12131415161718 18 of 18
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Using models as boundary objects in early design negotiations: analysis and implications for decision support systems
Chalmers University of Technology, SWE.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5216-0944
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering. (Product Development Research Lab)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5076-3300
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering. (Product Development Research Lab)
2019 (English)In: Journal of Design Research, ISSN 1748-3050, E-ISSN 1569-1551, Vol. 17, no 2-4, p. 214-237Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

One common strategy to include more downstream lifecycle dimensions in early design is to enrich modelling and simulation techniques embedded in decision support systems. However, downstream dimensions are difficult to trade against more traditional engineering objectives. This research studied through individual interviews how six disciplines use models to negotiate design trade-offs. References to models were categorised according to whether models supported or hampered the duration of trade-off identification and how they impacted the duration of trade-off resolution. The results point to the difficulty of applying downstream lifecycle issues earlier in the design process because of the characteristics of the models that are used. A list of characteristics promoting and limiting the use of four models as boundary objects (CAD models, simulation results, total cost of ownership and decision matrices) is provided. The cross-analysis of these characteristics provides insights into how models need to be organised in decision support systems.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
InderScience Publishers, 2019. Vol. 17, no 2-4, p. 214-237
Keywords [en]
collaborative design; decision-making; engineering design; boundary object; product development
National Category
Other Mechanical Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-19349DOI: 10.1504/JDR.2019.105757OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-19349DiVA, id: diva2:1420608
Projects
Model Driven Development and Decision Support +
Funder
Knowledge FoundationAvailable from: 2020-03-31 Created: 2020-03-31 Last updated: 2020-04-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1144 kB)19 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1144 kBChecksum SHA-512
4fa7a81e25a4f83e0051df562e2e6c64600dd8ec150d98c25d3ba2e0f7e67779eae994179cd5428025eca553955f4ee80f0cc9be9d521bc5d7192c6a84729b89
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full texthttps://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=105757

Authority records BETA

Bertoni, MarcoJohansson, Christian

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Panarotto, MassimoBertoni, MarcoJohansson, Christian
By organisation
Department of Mechanical Engineering
In the same journal
Journal of Design Research
Other Mechanical Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 19 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 41 hits
12131415161718 18 of 18
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf