Pub Date : 2014-07-14DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2014.063355
K. Beddoes, M. Borrego
Interdisciplinary teamwork is increasingly integrated into graduate programmes, despite numerous challenges arising from traditional disciplinary organisational structures. This paper presents a comparative case study of two interdisciplinary graduate teams at different US institutions. At both sites, team projects span multiple years and become the basis for students’ dissertations. We describe how programmatic variables such as team formation, orientation activities and dissertation research support or discourage formation of shared mental models and ultimately influence team effectiveness and student satisfaction. Rather than provide a set of best practices, this paper presents considerations for academics designing an interdisciplinary graduate programme, based on their interdisciplinary domain, constituent disciplines and goals for students.
{"title":"Facilitating formation of shared mental models in interdisciplinary graduate student teams","authors":"K. Beddoes, M. Borrego","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2014.063355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2014.063355","url":null,"abstract":"Interdisciplinary teamwork is increasingly integrated into graduate programmes, despite numerous challenges arising from traditional disciplinary organisational structures. This paper presents a comparative case study of two interdisciplinary graduate teams at different US institutions. At both sites, team projects span multiple years and become the basis for students’ dissertations. We describe how programmatic variables such as team formation, orientation activities and dissertation research support or discourage formation of shared mental models and ultimately influence team effectiveness and student satisfaction. Rather than provide a set of best practices, this paper presents considerations for academics designing an interdisciplinary graduate programme, based on their interdisciplinary domain, constituent disciplines and goals for students.","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127503868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-14DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2014.063357
C. Neill, J. Defranco
The ability of engineering students to work effectively in teams is a growing need expressed by both industry and academia. Consequently, an engineering student can expect to work on a number of teams during their studies and to have the outcomes of those efforts contribute meaningfully to their individual assessment. It is imperative, then, that those students are provided the guidance necessary to hone the skills of effective collaboration. We have developed a framework of guidance, the cognitive collaborative model, and report on it in this paper. Further, we demonstrate its efficacy in facilitating team mental model convergence and the concomitant improvement in team outcomes. Lastly, and critically, we have investigated whether those improved team experiences and outcomes lead to improvement in individual learning in accordance with the expectations from collaborative and social constructivist learning theories. Counter-intuitively, we find that this is not the case, and we report those results and suggest theoretical foundations for these findings.
{"title":"A guidance framework for facilitating effective engineering student teams and its impact on individual learning","authors":"C. Neill, J. Defranco","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2014.063357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2014.063357","url":null,"abstract":"The ability of engineering students to work effectively in teams is a growing need expressed by both industry and academia. Consequently, an engineering student can expect to work on a number of teams during their studies and to have the outcomes of those efforts contribute meaningfully to their individual assessment. It is imperative, then, that those students are provided the guidance necessary to hone the skills of effective collaboration. We have developed a framework of guidance, the cognitive collaborative model, and report on it in this paper. Further, we demonstrate its efficacy in facilitating team mental model convergence and the concomitant improvement in team outcomes. Lastly, and critically, we have investigated whether those improved team experiences and outcomes lead to improvement in individual learning in accordance with the expectations from collaborative and social constructivist learning theories. Counter-intuitively, we find that this is not the case, and we report those results and suggest theoretical foundations for these findings.","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115332047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-14DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2014.063351
Xaver Neumeyer, A. McKenna
Our study investigates the role of team conflict in the context of student design project work. We are interested in how students experience conflicts in a team environment and how these conflicts relate to other aspects of teamwork such as communication, division of work, shared goals, and leadership. We are using a mixed-method approach to data collection through peer-review data, team observations, and reflective memos. This paper reports results from a study implemented in a required first-year engineering design course. The majority of participants recognise the benefits that task and procedural conflicts have on team performance. Specifically, teamwork aspects such as communication, open-mindedness, and working towards a common goal were connected to cognitive conflict. The peer-review data illustrates that some class sections showed statistically significant improvements in goal commitment, idea communication during conflicts, conflict engagement and attentive listening over time. The results of the post-hoc tests further suggest that students in teams with a predominantly male composition (three males and one female) reported a statistically significant decrease in goal commitment and attentive listening during the ten-week evaluation period. Finally, methodologically we found that the reflective memos and team observations were better instruments for capturing team conflict, more so than peer-review surveys.
{"title":"Engineering students’ perceptions of team conflict and high-performance teams","authors":"Xaver Neumeyer, A. McKenna","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2014.063351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2014.063351","url":null,"abstract":"Our study investigates the role of team conflict in the context of student design project work. We are interested in how students experience conflicts in a team environment and how these conflicts relate to other aspects of teamwork such as communication, division of work, shared goals, and leadership. We are using a mixed-method approach to data collection through peer-review data, team observations, and reflective memos. This paper reports results from a study implemented in a required first-year engineering design course. The majority of participants recognise the benefits that task and procedural conflicts have on team performance. Specifically, teamwork aspects such as communication, open-mindedness, and working towards a common goal were connected to cognitive conflict. The peer-review data illustrates that some class sections showed statistically significant improvements in goal commitment, idea communication during conflicts, conflict engagement and attentive listening over time. The results of the post-hoc tests further suggest that students in teams with a predominantly male composition (three males and one female) reported a statistically significant decrease in goal commitment and attentive listening during the ten-week evaluation period. Finally, methodologically we found that the reflective memos and team observations were better instruments for capturing team conflict, more so than peer-review surveys.","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"288 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121274959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-14DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2014.063352
Regina Collins, F. Deek
The globalisation of engineering teams has increasingly demanded technologies that support collaboration and knowledge sharing while also respecting the cultural and cognitive differences of individual team members. Existing collaborative knowledge building systems apply a one-size-fits-all approach to knowledge building, allowing individuals to contribute to collective knowledge but overlooking individual knowledge backgrounds, learning styles, and information needs; a hybrid framework is needed to apply the activities and benefits of collaborative knowledge building to an individual’s acquisition of knowledge. A system based upon such a framework encourages team members to share knowledge, resources, insights and opinions collaboratively, thus providing a rich experience of discussion, co-discovery and innovation. At the same time, these shared resources and discussions can be filtered to a personal learning space in which each individual team member can further explore and reflect on the resources best...
{"title":"Engaging individual learning through collaborative knowledge building processes: a hybrid framework","authors":"Regina Collins, F. Deek","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2014.063352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2014.063352","url":null,"abstract":"The globalisation of engineering teams has increasingly demanded technologies that support collaboration and knowledge sharing while also respecting the cultural and cognitive differences of individual team members. Existing collaborative knowledge building systems apply a one-size-fits-all approach to knowledge building, allowing individuals to contribute to collective knowledge but overlooking individual knowledge backgrounds, learning styles, and information needs; a hybrid framework is needed to apply the activities and benefits of collaborative knowledge building to an individual’s acquisition of knowledge. A system based upon such a framework encourages team members to share knowledge, resources, insights and opinions collaboratively, thus providing a rich experience of discussion, co-discovery and innovation. At the same time, these shared resources and discussions can be filtered to a personal learning space in which each individual team member can further explore and reflect on the resources best...","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126501778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-14DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2014.063353
N. Soundarajan, R. Gustafson
The importance of collaborative learning for engineering students to succeed in their programmes and in their professional careers is widely recognised. Many undergraduate engineering programmes include a variety of activities such as team projects and other collaborative activities to help students learn from each other. A number of researchers have worked on developing suitable technologies, such as specialised wikis, to support collaborative learning. Most of these tools are designed to be general-purpose, rather than being focused on specific items of knowledge. Along a different line, the approach of learning objects has focused on knowledge-related issues, ignoring collaborative-learning aspects. The goal of the work reported in this paper is to present an innovative model of learning objects that, while retaining the focus of a given learning object on a specific knowledge item, integrates collaborative learning into it. As we will see, the approach enables the instructor to scaffold the students’ ...
{"title":"Learning objects for collaborative learning in engineering programmes","authors":"N. Soundarajan, R. Gustafson","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2014.063353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2014.063353","url":null,"abstract":"The importance of collaborative learning for engineering students to succeed in their programmes and in their professional careers is widely recognised. Many undergraduate engineering programmes include a variety of activities such as team projects and other collaborative activities to help students learn from each other. A number of researchers have worked on developing suitable technologies, such as specialised wikis, to support collaborative learning. Most of these tools are designed to be general-purpose, rather than being focused on specific items of knowledge. Along a different line, the approach of learning objects has focused on knowledge-related issues, ignoring collaborative-learning aspects. The goal of the work reported in this paper is to present an innovative model of learning objects that, while retaining the focus of a given learning object on a specific knowledge item, integrates collaborative learning into it. As we will see, the approach enables the instructor to scaffold the students’ ...","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114702142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-14DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2014.063354
Steven R. Harper, R. Nagel
When teams are formed there is often conflict that arises. However, not all conflict is detrimental to the final deliverables of the team. Conversely, extreme presence of conflict or the wrong type of conflict is counterproductive. We studied two types of new teams. One type of new team was composed solely of students majoring in engineering, while the second type was composed of students majoring in engineering and students majoring in management. Models were fit with a superset of variables to determine the causes of task, relational, and process conflict. Our overarching goal is to understand the factors which each of the student groups perceive to cause conflict such that we can tailor our instruction toward helping the two different groups to work together as a successful project team. Among the findings are that the variables influencing the types of conflict between the two types of students are distinct.
{"title":"A study on conflicts during an interdisciplinary capstone design experience","authors":"Steven R. Harper, R. Nagel","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2014.063354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2014.063354","url":null,"abstract":"When teams are formed there is often conflict that arises. However, not all conflict is detrimental to the final deliverables of the team. Conversely, extreme presence of conflict or the wrong type of conflict is counterproductive. We studied two types of new teams. One type of new team was composed solely of students majoring in engineering, while the second type was composed of students majoring in engineering and students majoring in management. Models were fit with a superset of variables to determine the causes of task, relational, and process conflict. Our overarching goal is to understand the factors which each of the student groups perceive to cause conflict such that we can tailor our instruction toward helping the two different groups to work together as a successful project team. Among the findings are that the variables influencing the types of conflict between the two types of students are distinct.","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114778701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-14DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2014.063358
Janet M. Duck, Denise Potosky
Group efficacy represents a group’s perceived capability to perform. This longitudinal study (involving 193 working adults organised into 47 project teams in MBA courses) examined several potential sources of group efficacy, measured as individual and group potency beliefs, including the procedure used to form groups, prior team experience, and individual attitudes. Results suggest that the group formation procedure is a relevant antecedent of individual’s potency beliefs about their newly formed project teams. A formation procedure designed to help group members understand each other’s potential contribution to the team generated greater potency than forming teams around a topic of interest or by random assignment. At the group level of analysis, however, initial group potency was negatively correlated with team outcome measures (learning behaviours, process effectiveness, satisfaction, team and instructor project evaluation). Results suggest some new considerations for future research and practice regarding forming teams that believe they can succeed.
{"title":"Potency beliefs in newly formed project teams: sources of initial group efficacy beliefs","authors":"Janet M. Duck, Denise Potosky","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2014.063358","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2014.063358","url":null,"abstract":"Group efficacy represents a group’s perceived capability to perform. This longitudinal study (involving 193 working adults organised into 47 project teams in MBA courses) examined several potential sources of group efficacy, measured as individual and group potency beliefs, including the procedure used to form groups, prior team experience, and individual attitudes. Results suggest that the group formation procedure is a relevant antecedent of individual’s potency beliefs about their newly formed project teams. A formation procedure designed to help group members understand each other’s potential contribution to the team generated greater potency than forming teams around a topic of interest or by random assignment. At the group level of analysis, however, initial group potency was negatively correlated with team outcome measures (learning behaviours, process effectiveness, satisfaction, team and instructor project evaluation). Results suggest some new considerations for future research and practice regarding forming teams that believe they can succeed.","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134592388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-14DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2014.063356
Kung-E. Cheng, F. Deek
Engineers, like others working in group settings, face several challenges in collaboration. One of the challenges is converging to a final decision. Group support systems (GSS) can support engineers in making decisions. GSS researchers and facilitators of group meetings recognise that implementing convergence processes in groups is a most demanding task. Voting, when used properly, can be a great aid in the convergence process. To reap the full benefit of voting in group decision, the computation and communication capabilities in GSS must be used when building voting tools. In this paper, we describe the functional requirements of sophisticated voting tools for collaboration based on prevailing theories and the functionality of existing voting tools. These considerations can serve as guidelines for the design and development of the next generation voting tools. Engineers, like others working in group settings, face several challenges in collaboration. One of the challenges is converging to a final decision. Group support systems (GSS) can support engineers in making decisions. GSS researchers and facilitators of group meetings recognise that implementing convergence processes in groups is a most demanding task. Voting, when used properly, can be a great aid in the convergence process. To reap the full benefit of voting in group decision, the computation and communication capabilities in GSS must be used when building voting tools. In this paper, we describe the functional requirements of sophisticated voting tools for collaboration based on prevailing theories and the functionality of existing voting tools. These considerations can serve as guidelines for the design and development of the next generation voting tools.
{"title":"Voting tools to support convergence process in collaboration","authors":"Kung-E. Cheng, F. Deek","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2014.063356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2014.063356","url":null,"abstract":"Engineers, like others working in group settings, face several challenges in collaboration. One of the challenges is converging to a final decision. Group support systems (GSS) can support engineers in making decisions. GSS researchers and facilitators of group meetings recognise that implementing convergence processes in groups is a most demanding task. Voting, when used properly, can be a great aid in the convergence process. To reap the full benefit of voting in group decision, the computation and communication capabilities in GSS must be used when building voting tools. In this paper, we describe the functional requirements of sophisticated voting tools for collaboration based on prevailing theories and the functionality of existing voting tools. These considerations can serve as guidelines for the design and development of the next generation voting tools. \u0000 \u0000Engineers, like others working in group settings, face several challenges in collaboration. One of the challenges is converging to a final decision. Group support systems (GSS) can support engineers in making decisions. GSS researchers and facilitators of group meetings recognise that implementing convergence processes in groups is a most demanding task. Voting, when used properly, can be a great aid in the convergence process. To reap the full benefit of voting in group decision, the computation and communication capabilities in GSS must be used when building voting tools. In this paper, we describe the functional requirements of sophisticated voting tools for collaboration based on prevailing theories and the functionality of existing voting tools. These considerations can serve as guidelines for the design and development of the next generation voting tools.","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115207150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-07-27DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2009.027446
S. Lu, Nan Jing
To support collaborative design in software engineering, we have built a socio-technical negotiation approach by integrating a Socio-Technical Co-construction Process (STCP) with an Argument-Based Negotiation Process (ABNP). The STCP provides rich contextual information of technical decisions and social interactions in a software design process. The ABNP provides STCP with a conflict resolution strategy by guiding software engineers to generate, exchange and evaluate their argument claims in negotiation activities. This paper reviews relevant research work and presents each step of this negotiation approach. In addition, this paper describes a prototype system which implements this new approach using the advanced web-based software technologies with the goal of demonstrating the enhanced negotiation capabilities in a dynamic socio-technical framework.
{"title":"A socio-technical negotiation approach for collaborative design in software engineering","authors":"S. Lu, Nan Jing","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2009.027446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2009.027446","url":null,"abstract":"To support collaborative design in software engineering, we have built a socio-technical negotiation approach by integrating a Socio-Technical Co-construction Process (STCP) with an Argument-Based Negotiation Process (ABNP). The STCP provides rich contextual information of technical decisions and social interactions in a software design process. The ABNP provides STCP with a conflict resolution strategy by guiding software engineers to generate, exchange and evaluate their argument claims in negotiation activities. This paper reviews relevant research work and presents each step of this negotiation approach. In addition, this paper describes a prototype system which implements this new approach using the advanced web-based software technologies with the goal of demonstrating the enhanced negotiation capabilities in a dynamic socio-technical framework.","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131269493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-07-27DOI: 10.1504/IJCE.2009.027441
N. Khomenko, R. Guio, D. Cavallucci
This paper analyses and discusses from various points of views to what extent Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) and its generalisation (OTSM) could contribute to the Engineering as Collaborative Negotiation (ECN) process instrumentation and evolution. First, decision-making and optimisation approach are compared with OTSM-TRIZ problem stating approach and overall strategies to perform steps of the ECN process are deduced. Then, it is briefly shown how OTSM-TRIZ deals with exploration and construction concepts that should both take place in ECN process. Finally, a general description of the Problem Flow Networks (PFN) approach based on OTSM-TRIZ technologies is given to show how it could be used within ECN process.
{"title":"Enhancing ECN's abilities to address inventive strategies using OTSM-TRIZ","authors":"N. Khomenko, R. Guio, D. Cavallucci","doi":"10.1504/IJCE.2009.027441","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCE.2009.027441","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses and discusses from various points of views to what extent Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) and its generalisation (OTSM) could contribute to the Engineering as Collaborative Negotiation (ECN) process instrumentation and evolution. First, decision-making and optimisation approach are compared with OTSM-TRIZ problem stating approach and overall strategies to perform steps of the ECN process are deduced. Then, it is briefly shown how OTSM-TRIZ deals with exploration and construction concepts that should both take place in ECN process. Finally, a general description of the Problem Flow Networks (PFN) approach based on OTSM-TRIZ technologies is given to show how it could be used within ECN process.","PeriodicalId":275090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Collaborative Engineering","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123834979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：