- Email: [email protected]
A Speech Act Theory-based information model to support design communication through annotations
Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Industry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind
A Speech Act Theory-based information model to support design communication through annotations Onur Hisarciklilar *, Jean-Franc¸ois Boujut G-SCOP, INPGrenoble, UJF, CNRS, 46 avenue Fe´lix Viallet, 38031 Grenoble Cedex, France
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 3 March 2008 Received in revised form 17 October 2008 Accepted 13 February 2009 Available online 9 April 2009
The aim of this paper is to describe an annotation model based around design representations. The model tends to promote more successful co-operation between design actors and enables more systematic knowledge sharing. Our annotation model is a set of digital artefacts, which have a semantic dimension. These artefacts aim to improve the design communication through the elicitation of knowledge about the context. We develop a linguistics pragmatics approach, based on Speech Act Theory to characterise annotations in design co-operation. By following the utterance and illocutionary force concepts, we develop locutionary and illocutionary annotation acts concepts. Then, we present an information model on the basis of these concepts. Finally, we propose functionalities for an annotation tool based on our approach. ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Collaborative engineering Annotation tool Speech Act Theory Annotation act
1. Introduction Engineering design processes are becoming more and more complex. For many years, successful design methodologies based on the decomposition of these processes into sub-processes or tasks have been developed in order to deal with complex design situations. Companies have implemented design procedures in order to control the quality of the design process and eventually assess the quality of the product. However, today’s market environment requires more than complex procedures in order to assess the quality of the product. New organisations based on concurrent engineering principles involve the co-operation of an increasingly high number of stakeholders from different fields of expertise during the design process. Thus, many researchers today point out the importance of team work in design, and consider the design activity as a social process, and the design team as a social organisation [1,2]. Researchers tend to explore knowledge creation and sharing within the design process, in order to understand and manage social interactions between participants. Pahl and Beitz [3] argue that it is knowledge that links design participants and enables them to undertake actions and make decisions that direct the process and determine its outcome. The quality of human expertise and the ability to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 56 52 89 06; fax: +33 4 76 57 46 95. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (O. Hisarciklilar). 0166-3615/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2009.02.014
retrieve and use knowledge throughout the design process are crucial to the outcome [4]. On the other hand, artefacts have a capital role to create, represent and share knowledge in a concurrent design context, being the main objects of conversation between actors [5], and providing the links between them [6]. Today, many powerful tools (such as CAD, CAM or simulation tools) are widely used in industry, which aim to produce these materials. According to Vinck and Jeantet [7,8], these artefacts are used as intermediary objects, i.e. they are related to the action itself (i.e. the product), and they are a means of co-ordinating designers’ activities. Star [9] stresses their role as boundary objects, allowing the expression of a shared knowledge between cross-domain actors. However, communication between actors involved in these organisations is still inefficient. In fact, actors are spending a large part of their time seeking, organising, modifying and translating information, often unrelated to their own personal disciplines [10]. In spite of the multitude of computer-supported tools which aim to support specific issues during the design processes, there is very limited number of tools dedicated to support design communication and argumentation processes. Actors often need to be provided with a means of developing more systematic cooperation around product representations and more adapted information to the context of use [11]. The aim of this paper is to describe an annotation-based information model around design representations. The model tends to promote a more successful co-operation between design actors and enables them to share design knowledge more systematically in asynchronous communication. We develop a linguistics pragmatics
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
approach, based on the Speech Act Theory (SAT) to characterise our annotation structure. By following the utterance and illocutionary force concepts, we develop locutionary and illocutionary annotation acts concepts. Then, we present an information model and tool functionalities based on this structure. Our information model uses a set of digital artefacts that improves the design communication through the elicitation of knowledge related to the context of design through 3D product representations. The paper is divided into six sections. In the next section, we mention the importance of artefacts in design communication through several works in the literature. In the third section, we describe the semantic annotation concept, and the roles of annotations in the engineering design context. The forth section is dedicated to explaining our approach. We first describe the SAT concept, and define the annotation acts, inspired from that concept. Finally, we propose functionalities for an annotation tool based on our approach.
511
Fig. 1. Cooperating features [11].
2. Importance of artefacts in design communication Among the numerous works on co-operation artefacts, we will first mention Vinck’s and Jeantet’s [7,8] works on the ‘intermediary object’ concept. This generic approach covers all types of artefacts produced in the co-operation space, whether physical (plans, sketches, etc.) or virtual (CAD models, calculating results, etc.). Two dimensions characterise intermediary objects: they are related to the action itself (i.e. the product), and they are a means for coordinating designers’ activities. Note that any representation of the product is a potential intermediary object and more generally, any artefact, when used in as basis for discussion, may become an ‘‘intermediary object’’. This approach can be compared with the boundary object concept. In a general sense, boundary objects inhabit several intersecting social worlds, satisfying the informational requirements of each of them. Carlile [12] describes three approaches to knowledge boundaries in product development by referring to Shannon and Weaver’s [13] three levels of communication complexity: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic boundary. Syntactic boundary, or information-processing boundary, refers to the knowledge transfer issue, and is characterised by a common lexicon between the receiver and the sender in a boundary. Semantic boundary refers to the interpretative differences of a piece of boundary knowledge, which affects the translation of knowledge. Pragmatic boundary, referring to the transformation of knowledge, arises when actors have considerable different interests, where the knowledge needs to be transformed in order to be shared and assessed at a boundary. Many works show that boundary objects provide the expression of shared knowledge between cross-domain actors and different functional interests between them. They allow these actors negotiating around these objects, and facilitating the knowledge transformation [9,14]. Our approach for design co-operation support is based on the concept of ‘co-operating features’ [11]. These are geometric symbol representations created during discussions between participants, and added to the CAD model (see Fig. 1). They are not representations of the product, but artefacts that materialise tacit design rules commonly used by participants. During discussions, these objects complement propositions of solutions made by one participant, and provide the other participants with the opportunity to evaluate or react to the proposition. The importance of these objects as co-operating artefacts has been demonstrated in a crossdomain case study [15]. Creating links between different domains, they have proved to promote a shared understanding between design and industrial experts. The objective of our work is to go further on this promising approach by providing a generic structure to these 3D symbols in
order to incite the design group to reach a systematic co-operation around 3D product representations. In the following, we will describe semantic annotations in a design context and a design case, before introducing our approach. 3. Semantic annotations as artefacts in co-operative design 3.1. Semantic annotations Semantic annotations can be described as annotations that are interpretable (or reusable) by a human being in a given context. In the Semantic Web domain, semantic annotations are intended primarily for use by machines to identify concepts and relations between concepts in documents. The main idea is to create ‘intelligent documents’, a document which ‘‘knows about’’ its own content in order that automated processes can ‘‘know what to do’’ with it [16]. The Semantic Web annotation frameworks, such as Annotea [17] or CREAM [18] intend to relate terms (e.g. dog) in a Web document to an ontology, to both abstract concepts (animal) or instances of abstract concepts (cat), in order to remove any ambiguity about the term. Semantic Web annotation brings two kinds of benefits to the information systems, enhanced information retrieval and improved interoperability. Information retrieval is improved by the ability to perform searches, which exploit the ontology to make inferences about data from heterogeneous resources. Interoperability is particularly important for organisations, which have large legacy databases, often in different proprietary formats that do not easily interact. In these circumstances, annotations based on a common ontology can provide a common framework for the integration of information from heterogeneous sources. In the engineering design context, promising works are arising to support cooperative work on 3D design representations with domain ontologies (supporting for example product, process or part information). Researchers tend to provide ontologies for example to add advanced search functionalities for annotated textual information on 3D representations [19], or providing domain specific information representations of 3D models by attaching domain ontology instances to parts of the model [20]. This paper on the other hand, provides semantic support, dedicated to human interpretation to improve interpersonal communication. Semantic annotations dedicated to human utilisation are often characterised by their goals. The goal of an annotation in this context is the relation between the object (information) and the action (the effect of the information) in its context. For the context of annotation of textual documents, Zacklad [21] for example argues that annotations can either take
512
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
the form of a proposal destined to be integrated into the main semiotic product, or they can be designed to express criticisms or to raise questions without being intended to remain a part of the main product, or they can be intended to be a perennial commentary on the main production process. Marshall [22] defines six types of annotations in collaborative reading according to their goal: annotations as procedural signals, annotations as place markings and aids to memory, annotations as in situ locations for problem-working, annotations as a record of interpretive activity, annotations as a visible trace of the reader’s attention, and annotations as incidental reflections of the material circumstances. A part of the work presented in this paper consists of the characterisation and elicitation of the goal of annotations in argumentative engineering design communication. 3.2. Annotations in co-operative design communication Annotations have been used for many years in design teams as a means of communication. The use of digital media in design processes have radically changed the annotation processes [23], which were traditionally paper based. Even if they remain usually short-term and unstructured, annotations are often employed in engineering design. 3.2.1. CAD drawings, sketches and annotations The exact definition of an annotation is still controversial. But some aspects regarding different objects manipulated during design processes can help to characterise annotations in these processes. We propose a comparison of CAD drawings, sketches and annotations according to their mode of representation [24]. The semioticien and philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce [25] proposes a three level typology of signs, which characterises the relationship between a sign (or signifier) and an object (signified, which the sign refers to): icons, symbols and indexes. For our purposes here, we will stress the difference between an icon and a symbol. For Pierce, an icon is the mode in which the signifier is perceived as resembling or imitating the signified (looking, sounding, feeling, tasting or smelling like it), being similar in possessing some of its qualities. A photograph of an apple, for instance, is an iconic representation, as it refers to it by having the same dimensional proportions, shapes, rendering and colour. Thus, the relationship between these two objects is physical and natural, rather than intellectual and cultural. On the other hand, a symbol is a mode in which the signifier does not resemble the signified; it is, on the contrary, fundamentally arbitrary or purely conventional, so that the relationship must be learnt. Language is the most typical example of symbolic representation. For example, the word ‘apple’ does not contain any physical characteristics of the object of apple. Obviously, one should learn the significance of a word in advance in order to recognise this relationship. Pierce adds that a signifier is never purely symbolic or iconic. It is always a mix of these modes in different proportions. For example, even a photograph contains some conventions required to be correctly interpreted. A sign can also be a combination of several signs having different modes. The ‘no smoking’ sign is a typical example of this. The representation is composed of a cigarette drawing (which is rather iconic), enclosed by a circle with an oblique bar, which is a very conventional way to represent an interdiction (Fig. 2). Some typical design artefacts can be compared using this point of view (Fig. 3). For instance, a 3D CAD model is mainly an iconic representation. The tendency in 3D CAD representations is for them to look as much as possible like the mechanical components they represent, as the technology increases the level of details
Fig. 2. A typical no smoking sign combines symbolic and iconic representations.
Fig. 3. Modes of representation for different design artefacts.
through photorealistic rendering techniques for example. There is still, however, a set of conventions to be learnt in order for a 3D CAD model to be interpreted correctly. Sketches, even if they are rather iconic, contain usually more conventions than 3D CAD representations for example hatchings, doubled boundaries, coloured parts. The interpretation of these parts requires specific knowledge, related for example to a domain of expertise or a community of practice. On the other hand, annotations are mainly symbolic representations. Whether they are graphical (e.g. an arrow representing the movement of rotation of a component) or textual (e.g. an attached text on a representation describing a functionality), annotations require knowledge to be understood. 3.2.2. Objectives of annotation usage in design communication From the different design situations that we observed, we concluded that the annotations are essentially used across two phases of the design process for communication proposes: asynchronous phase, where the digital artefact is produced, and synchronous phase, where the artefact is collectively evaluated. An asynchronous situation is defined as a situation where a designer produces a CAD model of an object, or more generally a situation where an individual activity is carried out. In that case, notes can be produced individually in order to establish a list of decisions, remarks, explanations, etc. making reference to a document (e.g. the CAD model). Annotated documents often remain private and can be used for several objectives, such as information indexation, or memorisation of the current design situation, etc. Annotations are used in asynchronous situations to represent and capitalise information whose nature is not completely geometrical, such as a manufacturing process, or a type of material, etc. The other engineering design situation when annotations are often used is a synchronous situation where a collective evaluation of the artefact is carried out. During this activity, intermediary
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
documents, which are mostly paper-based, are commented and annotated. Today, these meetings are generally mediated by digital representations, and the distant actors communicate through instant messaging and/or video conferencing tools. During these activities, annotations are used mainly as a way to reinforce the oral discourse. These annotations are poorly structured and cannot be reinterpreted outside the context where they have been created. Therefore, the majority of annotations created during a design review cannot be reused during another one. All critiques and argumentations are oral and nothing remains after the meeting apart from the personal notes taken by the participants of the review. The design review is a place where solutions are discussed, and the different points of views are expressed. Although these evaluations sometimes result in the structure of the product being altered, the solution is very seldom modified during these reviews. Annotated screenshots of shared product representations can be used to create the design minutes that record the main decisions and they are supposed to help the designers during the asynchronous phase [26]. In conclusion, we consider that annotations have a major role for design coordination and knowledge elicitation in asynchronous phases, and an important cognitive synchronisation role in synchronous phases. The next section describes our approach of structuring annotations with associated meta-information in a way that they can support asynchronous communication between design participants. 4. A structured annotation model 4.1. Annotation acts Our approach is primarily based on the Speech Act Theory (SAT), [27,28], which is an important theory in modern linguistics. The main subject of linguistics pragmatics is the actual use, coordination and interpretation of language in practical interaction between people. Linguistics pragmatics tend to study interpersonal interaction by making the distinction between the semantic meaning of exchanged sentences and the context in which the sentence is situated, such as the speaker or the audience. Linguistics pragmatics has been used by many researchers to establish design theories [29–31]. Concerning engineering design, researchers tend to involve design artefacts as context elements of interpersonal interactions. For instance, Dearden [32] proposes the concept of material utterance, which is defined as an utterance that includes the making or modification of material artefacts. The central idea of the SAT is that when communicating, people do not just utter propositions. Every exchanged sentence in a communicational context includes the intention of the speaker to accomplish something (called the illocutionary force), such as requesting, stating, and so on. In other words, every speech act consists of an illocutionary force, applied to an utterance. There cannot be any utterance in a given context without the illocutionary force [33]. For example, even when stating a fact, you are making a statement, not just voicing a fact. The SAT implies therefore that a speaker may express different attitudes toward the same propositional content (utterance, or locutionary act) in different circumstances. For example, the same design specification (minimum tolerance between tubes is 0.3 mm), can be used either as an explication of a solution (I considered the tolerance of 0.3 mm when designing the tubes), or pointing out a problem (interference between tubes, minimum tolerance between them must be 0.3 mm). Moreover, the same sentence can contain various illocutionary forces. For example, ‘I will increase this diameter’ can either be a statement, an offer, a promise, or a threat, depending on the context of use.
513
The illocutionary force is distinct from the meaning of a message. From an illocution point of view, ‘I would like to know the tube diameter’ and ‘what modifications have you done?’ are the same – they are both intentions to obtain information. The difference between these two sentences appears when the propositional content is considered (talking about a tube diameter versus talking about modifications). Illocutionary force is also distinct from the perlocutionary effect of a speech act. The perlocution of an utterance is what it actually accomplishes, such as persuading, informing, etc. For example, by requesting you to reduce the tolerance of this hole, I may end up either making you to do it or not. In other words, the speaker controls the illocution, but attempts to control the perlocution (see Fig. 4 for an example). An important hypothesis of the SAT is that effective communication requires accurate recognition of speech acts [33]. In our annotation model, we want to offer the necessary elements to allow design actors to express and recognise their respective communicative acts. In order to characterise speech acts in design communication, we have been inspired from research on activity models and activity coding schemes of asynchronous and synchronous design processes. Coding schemes for analysing design activities are often extended versions of previous works in cognitive ergonomics and social psychology [2]. Even though these are analysis methods, used to categorise and understand design activities, they provide a typology of different intentions of designers conveyed during design activities. Our annotation model is based on the two-level coding scheme of De´tienne et al. [34]. Unlike most of the proposed schemes in the literature (see for instance [35]), De´tienne et al.’s work is focuses on computer-mediated design communication, and it tends to support both synchronous and asynchronous situations. The coding scheme distinguishes between collaborative design activities and interaction management activities. Interaction management activities aim to categorise activities concerning the communication environment (such as setting up a communication device or managing turn taking distribution), and they are not related to the design content. On the other hand, a simpler version of categorising collaborative design activities could be used to index annotations on design representations (see Table 1). Obviously, such a categorisation cannot be directly transferred to the Computer-Mediated Communication situation. Instead, we saw this work as a rich source of phenomena from which we could transpose the basic communicative and collaborative problem-solving functions to a situation. Section 4.2 presents the categorisation that we propose to elaborate annotation acts. Our observations show that every annotation expressed in an argumentative communication context has a specific purpose. Expressing this purpose and its recognition by all actors involved in a design communication is important in order to achieve effective communication, and to reach a shared understanding. In this sense,
Fig. 4. Illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
514 Table 1 Collaborative design activity categories [34]. Description Meeting management Project management Cognitive synchronisation Argumentation Assessment of solution(s) Assessment of constraint(s) Proposing solution(s) Enhancing a solution
Organising the actual meeting regarding the time available and the tasks to be done Planning the design: this involves organising and distributing tasks according to the designers’ skills Ensuring that team members share a common representation of a concept, project goals, constraints, design strategy, solutions, etc. Describing why a solution should or should not be adopted Positively or negatively evaluating a proposed solution Positively or negatively evaluating a constraint Proposing or explaining a solution or an alternative solution Enunciating supplementary and complementary ideas to develop a solution
we consider annotations to be analogous to speech acts, and propose two types: locutionary and illocutionary annotation acts [36]. A locutionary annotation act in a design context is any information that an actor wants to express by an annotation, in other words it is the utterance conveyed by an annotation. We consider it to be the textual part of the annotation, hence it can be any textual phrase that an actor can possibly say. An illocutionary annotation act, on the other hand, is the intention of the actor by putting an annotation on a CAD object (for example, to clarify a solution, to propose a solution, to identify a problem, or to evaluate a solution, etc.). The same locutionary annotation act may be made for different purposes in a given context. For example, one can express a constraint to clarify a solution, but also to identify a problem. The illocutionary annotation acts gives the annotation its conversational dimension, thus they have a crucial role in the accurate recognition of the message conveyed by the annotation.
of the annotation creator. Depending on the design team composition, this element could be the designer, project architect or assembly expert, etc. The purpose element represents the type of information that the annotation conveys, as it is important to make the distinction between an element of the solution or a discussion on a design requirement, etc. when participants want to disambiguate their communication. The project requirement instance represents any information related to a project requirement, such as the dimensions of the product. This kind of information is easier to be correctly understood by the design participants, as the project requirements are generally explicit for all participants. Domain-specific knowledge on the other hand represents any information related to the domain of expertise of the annotation author. This element is complementary to the author element. In other words, our annotation model is based on the decomposition of the four elements, each of which represents a different aspect of a message (Fig. 5): Annotation ¼ fbody text; author; pur pose; intentg
4.2. Annotation structure Our structure is based on a two-layer annotation model, and the next section describes a 3D annotation tool based on this model. Based on our own observations, we propose to group the categories presented above as follows:
Each instance in this structure is represented by a symbol. An annotation act in our model is composed of three symbols, each of which points out a dimension of the annotation act (Tables 2, 3 and 4). Section 5.2 explains how they are used in the annotation tool. The next section describes an annotation model, which highlights important dimensions of a tool based on the annotation acts.
solution proposal = {proposing a solution, enhancing a solution}; clarification = {argumentation, cognitive synchronisation}; evaluation (positive and negative) = {assessment of a constraint, assessment of a solution}.
4.3. An information model to improve design communication
The locutionary (loc) and the illocutionary (illoc) annotation acts compose the speech act or message layer of our annotation structure, that is Annotation ¼ illocðlocÞ
Based on the annotation structure presented above, this section presents a model that consists of important aspects of a software tool allowing the annotation of 3D instances of a CAD model. 4.3.1. Annotation–3D scene relationship The first dimension is the physical relationship between the annotation and the 3D scene. An annotation has an anchor point,
For the intent element of the model, representing the illocutionary part, we defined three instances, based on earlier works on activity theory and design rationale models. The clarification instance represents any annotation created for the intention of giving additional information on an existing design solution. In other words, the intention to clarify is only related to the existing version of the design solution. The evaluation instance tends to represent a positive or negative assessment of a solution proposal. The proposition instance represents, on the other hand, any intention to describe the future versions (or a part of the future version) of a design solution. Our annotation structure is composed of two additional elements, which are used to characterise annotations in a design situation: the author and the purpose of the annotation Annotation ¼ IllocðlocÞ design context These elements compose the ‘design context’ layer of the annotation structure. The Author element represents the domain
Fig. 5. Annotation model.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519 Table 2 Illocutionary dimension. Intent (illoc)
Clarification
Proposition
4.3.3. Users The third dimension is related to the user profiles of the tool. Each annotation is managed by users, each having a different status which defines their rights on the annotation (Fig. 8). There are three different types of user in the tool with varying rights of access to the different functionalities:
Evaluation
Symbol
Table 3 Authors. Domains of expertise
Architect
After sales
Assembly
Designer
Quality
Etc.
... Symbol
Table 4 Purpose of the annotation. Purpose
Project requirement or problem-related constraint
515
Domain-specific constraint
Current solution
Symbol
Fig. 6. Relationship between the annotation and the 3D scene.
defining its location, and a geometrical symbol placed on that location (an arrow), representing the anchor in the interface (Fig. 6). 4.3.2. Communication and information sharing The second dimension concerns communication/information. We introduce here the concept of an ‘‘intervention’’, which represents each message conveyed around the part of the 3D scene highlighted by the annotation. Each intervention contains meta-information related to the textual message (the structure presented in the previous section), which constitutes the abstract concept of signified. This meta-information is represented by geometrical forms in the tool (the signifiers), each of which corresponds to an instance of the meta-information structure (Fig. 7).
Domain actors, after logging in to a project, can visualise 3D scenes with existing annotations or add annotations and interventions. A project architect sets-up a project by assigning team members, creates the project milestones and uploads 3D scenes. He has a key role during the process, as he defines the passage to new milestones or new versions of the 3D scene. The architect is also a domain actor, in a way that he can annotate or intervene on a 3D scene. Administrator: The main role of the administrator is two-fold: firstly, to assure that all annotations and interventions have been clearly made, and secondly to manage the user accounts. Therefore, he has the same rights as the architect, but he can also add or delete user accounts. 4.3.4. Project management Our model also represents some elements of the project in which the 3D scenes are manipulated, in order to index annotations in the ongoing design process. A project consists of a virtual workspace, which includes participants from different domains of expertise grouped around a specific task. Every actor in a project is characterised by his domain of expertise. A project is divided into milestones, each of which represents a different version of the CAD model, i.e. the design solution. In other words, a new milestone is created each time a new design phase is opened. Every annotation is located on a 3D scene, which is created between two milestones of the design process. In addition, users can collectively decide whether they have finished discussions around an annotation by switching its status from ‘on going’, to ‘rejected’ or ‘finalised’ (Fig. 9). A finalised status shows that the annotation content is correct or useful for the process. In contrast, a rejected status implies that the content is incorrect or not useful. 5. Annotation tool functionalities By following the above structure, we present the tool’s functionalities which allow design participants to visualise design solutions, to make annotations on 3D scenes, and to display and intervene to each other’s annotations. Fig. 10 presents the relationship between the various entities of the tool. The 3D scenes consist of extractions of 3D models into a neutral (e.g. VRML) format. An xml file is associated with this 3D scene, consisting of the meta-information related to the annotations.
Fig. 7. Communication dimension.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
516
Fig. 8. User types.
Fig. 11. File storage on the server.
Fig. 9. Design process and annotation status.
5.1. Annotation server Each 3D scene and the associated xml files are stored on a server. A database is employed to store the information related to the project and the 3D scene (the project milestone where the 3D scene has been developed), and the roles of the users in the project (see Fig. 10). The project management dimension, mentioned in the previous section stores and represents the related design process in a hierarchical way. Each 3D scene and associated xml file can be related to a project milestone, which is itself created in a project. Fig. 11 illustrates an example of this structure. The project ‘electrical box design’ has two milestones, ‘initial solution’ and ‘modified box cover’. Each milestone contains one annotated 3D scene, ‘Electrical box: initial solution’ and ‘Electrical box: modified cover’.
Fig. 12. XML structure.
This simple structure allows files to be easily stored and retrieved according to the ongoing project. The 3D scenes and annotations can be modified when accessed from their location on the server. 5.2. Setting up a project Before loading and annotating 3D scenes, every actor of the design team creates an account in the tool, by specifying his/
Fig. 10. UML model of tool entities.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
517
Fig. 13. Annotation tool interface.
her name, a log-in name and a password in the corresponding window. Then, the team architect decides on the project members by selecting their names in the list of accounts. 3D scenes corresponding to a project can only be seen and annotated by the members of the team. 5.2.1. Annotating and intervening Annotation and intervention represent two different kinds of objects and actions in the tool (Fig. 10). Annotation as an object corresponds to the 3D symbol placed on the model. It is a simple arrow pointing to a specific region in the model, whose form has not any semantic meaning. Interventions are objects linked to an annotation in a recursive way, structured by four elements (body, author, purpose, intent) as described in Section 4.2. Annotation as action is adding a new pointer (arrow) to the 3D model. After putting an annotation on the 3D scene, the user is invited to add a first intervention. The act of intervention corresponds to adding a new intervention to an annotation. A 3D model can contain one or more annotations, and an annotation can contain one or more interventions. The first intervention of an annotation can whether intent to clarify the annotated part of the solution representation (clarification), to evaluate it positively or negatively (evaluation), or to propose an alternative solution (proposition). Alternatively, the user can select an existing intervention and add another intervention to it. After having typed the text of the intervention, the tool prompts the user to elicit the annotation content by selecting the intent and purpose elements. The symbol for the author element is added automatically. Each intervention is stored as a tag in the xml file containing information about the actor and signified elements (Fig. 12). The representation of annotations is divided into a structure. The first level consists of the 3D symbol attached (anchored) to a particular point of the CAD object. This symbol is a simple pointer that indicates the geometrical position on the 3D object to which the annotation refers. The second level is a map consisting of nodes (interventions) and links connecting them to each other (Fig. 13), representing the annotation acts. Each node is a combination of the three symbols as described in Section 4.2. The intervention nodes are connected to each other, forming a tree-like structure. Design actors communicate through coconstruction of these argumentation trees. The structure is inspired by the IBIS design rational capture model, in line with other interesting tools such as Compendium [37] or DRed [38]. Design rationale is an explanation of why an artefact or some part of an artefact is designed the way it is. It includes all the background knowledge such as deliberating, reasoning, trade-off
and decision-making in the design process of an artefact – information that can be valuable, even critical, to various people who deal with the artefact [39]. We focus on the processoriented design rationale systems, rather than the featureoriented ones, which emphasise the design rationale as a history of the design process [40]. The very first challenge of these tools is to convert the captured information into structured design rationale – to create links among nodes – to make the information accessible. However, they are also used to improve design communication, by proposing a method that deals with the ill-structured problems [41], and offering a way of transaction between the asynchronous and synchronous communication [37]. However, these approaches use a simple categorisation of the designer’s intention to construct the argumentation maps. Every session starts by an issue node highlighting an ill-structured problem. Proposition nodes are liked to this issue, with argumentation nodes attached to the proposition nodes that support or challenge the proposition. Design rationale tools are good real-time structuring tools, as they provide a simple and effective way to structure and index a design conversation. However they suffer from two limitations, which must be addressed in order to construct a generic design annotation tool. Firstly, the node types do not refer to or characterise the content of the messages (i.e. the purpose). Secondly, nodes only represent and index the intention of the designer (pointing out an issue, proposing a solution or argumentation). They do not show which kind of information is conveyed (locutionary dimension). Finally, as they are issuebased tools, a conversation session always starts with an issue node. In our approach the participants are free to start with any annotation node, expressing a requirement, some domain specific knowledge, or a solution evaluation, etc. 6. Conclusion In this paper, we presented an annotation approach and a resulting software tool in order to enable cross-domain engineering design actors to cooperate and communicate more efficiently around 3D product representations. Several 3D annotation tools have already been proposed in the collaborative design domain, concerning both engineering and architectural design solutions [19,42]. These tools offer some useful functionalities for knowledge integration in 3D models, offering for example product ontology integration frameworks. Alternatively, another serious issue that arises in asynchronous communication around 3D representations, which is not con-
518
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
sidered in these works, is the important degree of ambiguity. Unlike face-to-face communication, in an asynchronous situation actors do not have the possibility of disambiguating information by expressing the intentional content of exchanges by gestures and speech. The annotation tool we propose in this paper offers a framework and a tool to express the intentional content, with other additional contextual information. There are existing works using speech acts to structure computer-supported communication. Baker and Lund [43], for instance, report important benefits of a speech acts based tool in performing the problem-solving tasks by promoting task focussed and reflective interactions in a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning situation. On the other hand, other researchers (for instance [44]) argue that controlling computer-mediated communication in organisations, especially by the notion of fixed categories of speech acts may have pernicious effects. The response to such an issue is that that our model does not force designers to follow a predefined speech act categories path, but it rather helps them make their intentions explicit, in order to help designers to disambiguate each-other. In other words, it lets design actors partially build their own interaction, even though the speech act categories remain predefined. The next step of this research consists of conducting experiments with our tool in a real design context, and adding more functionality to the tool, such as using annotations to create explicit connections between different versions of a CAD model. In addition, our future research will focus on how the recognition of annotation content by machines can be improved with domain ontologies, and which benefits it can provide to the current tool functionalities.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] [23] [24]
[25] [26]
[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
References [1] M.F. Brereton, D.M. Canon, A. Mabogunje, L. Leifer, Collaboration in engineering design teams: mediating design progress through social interaction, in: Presented at Delft Workshop, Analysing Design Activity, Delft, 1994. [2] N. Cross, H. Christiaans, K. Dorst, Analysing Design Activity, Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1996. [3] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, Engineering Design—A Systematic Approach, Springer, 1996. [4] K. Wallace, S. Ahmed, R. Bracewell, Engineering knowledge management, in: J. Clarkson, C. Eckert (Eds.), Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice, Springer, 2005, pp. 326–344. [5] D. Scho¨n, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Ashgate Publishing, 1991. [6] S. Finger, S.L. Konda, E. Subrahmanian, Concurrent design happens at the interfaces, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing 9 (1995) 89–99. [7] A. Jeantet, Les objets interme´diaires dans la conception. Elements pour une sociologie des processus de conception, Sociologie de travail 3 (1998) 291–316. [8] D. Vinck, A. Jeantet, Mediating and commissioning objects in the sociotechnical process of product design: a conceptual approach, in: Presented at COST A3 Workshop, Grenoble, 1994. [9] S.L. Star, The structure of ill-structured solutions: heterogenous problem solving, boundary objects and distributed artificial intelligence, Distributed Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Fransisco, CA, 1990 , pp. 37–54. [10] E. Subrahmanian, Y. Reich, S.L. Konda, A. Dutoit, D. Cunningham, R. Patrick, M. Thomas, A.W. Westerberg, The N-DIM approach to creating design support systems, in: Presented at ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sacramento, CA, (1997), p. 22. [11] J.-F. Boujut, P. Laureillard, A co-operation framework for product-process integration in engineering design, Design Studies 23 (2002). [12] P.R. Carlile, Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries, Organization Science 15 (2004) 555–568. [13] C. Shannon, W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Illinois, 1949. [14] P.R. Carlile, A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development, Organization Science 13 (2002) 442–455. [15] P. Laureillard, Conception inte´gre´e dans l’usage: mise en oeuvre d’un dispositif d’inte´gration produit-process dans une filiaire de conception de pie`ces forge´es, in: Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. INPG, Grenoble, 2000. [16] V. Uren, P. Cimiano, J. Iria, S. Handschuh, M. Vargas-Vera, E. Motta, F. Ciravegna, Semantic annotation for knowledge management: requirements and a survey of
[35] [36]
[37]
[38]
[39] [40]
[41]
[42]
[43] [44]
the state of art, Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4 (2006) 14–28. J. Kahan, M.-R. Koivunen, Annotea: an open {RDF} infrastructure for shared Web annotations, in: Presented at Proceedings of the 10th International World Wide Web Conference, Hong Kong, 2001. S. Handschuh, S. Staab, Authoring and annotation of web pages in CREAM, in: Presented at Proceedings of the 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002), Honolulu, HI, USA, 2002. S. Aubry, I. Thouvenin, D. Lenne, S. Okawa, Knowledge integration for annotating in virtual environments, International Journal of Product Development 4 (2007) 533–546. L. Ding, J. Matthews, C. McMahon, G. Mullineux, An extended product model for constraint-based redesign applications, in: Presented at International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Paris, France, 2007. M. Zacklad, M. Lewkowicz, J.-F. Boujut, F. Darses, F. De´tienne, Forme et gestion des annotations nume´riques collectives en inge´nierie collaborative, in: Presented at IC 2003 ‘‘Inge´nierie des Connaissances’’, Laval, France, 2003. C. Marshall, Annotation: from paper books to the digital library, in: Presented at ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries, Philadelphia, 1997. J.-F. Boujut, User-defined annotations: artefacts for co-ordination and shared understanding in design teams, Journal of Engineering Design 14 (2003) 409–419. O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut, Symbolic vs. iconic: how to support argumentative design discourse with 3D product representations, in: Presented at Proceedings of IDMME—Virtual Concept 2008, Beijing, China, 2008. C.S. Peirce, Collected Writings, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1931– 1958. O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut, Reducing the ‘‘Information Gap’’ between synchronous and asynchronous co-operative design phases, in: Presented at Virtual Concept’06, Cancun, Mexico, 2006. J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975. J.R. Searle, Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969. L.L. Bucciarelli, Between thought and object in engineering design, Design Studies 23 (2002) 219–231. R. Coyne, H. Park, D. Wiszniewski, Design devices: digital drawing and the pursuit of difference, Design Studies 23 (2002) 263–286. P. Lloyd, Storytelling and the development of discourse in the engineering design process, Design Studies 21 (2000) 357–373. A. Dearden, Designing as a conversation with digital materials, Design Studies 27 (2006) 399–421. M.A. Covington, Speech acts, electronic commerce, and KQML, Decision Support Systems 22 (1998) 203–211. F. De´tienne, J.-F. Boujut, B. Hohmann, Characterization of collaborative design and interaction management activities in a distant engineering situation, in: Presented at 6th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems— COOP’04, Hye`res/France, 2004. J.S. Gero, T.M. Neill, An approach to the analysis of design protocols, Design Studies 19 (1998) 21–61. O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut, An annotation-based approach to support design communication, in: Presented at International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Paris, France, 2007. A. Selvin, S.B. Shum, M. Sierhuis, J. Conklin, B. Zimmermann, C. Palus, W. Drath, D. Horth, J. Domingue, E. Motta, G. Li, Compendium: making meetings into knowledge events, in: Presented at Knowledge Technologies, Austin, TX, 2001. R.H. Bracewell, S. Ahmed, K.M. Wallace, Dred and design folders, a way of capturing, storing and passing on, knowledge generated during design projects, in: Presented at Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2003. J. Lee, K. Lai, What’s in design rationale, Human-Computer Interaction 6 (1991) 251–280. W.C. Regli, X. Hu, M. Atwood, W. Sun, A survey of design rationale systems: approaches, representation, capture and retrieval, Engineering with Computers 16 (2000) 209–235. S.B. Shum, Design argumentation as design rationale, in: A. Kent, J.G. Williams (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1996. T. Jung, M.D. Gross, E.Y.-L. Do, Annotating and sketching on 3D web models, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM Press, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002. M. Baker, K. Lund, Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 13 (1997) 175–193. L. Suchman, Speech acts and voices, Computer Supported Collaborative Work 3 (1994) 85–95.
Onur Hisarciklilar received his Ph.D. degree in Grenoble Institute of Technology, where he is currently working as research fellow. He has worked in several projects and conducted empirical studies on engineering design communication and informal information structuring. His current research concerns annotation technologies to support distant multidisciplinary design communication.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519 Jean-Franc¸ois Boujut is Full Professor at the School of Industrial Engineering at Grenoble Institute of Technology. He earned his Ph.D. in 1993 and his Habilitation in 2001. Since then, he has conducted extensive research in engineering design including empirical studies. His research mainly focuses on informal processes and informal information structuring. Developing tools and methods for supporting distant teamwork and colla-
519
borative engineering is a key issue for the global performance of the design process. For more than 10 years J.F. Boujut has developed empirical research involving interdisciplinary work with social scientists and cognitive psychologists in order to understand design co-operation and the communication aspects of design. He is member of scientific board of numerous conferences and is a member of the advisory board of the Design Society.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Industry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind
A Speech Act Theory-based information model to support design communication through annotations Onur Hisarciklilar *, Jean-Franc¸ois Boujut G-SCOP, INPGrenoble, UJF, CNRS, 46 avenue Fe´lix Viallet, 38031 Grenoble Cedex, France
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 3 March 2008 Received in revised form 17 October 2008 Accepted 13 February 2009 Available online 9 April 2009
The aim of this paper is to describe an annotation model based around design representations. The model tends to promote more successful co-operation between design actors and enables more systematic knowledge sharing. Our annotation model is a set of digital artefacts, which have a semantic dimension. These artefacts aim to improve the design communication through the elicitation of knowledge about the context. We develop a linguistics pragmatics approach, based on Speech Act Theory to characterise annotations in design co-operation. By following the utterance and illocutionary force concepts, we develop locutionary and illocutionary annotation acts concepts. Then, we present an information model on the basis of these concepts. Finally, we propose functionalities for an annotation tool based on our approach. ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Collaborative engineering Annotation tool Speech Act Theory Annotation act
1. Introduction Engineering design processes are becoming more and more complex. For many years, successful design methodologies based on the decomposition of these processes into sub-processes or tasks have been developed in order to deal with complex design situations. Companies have implemented design procedures in order to control the quality of the design process and eventually assess the quality of the product. However, today’s market environment requires more than complex procedures in order to assess the quality of the product. New organisations based on concurrent engineering principles involve the co-operation of an increasingly high number of stakeholders from different fields of expertise during the design process. Thus, many researchers today point out the importance of team work in design, and consider the design activity as a social process, and the design team as a social organisation [1,2]. Researchers tend to explore knowledge creation and sharing within the design process, in order to understand and manage social interactions between participants. Pahl and Beitz [3] argue that it is knowledge that links design participants and enables them to undertake actions and make decisions that direct the process and determine its outcome. The quality of human expertise and the ability to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 56 52 89 06; fax: +33 4 76 57 46 95. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (O. Hisarciklilar). 0166-3615/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2009.02.014
retrieve and use knowledge throughout the design process are crucial to the outcome [4]. On the other hand, artefacts have a capital role to create, represent and share knowledge in a concurrent design context, being the main objects of conversation between actors [5], and providing the links between them [6]. Today, many powerful tools (such as CAD, CAM or simulation tools) are widely used in industry, which aim to produce these materials. According to Vinck and Jeantet [7,8], these artefacts are used as intermediary objects, i.e. they are related to the action itself (i.e. the product), and they are a means of co-ordinating designers’ activities. Star [9] stresses their role as boundary objects, allowing the expression of a shared knowledge between cross-domain actors. However, communication between actors involved in these organisations is still inefficient. In fact, actors are spending a large part of their time seeking, organising, modifying and translating information, often unrelated to their own personal disciplines [10]. In spite of the multitude of computer-supported tools which aim to support specific issues during the design processes, there is very limited number of tools dedicated to support design communication and argumentation processes. Actors often need to be provided with a means of developing more systematic cooperation around product representations and more adapted information to the context of use [11]. The aim of this paper is to describe an annotation-based information model around design representations. The model tends to promote a more successful co-operation between design actors and enables them to share design knowledge more systematically in asynchronous communication. We develop a linguistics pragmatics
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
approach, based on the Speech Act Theory (SAT) to characterise our annotation structure. By following the utterance and illocutionary force concepts, we develop locutionary and illocutionary annotation acts concepts. Then, we present an information model and tool functionalities based on this structure. Our information model uses a set of digital artefacts that improves the design communication through the elicitation of knowledge related to the context of design through 3D product representations. The paper is divided into six sections. In the next section, we mention the importance of artefacts in design communication through several works in the literature. In the third section, we describe the semantic annotation concept, and the roles of annotations in the engineering design context. The forth section is dedicated to explaining our approach. We first describe the SAT concept, and define the annotation acts, inspired from that concept. Finally, we propose functionalities for an annotation tool based on our approach.
511
Fig. 1. Cooperating features [11].
2. Importance of artefacts in design communication Among the numerous works on co-operation artefacts, we will first mention Vinck’s and Jeantet’s [7,8] works on the ‘intermediary object’ concept. This generic approach covers all types of artefacts produced in the co-operation space, whether physical (plans, sketches, etc.) or virtual (CAD models, calculating results, etc.). Two dimensions characterise intermediary objects: they are related to the action itself (i.e. the product), and they are a means for coordinating designers’ activities. Note that any representation of the product is a potential intermediary object and more generally, any artefact, when used in as basis for discussion, may become an ‘‘intermediary object’’. This approach can be compared with the boundary object concept. In a general sense, boundary objects inhabit several intersecting social worlds, satisfying the informational requirements of each of them. Carlile [12] describes three approaches to knowledge boundaries in product development by referring to Shannon and Weaver’s [13] three levels of communication complexity: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic boundary. Syntactic boundary, or information-processing boundary, refers to the knowledge transfer issue, and is characterised by a common lexicon between the receiver and the sender in a boundary. Semantic boundary refers to the interpretative differences of a piece of boundary knowledge, which affects the translation of knowledge. Pragmatic boundary, referring to the transformation of knowledge, arises when actors have considerable different interests, where the knowledge needs to be transformed in order to be shared and assessed at a boundary. Many works show that boundary objects provide the expression of shared knowledge between cross-domain actors and different functional interests between them. They allow these actors negotiating around these objects, and facilitating the knowledge transformation [9,14]. Our approach for design co-operation support is based on the concept of ‘co-operating features’ [11]. These are geometric symbol representations created during discussions between participants, and added to the CAD model (see Fig. 1). They are not representations of the product, but artefacts that materialise tacit design rules commonly used by participants. During discussions, these objects complement propositions of solutions made by one participant, and provide the other participants with the opportunity to evaluate or react to the proposition. The importance of these objects as co-operating artefacts has been demonstrated in a crossdomain case study [15]. Creating links between different domains, they have proved to promote a shared understanding between design and industrial experts. The objective of our work is to go further on this promising approach by providing a generic structure to these 3D symbols in
order to incite the design group to reach a systematic co-operation around 3D product representations. In the following, we will describe semantic annotations in a design context and a design case, before introducing our approach. 3. Semantic annotations as artefacts in co-operative design 3.1. Semantic annotations Semantic annotations can be described as annotations that are interpretable (or reusable) by a human being in a given context. In the Semantic Web domain, semantic annotations are intended primarily for use by machines to identify concepts and relations between concepts in documents. The main idea is to create ‘intelligent documents’, a document which ‘‘knows about’’ its own content in order that automated processes can ‘‘know what to do’’ with it [16]. The Semantic Web annotation frameworks, such as Annotea [17] or CREAM [18] intend to relate terms (e.g. dog) in a Web document to an ontology, to both abstract concepts (animal) or instances of abstract concepts (cat), in order to remove any ambiguity about the term. Semantic Web annotation brings two kinds of benefits to the information systems, enhanced information retrieval and improved interoperability. Information retrieval is improved by the ability to perform searches, which exploit the ontology to make inferences about data from heterogeneous resources. Interoperability is particularly important for organisations, which have large legacy databases, often in different proprietary formats that do not easily interact. In these circumstances, annotations based on a common ontology can provide a common framework for the integration of information from heterogeneous sources. In the engineering design context, promising works are arising to support cooperative work on 3D design representations with domain ontologies (supporting for example product, process or part information). Researchers tend to provide ontologies for example to add advanced search functionalities for annotated textual information on 3D representations [19], or providing domain specific information representations of 3D models by attaching domain ontology instances to parts of the model [20]. This paper on the other hand, provides semantic support, dedicated to human interpretation to improve interpersonal communication. Semantic annotations dedicated to human utilisation are often characterised by their goals. The goal of an annotation in this context is the relation between the object (information) and the action (the effect of the information) in its context. For the context of annotation of textual documents, Zacklad [21] for example argues that annotations can either take
512
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
the form of a proposal destined to be integrated into the main semiotic product, or they can be designed to express criticisms or to raise questions without being intended to remain a part of the main product, or they can be intended to be a perennial commentary on the main production process. Marshall [22] defines six types of annotations in collaborative reading according to their goal: annotations as procedural signals, annotations as place markings and aids to memory, annotations as in situ locations for problem-working, annotations as a record of interpretive activity, annotations as a visible trace of the reader’s attention, and annotations as incidental reflections of the material circumstances. A part of the work presented in this paper consists of the characterisation and elicitation of the goal of annotations in argumentative engineering design communication. 3.2. Annotations in co-operative design communication Annotations have been used for many years in design teams as a means of communication. The use of digital media in design processes have radically changed the annotation processes [23], which were traditionally paper based. Even if they remain usually short-term and unstructured, annotations are often employed in engineering design. 3.2.1. CAD drawings, sketches and annotations The exact definition of an annotation is still controversial. But some aspects regarding different objects manipulated during design processes can help to characterise annotations in these processes. We propose a comparison of CAD drawings, sketches and annotations according to their mode of representation [24]. The semioticien and philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce [25] proposes a three level typology of signs, which characterises the relationship between a sign (or signifier) and an object (signified, which the sign refers to): icons, symbols and indexes. For our purposes here, we will stress the difference between an icon and a symbol. For Pierce, an icon is the mode in which the signifier is perceived as resembling or imitating the signified (looking, sounding, feeling, tasting or smelling like it), being similar in possessing some of its qualities. A photograph of an apple, for instance, is an iconic representation, as it refers to it by having the same dimensional proportions, shapes, rendering and colour. Thus, the relationship between these two objects is physical and natural, rather than intellectual and cultural. On the other hand, a symbol is a mode in which the signifier does not resemble the signified; it is, on the contrary, fundamentally arbitrary or purely conventional, so that the relationship must be learnt. Language is the most typical example of symbolic representation. For example, the word ‘apple’ does not contain any physical characteristics of the object of apple. Obviously, one should learn the significance of a word in advance in order to recognise this relationship. Pierce adds that a signifier is never purely symbolic or iconic. It is always a mix of these modes in different proportions. For example, even a photograph contains some conventions required to be correctly interpreted. A sign can also be a combination of several signs having different modes. The ‘no smoking’ sign is a typical example of this. The representation is composed of a cigarette drawing (which is rather iconic), enclosed by a circle with an oblique bar, which is a very conventional way to represent an interdiction (Fig. 2). Some typical design artefacts can be compared using this point of view (Fig. 3). For instance, a 3D CAD model is mainly an iconic representation. The tendency in 3D CAD representations is for them to look as much as possible like the mechanical components they represent, as the technology increases the level of details
Fig. 2. A typical no smoking sign combines symbolic and iconic representations.
Fig. 3. Modes of representation for different design artefacts.
through photorealistic rendering techniques for example. There is still, however, a set of conventions to be learnt in order for a 3D CAD model to be interpreted correctly. Sketches, even if they are rather iconic, contain usually more conventions than 3D CAD representations for example hatchings, doubled boundaries, coloured parts. The interpretation of these parts requires specific knowledge, related for example to a domain of expertise or a community of practice. On the other hand, annotations are mainly symbolic representations. Whether they are graphical (e.g. an arrow representing the movement of rotation of a component) or textual (e.g. an attached text on a representation describing a functionality), annotations require knowledge to be understood. 3.2.2. Objectives of annotation usage in design communication From the different design situations that we observed, we concluded that the annotations are essentially used across two phases of the design process for communication proposes: asynchronous phase, where the digital artefact is produced, and synchronous phase, where the artefact is collectively evaluated. An asynchronous situation is defined as a situation where a designer produces a CAD model of an object, or more generally a situation where an individual activity is carried out. In that case, notes can be produced individually in order to establish a list of decisions, remarks, explanations, etc. making reference to a document (e.g. the CAD model). Annotated documents often remain private and can be used for several objectives, such as information indexation, or memorisation of the current design situation, etc. Annotations are used in asynchronous situations to represent and capitalise information whose nature is not completely geometrical, such as a manufacturing process, or a type of material, etc. The other engineering design situation when annotations are often used is a synchronous situation where a collective evaluation of the artefact is carried out. During this activity, intermediary
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
documents, which are mostly paper-based, are commented and annotated. Today, these meetings are generally mediated by digital representations, and the distant actors communicate through instant messaging and/or video conferencing tools. During these activities, annotations are used mainly as a way to reinforce the oral discourse. These annotations are poorly structured and cannot be reinterpreted outside the context where they have been created. Therefore, the majority of annotations created during a design review cannot be reused during another one. All critiques and argumentations are oral and nothing remains after the meeting apart from the personal notes taken by the participants of the review. The design review is a place where solutions are discussed, and the different points of views are expressed. Although these evaluations sometimes result in the structure of the product being altered, the solution is very seldom modified during these reviews. Annotated screenshots of shared product representations can be used to create the design minutes that record the main decisions and they are supposed to help the designers during the asynchronous phase [26]. In conclusion, we consider that annotations have a major role for design coordination and knowledge elicitation in asynchronous phases, and an important cognitive synchronisation role in synchronous phases. The next section describes our approach of structuring annotations with associated meta-information in a way that they can support asynchronous communication between design participants. 4. A structured annotation model 4.1. Annotation acts Our approach is primarily based on the Speech Act Theory (SAT), [27,28], which is an important theory in modern linguistics. The main subject of linguistics pragmatics is the actual use, coordination and interpretation of language in practical interaction between people. Linguistics pragmatics tend to study interpersonal interaction by making the distinction between the semantic meaning of exchanged sentences and the context in which the sentence is situated, such as the speaker or the audience. Linguistics pragmatics has been used by many researchers to establish design theories [29–31]. Concerning engineering design, researchers tend to involve design artefacts as context elements of interpersonal interactions. For instance, Dearden [32] proposes the concept of material utterance, which is defined as an utterance that includes the making or modification of material artefacts. The central idea of the SAT is that when communicating, people do not just utter propositions. Every exchanged sentence in a communicational context includes the intention of the speaker to accomplish something (called the illocutionary force), such as requesting, stating, and so on. In other words, every speech act consists of an illocutionary force, applied to an utterance. There cannot be any utterance in a given context without the illocutionary force [33]. For example, even when stating a fact, you are making a statement, not just voicing a fact. The SAT implies therefore that a speaker may express different attitudes toward the same propositional content (utterance, or locutionary act) in different circumstances. For example, the same design specification (minimum tolerance between tubes is 0.3 mm), can be used either as an explication of a solution (I considered the tolerance of 0.3 mm when designing the tubes), or pointing out a problem (interference between tubes, minimum tolerance between them must be 0.3 mm). Moreover, the same sentence can contain various illocutionary forces. For example, ‘I will increase this diameter’ can either be a statement, an offer, a promise, or a threat, depending on the context of use.
513
The illocutionary force is distinct from the meaning of a message. From an illocution point of view, ‘I would like to know the tube diameter’ and ‘what modifications have you done?’ are the same – they are both intentions to obtain information. The difference between these two sentences appears when the propositional content is considered (talking about a tube diameter versus talking about modifications). Illocutionary force is also distinct from the perlocutionary effect of a speech act. The perlocution of an utterance is what it actually accomplishes, such as persuading, informing, etc. For example, by requesting you to reduce the tolerance of this hole, I may end up either making you to do it or not. In other words, the speaker controls the illocution, but attempts to control the perlocution (see Fig. 4 for an example). An important hypothesis of the SAT is that effective communication requires accurate recognition of speech acts [33]. In our annotation model, we want to offer the necessary elements to allow design actors to express and recognise their respective communicative acts. In order to characterise speech acts in design communication, we have been inspired from research on activity models and activity coding schemes of asynchronous and synchronous design processes. Coding schemes for analysing design activities are often extended versions of previous works in cognitive ergonomics and social psychology [2]. Even though these are analysis methods, used to categorise and understand design activities, they provide a typology of different intentions of designers conveyed during design activities. Our annotation model is based on the two-level coding scheme of De´tienne et al. [34]. Unlike most of the proposed schemes in the literature (see for instance [35]), De´tienne et al.’s work is focuses on computer-mediated design communication, and it tends to support both synchronous and asynchronous situations. The coding scheme distinguishes between collaborative design activities and interaction management activities. Interaction management activities aim to categorise activities concerning the communication environment (such as setting up a communication device or managing turn taking distribution), and they are not related to the design content. On the other hand, a simpler version of categorising collaborative design activities could be used to index annotations on design representations (see Table 1). Obviously, such a categorisation cannot be directly transferred to the Computer-Mediated Communication situation. Instead, we saw this work as a rich source of phenomena from which we could transpose the basic communicative and collaborative problem-solving functions to a situation. Section 4.2 presents the categorisation that we propose to elaborate annotation acts. Our observations show that every annotation expressed in an argumentative communication context has a specific purpose. Expressing this purpose and its recognition by all actors involved in a design communication is important in order to achieve effective communication, and to reach a shared understanding. In this sense,
Fig. 4. Illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
514 Table 1 Collaborative design activity categories [34]. Description Meeting management Project management Cognitive synchronisation Argumentation Assessment of solution(s) Assessment of constraint(s) Proposing solution(s) Enhancing a solution
Organising the actual meeting regarding the time available and the tasks to be done Planning the design: this involves organising and distributing tasks according to the designers’ skills Ensuring that team members share a common representation of a concept, project goals, constraints, design strategy, solutions, etc. Describing why a solution should or should not be adopted Positively or negatively evaluating a proposed solution Positively or negatively evaluating a constraint Proposing or explaining a solution or an alternative solution Enunciating supplementary and complementary ideas to develop a solution
we consider annotations to be analogous to speech acts, and propose two types: locutionary and illocutionary annotation acts [36]. A locutionary annotation act in a design context is any information that an actor wants to express by an annotation, in other words it is the utterance conveyed by an annotation. We consider it to be the textual part of the annotation, hence it can be any textual phrase that an actor can possibly say. An illocutionary annotation act, on the other hand, is the intention of the actor by putting an annotation on a CAD object (for example, to clarify a solution, to propose a solution, to identify a problem, or to evaluate a solution, etc.). The same locutionary annotation act may be made for different purposes in a given context. For example, one can express a constraint to clarify a solution, but also to identify a problem. The illocutionary annotation acts gives the annotation its conversational dimension, thus they have a crucial role in the accurate recognition of the message conveyed by the annotation.
of the annotation creator. Depending on the design team composition, this element could be the designer, project architect or assembly expert, etc. The purpose element represents the type of information that the annotation conveys, as it is important to make the distinction between an element of the solution or a discussion on a design requirement, etc. when participants want to disambiguate their communication. The project requirement instance represents any information related to a project requirement, such as the dimensions of the product. This kind of information is easier to be correctly understood by the design participants, as the project requirements are generally explicit for all participants. Domain-specific knowledge on the other hand represents any information related to the domain of expertise of the annotation author. This element is complementary to the author element. In other words, our annotation model is based on the decomposition of the four elements, each of which represents a different aspect of a message (Fig. 5): Annotation ¼ fbody text; author; pur pose; intentg
4.2. Annotation structure Our structure is based on a two-layer annotation model, and the next section describes a 3D annotation tool based on this model. Based on our own observations, we propose to group the categories presented above as follows:
Each instance in this structure is represented by a symbol. An annotation act in our model is composed of three symbols, each of which points out a dimension of the annotation act (Tables 2, 3 and 4). Section 5.2 explains how they are used in the annotation tool. The next section describes an annotation model, which highlights important dimensions of a tool based on the annotation acts.
solution proposal = {proposing a solution, enhancing a solution}; clarification = {argumentation, cognitive synchronisation}; evaluation (positive and negative) = {assessment of a constraint, assessment of a solution}.
4.3. An information model to improve design communication
The locutionary (loc) and the illocutionary (illoc) annotation acts compose the speech act or message layer of our annotation structure, that is Annotation ¼ illocðlocÞ
Based on the annotation structure presented above, this section presents a model that consists of important aspects of a software tool allowing the annotation of 3D instances of a CAD model. 4.3.1. Annotation–3D scene relationship The first dimension is the physical relationship between the annotation and the 3D scene. An annotation has an anchor point,
For the intent element of the model, representing the illocutionary part, we defined three instances, based on earlier works on activity theory and design rationale models. The clarification instance represents any annotation created for the intention of giving additional information on an existing design solution. In other words, the intention to clarify is only related to the existing version of the design solution. The evaluation instance tends to represent a positive or negative assessment of a solution proposal. The proposition instance represents, on the other hand, any intention to describe the future versions (or a part of the future version) of a design solution. Our annotation structure is composed of two additional elements, which are used to characterise annotations in a design situation: the author and the purpose of the annotation Annotation ¼ IllocðlocÞ design context These elements compose the ‘design context’ layer of the annotation structure. The Author element represents the domain
Fig. 5. Annotation model.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519 Table 2 Illocutionary dimension. Intent (illoc)
Clarification
Proposition
4.3.3. Users The third dimension is related to the user profiles of the tool. Each annotation is managed by users, each having a different status which defines their rights on the annotation (Fig. 8). There are three different types of user in the tool with varying rights of access to the different functionalities:
Evaluation
Symbol
Table 3 Authors. Domains of expertise
Architect
After sales
Assembly
Designer
Quality
Etc.
... Symbol
Table 4 Purpose of the annotation. Purpose
Project requirement or problem-related constraint
515
Domain-specific constraint
Current solution
Symbol
Fig. 6. Relationship between the annotation and the 3D scene.
defining its location, and a geometrical symbol placed on that location (an arrow), representing the anchor in the interface (Fig. 6). 4.3.2. Communication and information sharing The second dimension concerns communication/information. We introduce here the concept of an ‘‘intervention’’, which represents each message conveyed around the part of the 3D scene highlighted by the annotation. Each intervention contains meta-information related to the textual message (the structure presented in the previous section), which constitutes the abstract concept of signified. This meta-information is represented by geometrical forms in the tool (the signifiers), each of which corresponds to an instance of the meta-information structure (Fig. 7).
Domain actors, after logging in to a project, can visualise 3D scenes with existing annotations or add annotations and interventions. A project architect sets-up a project by assigning team members, creates the project milestones and uploads 3D scenes. He has a key role during the process, as he defines the passage to new milestones or new versions of the 3D scene. The architect is also a domain actor, in a way that he can annotate or intervene on a 3D scene. Administrator: The main role of the administrator is two-fold: firstly, to assure that all annotations and interventions have been clearly made, and secondly to manage the user accounts. Therefore, he has the same rights as the architect, but he can also add or delete user accounts. 4.3.4. Project management Our model also represents some elements of the project in which the 3D scenes are manipulated, in order to index annotations in the ongoing design process. A project consists of a virtual workspace, which includes participants from different domains of expertise grouped around a specific task. Every actor in a project is characterised by his domain of expertise. A project is divided into milestones, each of which represents a different version of the CAD model, i.e. the design solution. In other words, a new milestone is created each time a new design phase is opened. Every annotation is located on a 3D scene, which is created between two milestones of the design process. In addition, users can collectively decide whether they have finished discussions around an annotation by switching its status from ‘on going’, to ‘rejected’ or ‘finalised’ (Fig. 9). A finalised status shows that the annotation content is correct or useful for the process. In contrast, a rejected status implies that the content is incorrect or not useful. 5. Annotation tool functionalities By following the above structure, we present the tool’s functionalities which allow design participants to visualise design solutions, to make annotations on 3D scenes, and to display and intervene to each other’s annotations. Fig. 10 presents the relationship between the various entities of the tool. The 3D scenes consist of extractions of 3D models into a neutral (e.g. VRML) format. An xml file is associated with this 3D scene, consisting of the meta-information related to the annotations.
Fig. 7. Communication dimension.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
516
Fig. 8. User types.
Fig. 11. File storage on the server.
Fig. 9. Design process and annotation status.
5.1. Annotation server Each 3D scene and the associated xml files are stored on a server. A database is employed to store the information related to the project and the 3D scene (the project milestone where the 3D scene has been developed), and the roles of the users in the project (see Fig. 10). The project management dimension, mentioned in the previous section stores and represents the related design process in a hierarchical way. Each 3D scene and associated xml file can be related to a project milestone, which is itself created in a project. Fig. 11 illustrates an example of this structure. The project ‘electrical box design’ has two milestones, ‘initial solution’ and ‘modified box cover’. Each milestone contains one annotated 3D scene, ‘Electrical box: initial solution’ and ‘Electrical box: modified cover’.
Fig. 12. XML structure.
This simple structure allows files to be easily stored and retrieved according to the ongoing project. The 3D scenes and annotations can be modified when accessed from their location on the server. 5.2. Setting up a project Before loading and annotating 3D scenes, every actor of the design team creates an account in the tool, by specifying his/
Fig. 10. UML model of tool entities.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
517
Fig. 13. Annotation tool interface.
her name, a log-in name and a password in the corresponding window. Then, the team architect decides on the project members by selecting their names in the list of accounts. 3D scenes corresponding to a project can only be seen and annotated by the members of the team. 5.2.1. Annotating and intervening Annotation and intervention represent two different kinds of objects and actions in the tool (Fig. 10). Annotation as an object corresponds to the 3D symbol placed on the model. It is a simple arrow pointing to a specific region in the model, whose form has not any semantic meaning. Interventions are objects linked to an annotation in a recursive way, structured by four elements (body, author, purpose, intent) as described in Section 4.2. Annotation as action is adding a new pointer (arrow) to the 3D model. After putting an annotation on the 3D scene, the user is invited to add a first intervention. The act of intervention corresponds to adding a new intervention to an annotation. A 3D model can contain one or more annotations, and an annotation can contain one or more interventions. The first intervention of an annotation can whether intent to clarify the annotated part of the solution representation (clarification), to evaluate it positively or negatively (evaluation), or to propose an alternative solution (proposition). Alternatively, the user can select an existing intervention and add another intervention to it. After having typed the text of the intervention, the tool prompts the user to elicit the annotation content by selecting the intent and purpose elements. The symbol for the author element is added automatically. Each intervention is stored as a tag in the xml file containing information about the actor and signified elements (Fig. 12). The representation of annotations is divided into a structure. The first level consists of the 3D symbol attached (anchored) to a particular point of the CAD object. This symbol is a simple pointer that indicates the geometrical position on the 3D object to which the annotation refers. The second level is a map consisting of nodes (interventions) and links connecting them to each other (Fig. 13), representing the annotation acts. Each node is a combination of the three symbols as described in Section 4.2. The intervention nodes are connected to each other, forming a tree-like structure. Design actors communicate through coconstruction of these argumentation trees. The structure is inspired by the IBIS design rational capture model, in line with other interesting tools such as Compendium [37] or DRed [38]. Design rationale is an explanation of why an artefact or some part of an artefact is designed the way it is. It includes all the background knowledge such as deliberating, reasoning, trade-off
and decision-making in the design process of an artefact – information that can be valuable, even critical, to various people who deal with the artefact [39]. We focus on the processoriented design rationale systems, rather than the featureoriented ones, which emphasise the design rationale as a history of the design process [40]. The very first challenge of these tools is to convert the captured information into structured design rationale – to create links among nodes – to make the information accessible. However, they are also used to improve design communication, by proposing a method that deals with the ill-structured problems [41], and offering a way of transaction between the asynchronous and synchronous communication [37]. However, these approaches use a simple categorisation of the designer’s intention to construct the argumentation maps. Every session starts by an issue node highlighting an ill-structured problem. Proposition nodes are liked to this issue, with argumentation nodes attached to the proposition nodes that support or challenge the proposition. Design rationale tools are good real-time structuring tools, as they provide a simple and effective way to structure and index a design conversation. However they suffer from two limitations, which must be addressed in order to construct a generic design annotation tool. Firstly, the node types do not refer to or characterise the content of the messages (i.e. the purpose). Secondly, nodes only represent and index the intention of the designer (pointing out an issue, proposing a solution or argumentation). They do not show which kind of information is conveyed (locutionary dimension). Finally, as they are issuebased tools, a conversation session always starts with an issue node. In our approach the participants are free to start with any annotation node, expressing a requirement, some domain specific knowledge, or a solution evaluation, etc. 6. Conclusion In this paper, we presented an annotation approach and a resulting software tool in order to enable cross-domain engineering design actors to cooperate and communicate more efficiently around 3D product representations. Several 3D annotation tools have already been proposed in the collaborative design domain, concerning both engineering and architectural design solutions [19,42]. These tools offer some useful functionalities for knowledge integration in 3D models, offering for example product ontology integration frameworks. Alternatively, another serious issue that arises in asynchronous communication around 3D representations, which is not con-
518
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519
sidered in these works, is the important degree of ambiguity. Unlike face-to-face communication, in an asynchronous situation actors do not have the possibility of disambiguating information by expressing the intentional content of exchanges by gestures and speech. The annotation tool we propose in this paper offers a framework and a tool to express the intentional content, with other additional contextual information. There are existing works using speech acts to structure computer-supported communication. Baker and Lund [43], for instance, report important benefits of a speech acts based tool in performing the problem-solving tasks by promoting task focussed and reflective interactions in a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning situation. On the other hand, other researchers (for instance [44]) argue that controlling computer-mediated communication in organisations, especially by the notion of fixed categories of speech acts may have pernicious effects. The response to such an issue is that that our model does not force designers to follow a predefined speech act categories path, but it rather helps them make their intentions explicit, in order to help designers to disambiguate each-other. In other words, it lets design actors partially build their own interaction, even though the speech act categories remain predefined. The next step of this research consists of conducting experiments with our tool in a real design context, and adding more functionality to the tool, such as using annotations to create explicit connections between different versions of a CAD model. In addition, our future research will focus on how the recognition of annotation content by machines can be improved with domain ontologies, and which benefits it can provide to the current tool functionalities.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] [23] [24]
[25] [26]
[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
References [1] M.F. Brereton, D.M. Canon, A. Mabogunje, L. Leifer, Collaboration in engineering design teams: mediating design progress through social interaction, in: Presented at Delft Workshop, Analysing Design Activity, Delft, 1994. [2] N. Cross, H. Christiaans, K. Dorst, Analysing Design Activity, Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1996. [3] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, Engineering Design—A Systematic Approach, Springer, 1996. [4] K. Wallace, S. Ahmed, R. Bracewell, Engineering knowledge management, in: J. Clarkson, C. Eckert (Eds.), Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice, Springer, 2005, pp. 326–344. [5] D. Scho¨n, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Ashgate Publishing, 1991. [6] S. Finger, S.L. Konda, E. Subrahmanian, Concurrent design happens at the interfaces, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing 9 (1995) 89–99. [7] A. Jeantet, Les objets interme´diaires dans la conception. Elements pour une sociologie des processus de conception, Sociologie de travail 3 (1998) 291–316. [8] D. Vinck, A. Jeantet, Mediating and commissioning objects in the sociotechnical process of product design: a conceptual approach, in: Presented at COST A3 Workshop, Grenoble, 1994. [9] S.L. Star, The structure of ill-structured solutions: heterogenous problem solving, boundary objects and distributed artificial intelligence, Distributed Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Fransisco, CA, 1990 , pp. 37–54. [10] E. Subrahmanian, Y. Reich, S.L. Konda, A. Dutoit, D. Cunningham, R. Patrick, M. Thomas, A.W. Westerberg, The N-DIM approach to creating design support systems, in: Presented at ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sacramento, CA, (1997), p. 22. [11] J.-F. Boujut, P. Laureillard, A co-operation framework for product-process integration in engineering design, Design Studies 23 (2002). [12] P.R. Carlile, Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries, Organization Science 15 (2004) 555–568. [13] C. Shannon, W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Illinois, 1949. [14] P.R. Carlile, A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development, Organization Science 13 (2002) 442–455. [15] P. Laureillard, Conception inte´gre´e dans l’usage: mise en oeuvre d’un dispositif d’inte´gration produit-process dans une filiaire de conception de pie`ces forge´es, in: Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. INPG, Grenoble, 2000. [16] V. Uren, P. Cimiano, J. Iria, S. Handschuh, M. Vargas-Vera, E. Motta, F. Ciravegna, Semantic annotation for knowledge management: requirements and a survey of
[35] [36]
[37]
[38]
[39] [40]
[41]
[42]
[43] [44]
the state of art, Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4 (2006) 14–28. J. Kahan, M.-R. Koivunen, Annotea: an open {RDF} infrastructure for shared Web annotations, in: Presented at Proceedings of the 10th International World Wide Web Conference, Hong Kong, 2001. S. Handschuh, S. Staab, Authoring and annotation of web pages in CREAM, in: Presented at Proceedings of the 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002), Honolulu, HI, USA, 2002. S. Aubry, I. Thouvenin, D. Lenne, S. Okawa, Knowledge integration for annotating in virtual environments, International Journal of Product Development 4 (2007) 533–546. L. Ding, J. Matthews, C. McMahon, G. Mullineux, An extended product model for constraint-based redesign applications, in: Presented at International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Paris, France, 2007. M. Zacklad, M. Lewkowicz, J.-F. Boujut, F. Darses, F. De´tienne, Forme et gestion des annotations nume´riques collectives en inge´nierie collaborative, in: Presented at IC 2003 ‘‘Inge´nierie des Connaissances’’, Laval, France, 2003. C. Marshall, Annotation: from paper books to the digital library, in: Presented at ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries, Philadelphia, 1997. J.-F. Boujut, User-defined annotations: artefacts for co-ordination and shared understanding in design teams, Journal of Engineering Design 14 (2003) 409–419. O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut, Symbolic vs. iconic: how to support argumentative design discourse with 3D product representations, in: Presented at Proceedings of IDMME—Virtual Concept 2008, Beijing, China, 2008. C.S. Peirce, Collected Writings, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1931– 1958. O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut, Reducing the ‘‘Information Gap’’ between synchronous and asynchronous co-operative design phases, in: Presented at Virtual Concept’06, Cancun, Mexico, 2006. J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975. J.R. Searle, Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969. L.L. Bucciarelli, Between thought and object in engineering design, Design Studies 23 (2002) 219–231. R. Coyne, H. Park, D. Wiszniewski, Design devices: digital drawing and the pursuit of difference, Design Studies 23 (2002) 263–286. P. Lloyd, Storytelling and the development of discourse in the engineering design process, Design Studies 21 (2000) 357–373. A. Dearden, Designing as a conversation with digital materials, Design Studies 27 (2006) 399–421. M.A. Covington, Speech acts, electronic commerce, and KQML, Decision Support Systems 22 (1998) 203–211. F. De´tienne, J.-F. Boujut, B. Hohmann, Characterization of collaborative design and interaction management activities in a distant engineering situation, in: Presented at 6th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems— COOP’04, Hye`res/France, 2004. J.S. Gero, T.M. Neill, An approach to the analysis of design protocols, Design Studies 19 (1998) 21–61. O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut, An annotation-based approach to support design communication, in: Presented at International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Paris, France, 2007. A. Selvin, S.B. Shum, M. Sierhuis, J. Conklin, B. Zimmermann, C. Palus, W. Drath, D. Horth, J. Domingue, E. Motta, G. Li, Compendium: making meetings into knowledge events, in: Presented at Knowledge Technologies, Austin, TX, 2001. R.H. Bracewell, S. Ahmed, K.M. Wallace, Dred and design folders, a way of capturing, storing and passing on, knowledge generated during design projects, in: Presented at Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2003. J. Lee, K. Lai, What’s in design rationale, Human-Computer Interaction 6 (1991) 251–280. W.C. Regli, X. Hu, M. Atwood, W. Sun, A survey of design rationale systems: approaches, representation, capture and retrieval, Engineering with Computers 16 (2000) 209–235. S.B. Shum, Design argumentation as design rationale, in: A. Kent, J.G. Williams (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1996. T. Jung, M.D. Gross, E.Y.-L. Do, Annotating and sketching on 3D web models, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM Press, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002. M. Baker, K. Lund, Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 13 (1997) 175–193. L. Suchman, Speech acts and voices, Computer Supported Collaborative Work 3 (1994) 85–95.
Onur Hisarciklilar received his Ph.D. degree in Grenoble Institute of Technology, where he is currently working as research fellow. He has worked in several projects and conducted empirical studies on engineering design communication and informal information structuring. His current research concerns annotation technologies to support distant multidisciplinary design communication.
O. Hisarciklilar, J.-F. Boujut / Computers in Industry 60 (2009) 510–519 Jean-Franc¸ois Boujut is Full Professor at the School of Industrial Engineering at Grenoble Institute of Technology. He earned his Ph.D. in 1993 and his Habilitation in 2001. Since then, he has conducted extensive research in engineering design including empirical studies. His research mainly focuses on informal processes and informal information structuring. Developing tools and methods for supporting distant teamwork and colla-
519
borative engineering is a key issue for the global performance of the design process. For more than 10 years J.F. Boujut has developed empirical research involving interdisciplinary work with social scientists and cognitive psychologists in order to understand design co-operation and the communication aspects of design. He is member of scientific board of numerous conferences and is a member of the advisory board of the Design Society.