email protected] (L. Candy).

Vera et al. [5], for example, have postulated a model of

collaboration, which extends the role of meta-knowledge

to encompass the act of structuring the problem (meta-

planning in their model). Strategic knowledge, therefore,

is central to the collaborative process. Hori attempts to iden-

tify some facets of this strategic knowledge but notes that

ªtoo much of strategic knowledge remains unknownº.

Whilst this remark is largely true, there are, nevertheless,

some useful indicators as to its nature that can be explored

further empirically.

It is an essential characteristic of strategic knowledge that

much of it is unde®ned and unidenti®ed until it is needed

and applied. It might be a useful starting point to differen-

tiate between `strategies' and `tactics'. Tactics are de®nable

steps, drawn from reliable information and experience, that

may be adopted in order to achieve a speci®c target and, as

such, they can be made explicit and conveyed to others as

part of the general working process. If they fail to achieve a

speci®c goal, some of the steps can be modi®ed in the light

of that experience: indeed, such re®nement is usually neces-

sary because the choice of tactics depends highly upon the

particular situation and may not be readily applied in a more

general sense. Tactics may be critical in achieving goals but

they can operate independently and within an overall

strategy. In design, we might think of them as techniques

used to overcome a stalemate: they may be prescribed or be

introduced informally into team activities. Strategy operates

at a planning level also, but the type of knowledge needed

cannot be assumed to be complete and available to all

concerned on an equal basis from the outset of the designing

activity. Knowing which strategy to use may also be depen-

dent upon the unexpected eventualities that arise and thus, a

responsive mode of action is required. This is where the

professional individual who is in possession of special

knowledge and experience has the competitive advantage

and, whether acting as an individual or as part of a team,

may be able to generate better solutions to a given problem

situation and, more rarely, come up with creative ideas that

leap over the existing constraints and lead to truly innova-

tive results.

In professional practice more generally, the distinction

between strategic and tactical actions can be related to the

underlying basis of those actions. Ramsden [6], referring

to teachers, notes the role of theoretical knowledge in

developing an ordered approach to choosing actions.

A distinctive characteristic of professionals is that

they retain theoretical knowledge on which to base

their activities. This body of knowledge is more

than a series of techniques and rules. It is an ordered

pattern of ideas and evidence that a professional

teacher uses in order to decide on an appropriate

course of action from many choices.

Because strategic knowledge is founded on a set of prin-

ciples and sound evidence, it provides an ordered basis for

handling new developments and situations. Tactics, on the

other hand, are akin to techniques and rules that do not

necessarily transfer from a familiar scenario to a new or

unexpected one.

In summary, strategic knowledge cannot be characterised

as a set of reliable prescriptions for design but often takes

the form of proposals for action within the speci®c demands

of a situation, which may be used to break out of a period of

fallow thinking or an unproductive solution space. Where

®xation of ideas occurs, the use of strategic knowledge

involves applying well-known domain and context knowl-

edge in surprising and imaginative ways [7]. In many

respects, our understanding of strategic knowledge can be

enhanced by considering it in the context of creative concept

formation and knowledge work. Creative knowledge work

in design involves a process whereby the designer draws

upon a heterogeneous set of knowledge sources and then

transforms that knowledge into new forms. Knowledge

about domain entities (e.g. visual shapes, objects, parts,

complex products or textual or analytical/numerical data),

plays a critical role in the development of the design in

hand. Domain knowledge in itself in insuf®cient to inform

the creative process and needs to be accompanied by context

and strategic knowledge. The role of strategic knowledge in

creativity is a challenging research area that affords inter-

esting insights into the modelling of design cognition in a

more general sense.

2.1. Can strategic knowledge for design be taught?

If it is a reasonable assumption that design is an expertise

that can be developed, then it can be argued that strategic

knowledge in design can at least be encouraged. However, it

is fair to say that more research about learning is available

than that of strategic knowledge.

The teaching of expertise has been extensively con-

sidered. As Eraut [8; pp. 156±157] has pointed out, there

has been a revolution in thinking about professional exper-

tise in which the attitude has shifted.

Thirty years ago, professional expertise used to be

identi®ed with propositional knowledge and a high

theoretical content¼(w)hereas most [current]

theories of expertise¼appear to have assumed that

expertise is based mainly on experience with further

development of theoretical knowledge having almost

ceased soon after quali®cation.

As noted, we have moved from an attitude to learning in

which we focus on developing theoretical content to one

that emphasises action and process. Eraut identi®es the

penalty of this attitude and reminds us that the penalty

here is that professional ®elds, including design, cannot be

adequately supported by this approach. Designers must

develop their knowledge base as they work, otherwise

their design becomes dangerously founded on outmoded

assumptions as technology, regulations and society continue

to develop. Duffy has observed that membership of a design

T. Kvan, L. Candy / Knowledge-Based Systems 13 (2000) 429±438430

profession (in his instance, architecture) is nothing other

than the right to knowledge [9; p. 142] and that this knowl-

edge must be maintained and extended.

Additionally problematic when considering the teaching

of design is the apparently ineffable nature of strategic

knowledge. If designers are not going to be successful

until they have acquired adequate strategic meta-knowledge

to guide their work, how do they proceed through the learn-

ing process? Is this meta-knowledge able to be transmitted

or is it too tacit a knowledge, which needs to be acquired

through re¯ective education [10]? Is this acquisition better

done through deliberative processes [8; p. 149]?

2.2. Strategic knowledge and creative thinking

The strategies that are suggested for creative thinking, for

example, those identi®ed by Finke et al. [11], exhibit a high

degree of similarity to strategies of general problem solving

such as those identi®ed by Hayes [12]. These, according to

Hayes, can be taught and, better yet, generalised by the

students into higher-level problem solving strategies. The

acquisition of this strategic knowledge is, therefore, feasible

but, as Hayes also notes ªit is unlikely that the use of stra-

tegies can circumvent the need to spend large amounts of

time acquiring a knowledge base for such skillsº [12; p.

399]. Finke et al. [11; p. 186] refer to ªcreative expertiseº,

a knowledge base of cognitive skills related to the genera-

tion of potential solutions.

2.3. Types of knowledge work

The acquisition of strategic knowledge should be con-

sidered, therefore, in the context of the acquisition of a

base of domain knowledge as well as the strategic knowl-

edge itself. Indeed, as Finke et al. note, one important

component of strategic knowledge is the ability to use

signi®cant elements of domain knowledge outside their

normal context. They call these strategies divergent think-

ing, remote association and ®nding alternative uses [11; pp.

183±184].

SchoÈn has argued that rules derived from types act as

holding environments of design knowledge. These rules

allow the design to make solutions from the available

constraints, opportunities and requirements [13; p. 182].

Designers, says SchoÈn [13; p. 183], work with ªtypesº.

A type, in the sense we intend it, is neither a general

category, like `church', nor does it consist only in a

particular instance, like `Richardson's Trinity

Church'. In our sense, types should be seen as par-

ticulars that function in a general way, or as general

categories that have a `fullness' of particulars.

Examples might be `New England Green', `Oxbridge

lawns'¼

Rules then are derived from types and guide the process

of design. A designer learns the rules and applies them as

new situations arise. In educating designers, SchoÈn

suggests, we should be identifying ªwhat kinds of types

function in skilled designing, how they function, and how

they are built upº [13; p. 189]. We can interpret SchoÈn at

this point as suggesting that design education consists of

helping a student to identify, categorise and apply rules

derived from types. These component elements of knowl-

edge of designing sound very much like the accumulation of

strategic knowledge and also sound like the accumulation of

`chunks' [14]. As Ericsson et al. [15] and Ericsson and

Charness [16] have identi®ed, experts in different ®elds,

including music composition and painting, accumulate

their expertise in designing through repeated application,

practice and experimentation. We could interpret their ®nd-

ings to say that these efforts assist the designers in recog-

nising `types' and deriving new or unique `rules', which we

later associate with that designer's `style'.

3. From empirical evidence towards computer supportsystem design

In considering the implications of the above for the role

of computers in collaborative design, the guiding principles

should be based upon empirical evidence about design

practice and learning. This applies to evaluation of existing

computer systems as well as informing the design of new

ones. As an example, the role of premature closure and

®xation in inhibiting the development of ideas is well docu-

mented: e.g. Ref. [17]. There is a need to support the design

team's strategies for breaking out of ®xated ideas and turn-

ing constraints into opportunities for new solutions. This

involves enhancing the opportunities for deliberation and

supporting the holding of tentative ideas for longer periods

before a resolution is made.

Computer systems are designed with different objectives,

usually market driven feature overload. It appears to be a

cardinal rule to add as many channels of communication as

can be sustained by the hardware and network platform.

Thus, to text are added audio, video and gesture facilities

on the assumption that redundancy provides choice and,

therefore, support to the user. Too little effort has been

made to evaluate the bene®ts or otherwise of such features

to the generation and exploration of new ideas.

One of the authors has conducted experiments to identify

the nature of collaborative communication over computer

networks. The results, as reported in Refs. [5,18], have

shown that different forms of communication impact upon

the exploration of the problem space in a collaborative

design situation in respect of higher- and lower-level

considerations.

3.1. Background studies in design collaboration

In earlier studies [19], the effect of bandwidth limitations

on collaboration were explored and the consequent inter-

face implications discussed. Speci®cally, the authors

examined whether low- and high-level design concerns

T. Kvan, L. Candy / Knowledge-Based Systems 13 (2000) 429±438 431

are consistently present in design discussions regardless of

the nature of the interface. Additionally, they also evaluated

whether any such differences that might arise have an effect

on the quality of the completed architectural design.

The experiments consisted of fourth- and ®fth-year archi-

tectural students collaboratively solving a design problem

over network computers. The subjects sat in two adjoining

rooms, each equipped with Pentium computers. Both

computers were equipped with Microsoft's NetMeeting,

which supports collaborative work by providing a shared

electronic white board and a chat line. The computers

were connected through a local network; all the connections

passed through the wall so that, with the door in between the

rooms shut, subjects were cut off from any direct commu-

nication and had to collaborate through computer-supported

communication, consisting of NetMeeting supplemented by

either a chat window or a video link (Connectix Color

QuickCam) and an audio link created by a telephone and

a microphone/earpiece headset (Fig. 1). Transactions on the

computer screens were captured on to videotape using the

ªAverKey300º system [34]. Sessions were either video

taped or all the activities on the computer screens were

recorded throughout the whole experiment session for

later reference. Additionally, text and graphic results of

the sessions were saved to disk. NetMeeting logged chat-

line communication. All these data were used for later

analysis.

The problem was a site design question commonly used

to teach architecture students in lower years and, as such,

was readily solved collaboratively. The students had never

encountered the problem previously. The results of these

studies showed that the quality of the ®nal design solution

and the performance of the collaborating designers was

similar in both chat-line and video/audio enabled commu-

nications. Using a `Collaborative Process Model' (Fig. 2) in

which collaborative problem solving actions were classi®ed

as either meta-planning, negotiation and evaluation, they

found that the percentage of exchanges for each step was

similar under the two different communication conditions.

This suggests that the collaboration process would not be

affected by the bandwidth of the communication channels.

Participants simply adapt to the low-bandwidth condition by

reducing the amount of the exchanges proportionally in each

step.

The resulting protocols were recoded using a `Design

Process Model' to identify high- and low-level design

communication. High-level communication is de®ned as

strategically important design discussion, whereas low-

level communication was that which played no strategic

role in the decision making. Of note is that the studies

found that the ratio of high- versus low-level design

exchange is reversed for the chat-line and video-conferen-

cing conditions. They showed that participants maintained

the same amount of high-level design exchanges in the low-

bandwidth condition by cutting down the low-level design

exchanges as well as other design irrelevant exchanges.


Fig. 1. Experimental set-up for subjects in A/V condition.

Participants who have limited available bandwidth focus on

the task. This interesting result suggests that a chat line may

better support collaborative design learning than higher-

bandwidth conditions. The results also suggest that partici-

pants adapt to the environmental constraints by adjusting the

ratios of different levels of communication without sacri-

®cing the quality of the product. These ®ndings here are

consistent with other studies beyond design collaboration

[20].

A second study was initiated to examine the effect of

speci®c knowledge domains on the ability to collaborate

under different communication bandwidths [18]. In this

study, eight educational psychologist students were paired

up with eight architecture graduate students to work on a

kindergarten playground design task collaboratively. Again,

they were randomly assigned to work in either a chat-line or

video-conferencing condition. A shared drawing board is

always available for communications and presentations of

the design solutions. The protocols collected were coded

and analysed according to the two models explained

above, that is, collaborative strategy and design content.

The results found are consistent with the earlier studies.

When coded with the `Collaborative Process Model', the

percentage of exchanges of each step is similar for both

chat-line and video/audio conditions. The amount is reduced

proportionally for the chat-line conditions. However, when

it is coded with the `Design Process Model', the ratio of

high- versus low-level design exchange is reversed for the

chat-line and the video-conferencing conditions. Further-

more, this pattern is consistent over the architectural and

the educational psychology students, suggesting that the

effect is mainly due to the bandwidth of the collaborative

environment, instead of the knowledge domain of the

subjects.

Additionally, the ®nal design solutions were evaluated by

two architects and two educational psychologists, respec-

tively. Using similar evaluative methods and criteria as in

the ®rst study, the architects found no signi®cant difference

between the two conditions. The educational psychologists

devised a set of evaluation criteria relevant to playground

design and applied these to the designs. There were again no

signi®cant differences between the designs produced in each

condition, except when using the criterion of `safety'. In this

dimension, participants in the chat-line condition were

found to produce better design solutions. This result

suggests that a chat line may allow for a better collaboration

than the audio/video conditions.

3.2. Initiating ideas: a richer design exploration

As noted above, results from the earlier studies suggest

that textual communications play an interesting role in the

solution of collaborative design problems. The fact that the

`reversal effect' exists in the chat-line condition led us to

seek an explanation for it. Also, the notable result found in

the playground study, showing the possible bene®ts of using

a chat line to solve the collaborative design problems, was

considered worthy of further examination.

A follow-up study was therefore initiated to explore the

particular properties of text communication in design [18].

In this study, the authors investigated the relative roles of

textual and diagrammatic representation in a collaborative

design task. Unlike the earlier studies, the two different

conditions established did not use video/audio connec-

tions. In one condition, the participants were asked to


Fig. 2. Collaborative process model.

communicate by chat line and allowed to draw on a white-

board as they sought to collaboratively resolve the design

problem. The product of this collaboration was a sketched

solution. In the second condition, the participants were

asked to explore the design and come to a proposal only

through the chat line, then write up a proposal in text form.

Those in the text-only condition were given an additional

5±10 min after the experiment to translate the text descrip-

tion into a diagram without modifying their ideas, allowing

con®rmation that a shared understanding had been arrived at

in text mode. This diagram could then be compared to the

®nal drawing with those in the other condition. By these

means, the authors sought to identify the effects of text

versus diagrams in the collaborative design task when the

bandwidth is limited to `chat-line' conditions.

In keeping with the earlier experiments, the subjects for

this study were ten students completing the fourth year of a

®ve-year professional architecture programme at the

University of Hong Kong. The design problem was the

site problem used in the ®rst experiments above. The proto-

cols were coded to identify when new ideas were introduced

into the communication. New ideas were de®ned to be: (1)

an idea not yet mentioned; or (2) a fundamental reinterpre-

tation of an idea in play. Table 2 shows the raw number of

initiations and total communications during the experi-

ments. From this encoding, it was found that chat-line par-

ticipants explored more ideas (the ratio of high-level

exchange initiated by subjects in the chat-line conditions

is larger than that of those in the audio condition in general)

than those using video/audio. Thus, the chat line appeared to

promote a richer exploration of the design problem space

than video/audio environments.

Although not enough participant pairs have been run to

allow statistical analysis, the trend is very clear. Subjects in

the text-only condition have richer design explorations than

those in the diagram conditions, with text-only descriptions

producing almost 16 new ideas per 100 utterances in text

compared with 6 new ideas for every 100 when a diagram is

allowed. The absolute numbers are even more stark Ð text-

only pairs explored up to ®ve times as many ideas as those

using diagrams. Thus, the protocols indicate that partici-

pants using diagrams to support their design exploration

may be ®xating on ideas, whereas those using text alone

work their way through a variety of concepts in the time

allowed. This suggests that a text environment may have

unique properties in encouraging design students in more

divergent thinking and to be less bounded by the diagram-

matic representations of ideas as they are being explored.

The results also suggest a possible explanation for the ®nd-

ing in earlier studies that a chat line provided better support

for collaborative design.

It should be acknowledged that this kind of study is

limited by the experimental framework. In interpreting the

results, it is necessary to ask more general questions about

contextual factors that would apply in any real design situa-

tion, whether computer-mediated or not. However, the

studies raise valuable questions about assumptions made

as to what is best in computer support for design. In par-

ticular, the issue regarding diagrammatic representations is

relevant to a case study carried out by the second author.

In a study of strategic knowledge in engineering design

management, a new design process model was developed

and tested in a complex vehicle engineering design project.

The reformulation of the design process was itself an

example of an expert engineer devising a new form of stra-

tegic knowledge. His aim was to apply project processes

that enabled the team to develop methods for setting targets

at the outset of the concept design process. The targets were

based upon subjective and objective measures acquired

from empirical test exercises that could be used to evaluate

a number of possible design solutions. These targets

provided a set of criteria against which the ideas that were

generated could be tested. A crucial part of the change

process was to force a delay to the point when the team

moves into geometric layout design. By delaying the

move to layout design, the focus of the design team's atten-

tion remained ®rmly upon higher-level considerations and

the need to address multiple criteria. Only when the optimal

solution was found did the diagrammatic representation

begin [7].

In essence, these studies illustrate the importance of iden-

tifying the appropriate techniques for supporting the

concept generation (or solution ®nding) process, as distinct

from the solution generation. However, in devising learning

methods, it should be borne in mind that inexperienced

designers often prefer to be taught practical solutions rather

than high-level concepts. Nevertheless, a concern for situa-

tional awareness and the ability to devise context-based

strategies is often what is most required in practical situa-

tions [21]. In the learning support environments, domain

knowledge is needed to provide practical experience in solu-

tion ®nding in the early stages. It is only at an advanced

stage that strategies for higher-level concept formation are

more readily embraced.

3.3. Text and other modes of communicating in design

These ®ndings, that text supports design exploration, is

sympathetic to the emphasis on textual support of design

communication has been explored elsewhere [22,23].

Lawson and Loke [24], for example, note that commercially

available CAD systems do not support the full range of

design communication necessary, including text. Even

where drawings are used, the importance of words has

been noted, for example by SchoÈn [25; p. 80]:

But as Quist says these things, he also draws.¼His

words do not describe what is already there on the

paper but parallel the process by which he makes

what is there. Drawing and talking are parallel ways

of designing, and together make up what I will call the

language of designing.


Text has many roles, as explored in Ref. [22]. It supports

exploration, aids communication, archives decisions and

serves both individual and collaborative designers. The

inter-relation between form and concept is often better-

supported by expression in multiple media. As any designer

knows, text is essential when conveying to a manufacturer

or contractor a design and its implementation. The means by

which each form of media accomplishes all these contri-

butions is not yet clear although it is now acknowledged

that the almost singular interest in graphics as a design

communication mode is not appropriate. Systems to support

a breadth of communication modes in design are being

investigated by a number of researchers (e.g. Refs.

[2,22,24,31]).

Other research has looked into the role of non-verbal

communication in design. Whittaker and O'Conaill [26]

have identi®ed four communicative acts supported by

vision, which are gaze, facial expression, gestures and

posture. The contribution of gestures, for example, has

been explored in depth by Tang [27]. Whittaker and

O'Conaill note, however, that there is little impact of this

visual information on cognitive problem solving even when

using high-quality connections or face-to-face (p. 37)

although A/V supports the transmission of social cues and

effective information, thus changing the outcomes of tasks

requiring emotional or effective factors such as negotiating,

bargaining and con¯ict resolution.

It is not clear what role these other communication tech-

niques have on learning about design, even though it has

been postulated that they have some effect on the design

process [27]. The experimental ®ndings on the role of text

and communication reported above [5,18,19] have,

however, been taken into design studio teaching. The ®rst

author has implemented an architectural design studio

exercise using a bulletin board to supplement (not substitute

for) traditional face-to-face design teaching in a second-year

undergraduate architectural design curriculum (Fig. 3).

Students have been observed by researchers and interviewed

at the end of their design exercise to identify the effect of

this supporting technology on learning. In addition to meet-

ing students twice a week for individual or group dis-

cussions or work reviews, the teacher interacted with

students through a bulletin board accessed by web browser.

This board allowed text and graphics to be posted. Students

each had their own web conference as well as there being

class-wide conference entries. Students decided to allow

access to all conferences, including their own, so each

student was able to follow discussions in any other student's

work. Data from students in this group have been compared

to data gathered from studios taught solely by the face-to-

face methods. Although the ®ndings are still tentative and

will need to be examined further before being formally

reported, initial ®ndings indicate that students in the

bulletin-board-supported group have gained a far deeper


Fig. 3. A bulletin board web page.

understanding of the implications of their design choices.

Students with web support have reported that they under-

stand the process of design more clearly; that they under-

stand the issues that need to be considered. When we look at

the data on time spent, students with the web board spent

more time discussing issues encountered from broader

perspectives. Expressing their ideas in text forced the

students to articulate particular concerns more explicitly

than inferring them in drawings. Because they were able

to read messages created by other students but related to

their own problems, they were challenged to extract knowl-

edge from one situation to another.

Using the distinction drawn between strategic and tactical

design knowledge at the beginning of this paper, this data

seems to suggest that strategic knowledge about design,

transferable from one problem to the next, is better-

supported by this text-based system. It was observed that

students without web-supported text communication

concentrated more on their own immediate design

problems, the tactical issues.

4. Delivering computer environments for collaborativedesign

The studies described in the previous section illustrate a

range of valuable insights into the nature of designing with

current computer environments for supporting collaborative

design. A number of questions arise about the role of exist-

ing computer environments in collaborative design and the

possible limitations that are imposed on designer effective-

ness by the emphasis on graphical visualisation systems and

achieving multiple, synchronous modes of interaction. The

results of these studies can be seen as a critique of current

approaches and constitute a growing body of knowledge in

the area of how to provide support for a range of design

activities and designer cognitive styles. This includes

support for collaborative team design as well as maintaining

appropriate features for individual working. In addition, the

level of expertise of the designer and the types of knowledge

being applied and needed are important considerations. The

distinction between the requirements of a support environ-

ment for a learner and an expert has yet to be fully under-

stood. More empirical research into the characteristics of

these differing and overlapping forms of design is needed

in order to enrich our general understanding of design

processes and to inform design education about appropriate

methods. However, if this research is also to in¯uence the tools

and applications available to the design community, there is a

need to provide methods for applying the results in a way

that matches the cognitive characteristics of designers.

In research by the second author, a number of empirical

studies of creative design practice were carried out with

experts who had generated new knowledge or innovative

products. From the results, criteria for designing computer

support systems were identi®ed. The evaluation of the

system is carried out in relation to the different levels of

criteria and their relationship to the particular aspect of the

creative cognitive processes to which they apply. This

approach to cognitive modelling of creative knowledge

work and to interactive systems design support is described

more fully by Candy [28].

The criteria for evaluating a computer system may be

applied to three levels of system design: interaction con-

®guration, interaction style and interaction quality. The

interaction con®guration includes any system modules,

applications and (peripheral) devices that are accessed

through the user interface: these include drawing systems,

statistical packages and databases, knowledge-based

modules, communication and collaboration applications

such as video-conferencing, voice mail, e-mail and internet

browsers. Interaction styles include any form of available

technique and combinations thereof including direct manip-

ulation, menu driven, command line, form ®lling and

natural language. Interaction quality may be assessed by

de®ning and applying performance criteria to the interaction

con®guration and choice of interaction style.

The interaction design scope includes all those com-

ponents and modules of the computer system that the user

is intended to interact with even where it is not necessary to

construct each one from scratch. The integration of different

applications and models is often necessary and where the

applications are not in themselves integrated, the user inter-

face design is expected to take account of inter-application

interactions.

In relation to the support of knowledge work in collabo-

rative design, criteria for interaction con®guration were

identi®ed as:

² generate and re®ne solutions in personal work space;

² have access to shared spaces for collaborative work;

² develop solutions in private space and transfer to shared

space as required.

The criteria for private and shared work space were applied

to interaction con®guration functions in a demonstrator

computer support system described by Edmonds [29] and

Parks and Edmonds [30]. Similar arrangements of shared

and private space have also been developed in the design

domain to support collaborative architectural design (see,

for example, Woo et al. [31]).

A computer-based meeting scenario was designed and the

demonstrator implemented using web-based tools. The

system consists of three modules: the conference manage-

ment zone (including head and shoulders, video and sound),

a shared whiteboard area and a private work space. The

private space consists of a web browser, which can display

any HTML page and might, for example, be used to look at

a parts catalogue. In this particular case, the important pages

are ones that communicate with the knowledge base. For

simple interactions, where tables, etc. are normally used,

form interfaces to the knowledge are used.


In this example, support for collaboration between

colleagues who are working at different locations enables

users to participate in a shared environment and work inde-

pendently at the same time. This enables users to have an

awareness of the shared artefact and to explore a particular

issue in a private space. Whilst anecdotal evidence suggests

that the system has suf®cient capability to support certain

areas of design knowledge work, further work is planned to

investigate its implications for distributed collaborative

working methods and the quality of interaction for

designers.

In other research by the authors, the use of internet tools

as a medium for collaborative activities across different time

zones has been investigated [32,33]. The experiments were

conducted using a prototype system including voice-, text-

and graphics-based communication tools that were brought

together with a common interface according to the require-

ments of a particular user group. In Wojtowicz et al. [32] the

task was shared design; in Shah et al. [33], the task involved

a collaborative exercise in preparing a research paper. Both

results have showed that, whilst collaborative working over

the internet using existing tools is possible, there remain a

number of outstanding problems with the fundamental

capability of the technology that need to be addressed before

realistic scenarios can be put in place. In particular, the

bandwidth and traf®c performance issues, time delays and

inconsistencies between the equipment at different sites are

major hurdles when operating in combination to the smooth

operation required to support complex tasks between

collaborating people in real-world environments. However,

as suggested by Vera et al. [5], the solution to the bandwidth

aspect is not necessarily to increase bandwidth but to ®nd

ways to exploit the situation to bene®cial ends.

5. Conclusions

This paper has identi®ed the centrality of strategic knowl-

edge to collaboration in design activities. A characterisation

of strategic knowledge is proposed and a distinction

between strategies and tactics in professional work made.

The founding ideas are based upon empirical studies of

design in practice and education. Stemming from the experi-

mental evidence reported in earlier work and referred to

here, one of the authors (Kvan) has restructured a design

studio class to create opportunities for the deliberative

learning proposed by Eraut [7] and to explore the effective-

ness of text as a medium of strategy learning. As we have

noted in Section 3.3, ®ndings suggest that the textual

expression of early design ideas encourages exploration of

underlying issues. Application of this idea in teaching has

illustrated that students do examine the strategic design

concerns and strategies more in textual communication.

Indeed, while the research stems from considering

collaborative design activities, its implications suggest

that the techniques of employing computer support for

textual communication in design can be used to the bene®t

of individual students learning in the context of traditional

design teaching, not only collaborative settings.

This empirical evidence suggests that additional experi-

mental work can further focus on the acquisition of strategic

knowledge in collaborative design. The second author

(Candy) is developing the criteria-based approach to

designing and evaluating the communication system

described in the paper in order to study the impact on

distributed collaborative working methods and the quality

of interaction for engineering designers. Initial results

indicate that computer tools to support the acquisition of

strategic design knowledge will need to be different from

the interfaces in computer-aided design or computer-based

communication systems available today.

References

[1] J. Hirshberg, The Creative Priority: Driving Innovative Business in

the Real World, Allen Lane, Penguin Press, UK, 1998.

[2] L. Candy, E.A. Edmonds, P. Patrick, Interactive knowledge support to

conceptual design. AI system support for conceptual design, Proceed-

ings Lancaster International Workshop on Engineering Design Ð

LIWED'95, Springer, Berlin, 1995 (pp. 260±278).

[3] K.C. Clibbon, L. Candy, E.A. Edmonds, A logic-based framework for

representing architectural design knowledge, Proceedings, Computer-

Aided Architectural Design Futures, International Conference, The

Global Studio, September, Singapore, 1995, pp. 42±53.

[4] K. Hori, Where is, what is, and how can we use strategic knowledge,

in: L. Candy, K. Hori (Eds.), Proceedings, First International Work-

shop on Strategic Knowledge and Concept Formation, Loughborough

University: LUTCHI Research Centre, 17±19 November 1997, pp.

35±42.

[5] A. Vera, T. Kvan, R. West, S. Lai, Expertise and collaborative design,

CHI'98 Conference Proceedings, ACM, Los Angeles, CA, 1998 (pp.

503±510).

[6] P. Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge,

London/New York, 1992.

[7] L. Candy, Representing strategic knowledge in design, Special Issue

on Strategic Knowledge and Concept Formation, K. Hori (Ed.),

Knowledge-Based Systems 11 (7/8) (1998) 379±390.

[8] M. Eraut, Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, The

Falmer Press, London, 1994.

[9] F. Duffy, L. Hutton, Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Pro-

fession, E&FN Spon, London, 1998.

[10] D.A. SchoÈn, Educating the Re¯ective Practitioner, Jossey Bass, San

Francisco, CA, 1987.

[11] R.A. Finke, T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, Creative Cognition: Theory,

Research and Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992.

[12] J.R. Hayes, Three problems in teaching general skills, in: S.F.

Chipman, J.W. Segal, R. Glaser (Eds.), Research and Open Questions,

Thinking and Learning Skills, vol. 2, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Hillsdale, NJ, 1985, pp. 391±405.

[13] D.A. SchoÈn, Designing: rules, types and worlds, Design Studies 9 (3)

(1988) 181±190.

[14] H.A. Simon, Models of Thought, Yale University Press, New Haven,

CT, 1979.

[15] K.A. Ericsson, R.T. Krampe, C. Tesch-RoÈmer, The role of deliberate

practice in the acquisition of expert performance, Psychological

Review 100 (3) (1993) 363±406.

[16] K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, Expert performance, American Psy-

chologist August (1994) 725±747.


[17] D.N. Perkins, The Mind's Best Work, Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA, 1981.

[18] T. Kvan, A. Yip, A. Vera, Supporting design studio learning: an

investigation into design communication in computer-supported

collaboration, CSCL'99, Stanford, 12±15 December 1999.

[19] T. Kvan, R. West, A. Vera, Tools and channels of communication:

dealing with the effects of computer mediation on design communi-

cation, International Journal of Virtual Reality 3 (3) (1998).

[20] G.M. Olson, J.S. Olson, M.R. Carter, M. Storrùsten, Small group

meetings: an analysis of collaboration, Human Computer Interaction

7 (1992) 347±374.

[21] J.S. Busby, K.H. Payne, A behavioural training system for planning

judgement, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 15 (1999) 61±72.

[22] W. Wong, T. Kvan, Textual support of collaborative design, in: O.

Ataman, J. BermuÂdez (Eds.), ACADIA'99, Media and Design

Process, ACADIA, Salt Lake City, UT, 1999, pp. 168±176.

[23] D.H. Sonnenwald, Communication roles that support collaboration

during the design process, Design Studies 17 (3) (1996) 277±301.

[24] B. Lawson, S.M. Loke, Computers, words and pictures, Design

Studies 18 (1997) 171±183.

[25] D.A. SchoÈn, The Re¯ective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in

Action, Basic Books, New York, 1983.

[26] S. Whittaker, B. O'Conaill, The role of vision in face-to-face and

mediated communication, in: K.E. Finn, A.J. Sellen, S.B. Wilbur

(Eds.), Video-Mediated Communication, Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-

ciates, Mahwah, NJ, 1997, pp. 23±49.

[27] J.C. Tang, Findings from observational studies of collaborative work,

International Journal of Man±Machine Studies 34 (1991) 143±160.

[28] L. Candy, Cognitive modelling of creative knowledge work for inter-

action design criteria, in: J. Gero, M.-L. Maher (Eds.), Proceedings of

the 4th International Roundtable Conference on Computational

Models of Creative Design, December 1999, pp. 57±79.

[29] E.A. Edmonds, Tools for value-added services on high speed

networks, EPSRC GR/K36751, Final Report, LUTCHI Research

Centre, Loughborough, 1997.

[30] L. Parks, E.A. Edmonds, A method for graphical input on the WWW,

Proceeding of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Ð CHI'97, ACM, New York, 1997 (pp. 339±340).

[31] S. Woo, I. Kim, E. Lee, T. Sasada, The multi-user workspace as the

medium for communication in collaborative design, in: Y.-T. Liu,

J.-Y. Tsou, J.-H. Hou (Eds.), CAADRIA'97, National Chiao Tung

University, Hsinchu, 17±19 April, Proceedings of the Second Con-

ference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia,

Hu's Publisher Inc, Taiwan, 1997, pp. 133±142.

[32] J. Wojtowicz, N. Cheng, T. Kvan, Postscript: the virtual design studio

1994, in: J. Wojtowicz (Ed.), Virtual Design Studio, Hong Kong

University Press, Hong Kong, 1995, pp. 131±151.

[33] D. Shah, L. Candy, E.A. Edmonds, An investigation into supporting

collaboration over the internet, Computer Communications 20 (1998)

1458±1466.

[34] AverKey300 system, http://www.averm.com.tw/uk/key300.htm.


Documents

Designing collaborative environments for strategic knowledge in design