Elisabeth Lavigne

In Concurrent engineering, design solutions are not only produced by individuals specialized in a given field. Due to the team nature of the design activity, solutions are negotiated. Our objective is to analyse the argumentation processes leading to these negotiated solutions. These processes take place in the meetings which group together specialists with a co-design aim. We conducted cognitive ergonomics research work during the definition phase of an aeronautical design project in which the participants work in Concurrent Engineering. We recorded, retranscribed and analysed 7 multi-speciality meetings. These meetings were organised, as needed, to assess the integration of the solutions of each speciality into a global solution. We found that there are three main design proposal assessment modes which can be combined in these meetings: (a) analytical assessment mode, (b) comparative assessment mode (c) analogical assessment mode. Within these assessment modes, different types of arguments are used. Furthermore we found a typical temporal negotiation process.

Mode (computer interface)

Concurrent engineering

Cognitive ergonomics

10.48550/arxiv.cs/0702006

Cite

Citations (0)

Viewpoints in co-design: a field study in concurrent engineering

Design Studies (2004)

Françoise Détienne Géraldine Martin Elisabeth Lavigne

Viewpoints

Representation

Concurrent engineering

Collaborative Design

10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.002

Cite

Citations (61)

Viewpoints in co-design: a field study in concurrent engineering

arXiv (Cornell University) (2006)

Françoise Détienne Géraldine Martin Elisabeth Lavigne

We present a field study aimed at analysing the use of viewpoints in co-design meetings. A viewpoint is a representation characterised by a certain combination of constraints. Three types of viewpoints are distinguished: prescribed viewpoint, discipline-specific viewpoint and integrated viewpoint. The contribution of our work consists in characterising the viewpoints of various stakeholders involved in co-design ("design office" disciplines, and production and maintenance disciplines), the dynamics of viewpoints confrontation and the cooperative modes that enable these different viewpoints to be integrated.

Viewpoints

Representation

Concurrent engineering

10.48550/arxiv.cs/0611152

Cite

Citations (0)

Negotiation in collaborative assessment of design solutions: an empirical study on a Concurrent Engineering process

Géraldine Martin Françoise Détienne Elisabeth Lavigne

In Concurrent engineering, design solutions are not only produced by individuals specialized in a given field. Due to the team nature of the design activity, solutions are negotiated. Our objective is to analyse the argumentation processes leading to these negotiated solutions. These processes take place in the meetings which group together specialists with a co-design aim. We conducted cognitive ergonomics research work during the definition phase of an aeronautical design project in which the participants work in Concurrent Engineering. We recorded, retranscribed and analysed 7 multi-speciality meetings. These meetings were organised, as needed, to assess the integration of the solutions of each speciality into a global solution. We found that there are three main design proposal assessment modes which can be combined in these meetings: (a) analytical assessment mode, (b) comparative assessment mode (c) analogical assessment mode. Within these assessment modes, different types of arguments are used. Furthermore we found a typical temporal negotiation process.

Concurrent engineering

Mode (computer interface)

Cognitive ergonomics

Source

Cite

Citations (15)

Negotiation in collaborative assessment of design solutions: an empirical study on a Concurrent Engineering process

CRC Press eBooks (2023)

Géraldine Martin Françoise Détienne Elisabeth Lavigne

In Concurrent engineering, design solutions are not only produced by individuals specialized in a given field. Due to the team nature of the design activity, solutions are negotiated. Our objective is to analyse the argumentation processes leading to these negotiated solutions. These processes take place in the meetings which group together specialists with a co-design aim. We conducted cognitive ergonomics research work during the definition phase of an aeronautical design project in which the participants work in Concurrent Engineering. We recorded, retranscribed and analysed 7 multi-speciality meetings. These meetings were organised, as needed, to assess the integration of the solutions of each speciality into a global solution. We found that there are three main design proposal assessment modes which can be combined in these meetings: (a) analytical assessment mode, (b) comparative assessment mode (c) analogical assessment mode. Within these assessment modes, different types of arguments are used. Furthermore we found a typical temporal negotiation process.

Mode (computer interface)

Concurrent engineering

Cognitive ergonomics

10.1201/9781003423508-17

Cite

Citations (0)

Confrontation of Viewpoints in a Concurrent Engineering Process

Springer eBooks (2002)

Géraldine Martin Françoise Détienne Elisabeth Lavigne

Viewpoints

Argumentative

Concurrent engineering

10.1007/978-94-015-9966-5_1

Cite

Citations (0)

Confrontation of viewpoints in a concurrent engineering process

arXiv (Cornell University) (2006)

Géraldine Martin Françoise Détienne Elisabeth Lavigne

We present an empirical study aimed at analysing the use of viewpoints in an industrial Concurrent Engineering context. Our focus is on the viewpoints expressed in the argumentative process taking place in evaluation meetings. Our results show that arguments enabling a viewpoint or proposal to be defended are often characterized by the use of constraints. One result involved the way in which the proposals for solutions are assessed during these meetings. We have revealed the existence of specific assessment modes in these meetings as well as their combination. Then, we show that, even if some constraints are apparently identically used by the different specialists involved in meetings, various meanings and weightings are associated with these constraints by these different specialists.

Viewpoints

Argumentative

Concurrent engineering

10.48550/arxiv.cs/0612017

Cite

Citations (0)

A Process for Evaluating Parametric Models for Mechanical Systems Simulation : the Case of a Sailboat

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) (2016)

Elisabeth Lavigne B. Piquemal Adeline Bourdon Simon Chesné Goulven Guillou

Parametric model

Source

Cite

Citations (0)

Analysing viewpoints in design through the argumentation process

arXiv (Cornell University) (2006)

Géraldine Martin Françoise Détienne Elisabeth Lavigne

We present an empirical study aimed at analysing the use of viewpoints in an industrial Concurrent Engineering context. Our focus is on the viewpoints expressed in the argumentative process taking place in evaluation meetings. Our results show that arguments enabling a viewpoint or proposal to be defended are often characterized by the use of constraints. Firstly, we show that, even if some constraints are apparently identically used by the different specialists involved in meetings, various meanings and weightings are associated with these constraints by these different specialists. Secondly, we show that the implicit or explicit nature of constraints depends on several interlocutive factors. Thirdly, we show that an argument often covers not only one constraint but a network of constraints. The type of combination reflects viewpoints which have specific status in the meeting. Then, we will propose a first model of the dynamics of viewpoints confrontation/integration.

Viewpoints

Argumentative

Argument (complex analysis)

10.48550/arxiv.cs/0612020

Cite

Citations (0)

Viewpoints in co-design: a field study in concurrent engineering

Françoise Détienne Géraldine Martin Elisabeth Lavigne

We present a field study aimed at analysing the use of viewpoints in co-design meetings. A viewpoint is a representation characterised by a certain combination of constraints. Three types of viewpoints are distinguished: prescribed viewpoint, discipline-specific viewpoint and integrated viewpoint. The contribution of our work consists in characterising the viewpoints of various stakeholders involved in co-design (design office disciplines, and production and maintenance disciplines), the dynamics of viewpoints confrontation and the cooperative modes that enable these different viewpoints to be integrated.

Viewpoints

Representation

Cite

Citations (0)

Elisabeth Lavigne

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index