chiu an organizational view of design communication in design collaboration 2002

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud0142-694X/02 $ - see front matter Design Studies 23 (2002) 187210PII: S0142-694X(01)00019-9 187 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain

An organizational view of designcommunication in designcollaborationMao-Lin Chiu, Department of Architecture, National Cheng-KungUniversity, Tainan 701, Taiwan

Design collaboration requires participation of individuals andcoordination of design information and tasks. Team organization is oneof the major tasks in design collaboration, because it can affect designcommunication and performance. This paper provides a basicunderstanding of the role of organization in design collaboration andhow it affects design communication and collaboration by empiricalcase studies and design experiments. The results of case studies inarchitectural practice and design studios and a process model of designcollaboration are presented. The study suggests that a structuredorganization can facilitate design communication and consequentlycontribute to the success of the design project. Computer supportedcollaborative work requires managing design tasks as well asinformation flows, and supporting three levels of communication,including individual, group and project. c 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.

Keywords: collaborative design, communication, computer supporteddesign, organization

Collaborative design is an activity that requires participation of indi-viduals for sharing information and organizing design tasks andresources. Particularly in a complex and large project, design ofteninvolves multiple persons or groups collaborating in the design process.The purpose of design collaboration is to share expertise, ideas, resources,or responsibilities. Design communication is central to design developmentin the process. The effectiveness of design communication becomes criticalfor designers in sharing design information, in decision-making and coordi-nating design tasks.

During the last decade, design practice has changed due to globalizationand computerization. The use of computer technology in design practice

1 Chiu, M L The design guid-ance of CSCW: learning fromcollaborative design studios inSasada, Yamaguchi, Moro-muzi, Kaga and Homma (eds)Proceedings of the Third Inter-national Conference of CAAD-RIA98, Osaka, Japan (1998)2612702 Maher, M L, Simoff, S J andCicognani, A Observationsfrom an experimental study ofcomputer-mediated collaborativedesign in Proceedings of IFIP97conference, University of Syd-ney, Australia (1997) pp 1651863 Branko, K, Schmitt, G,Hirschberg, U, Kurmann, Dand Johnson, B An experimentin design collaboration Auto-mation in Construction Vol 9(2000) 73814 Kvan, T Collaborativedesign: what is it? Automation inConstruction Vol 9 (2000) 4094155 Wojtowicz J (ed) VirtualDesign Studio, Hong Kong Uni-versity Press, Hong Kong (1994)6 Simoff, S J and Maher, M LAnalyzing participation in collab-orative design environmentsDesign Studies Vol 21 (2000)1191447 Morozumi, M, Shounai, Y,Homma, R, Iki, K and Murak-ami, Y A group ware for asyn-chronous design communicationand project management, in Guand Wei (eds), Proceedings ofCAADRIA99, Shanghai, China(1999) pp 1711808 Kvan, T The pedagogy of vir-tual design studio Automation inConstruction Vol 10 (2001)345354

188 Design Studies Vol 23 No. 2 March 2002

has established various distributed design environments1,2. Meanwhile, vir-tual design studios (VDS) have been constructed by many institutionsacross the world exploiting new computing and communication techno-logies35. Team members can work in a distributed environment synchron-ously or asynchronously.

Previous studies have focused on issues of design collaboration includingthe process, team works, the design settings, groupware, communicationpatterns, and pedagogy68. However, these studies rarely focus onto theimportance of organization. This paper examines design collaboration froman organizational view by reporting case studies of design projects in prac-tice and design experiments in university design studios. The followingsections will address the organization view, the communication problems,empirical case studies, experiments in collaborative design studios, andissues related to design collaboration.

1 An organizational view of design collaborationArchitectural design is a project-oriented operation. Each design projectcarries its goals or mission, thus creating its orientation for organizingpeople to execute design activities, including design communication, prob-lem solving, and documentation. Each person performs different tasks andrequires different design information. In order to achieve goals effectively,design organization must exist, for example for the convenience of com-munication and solving specific design problems. In a large-scale project,design teams can be organized differently and this will consequently affecttheir communication patterns and behaviors. Therefore, this paper intro-duces an organizational approach to analyzing the design communicationin design collaboration. The motive of this paper is to understand: (1)how people are organized in the collaborative process; (2) how designorganization affects the design communication; and (3) how computer sup-ported systems can facilitate design collaboration.

Collaboration refers to a group of people working together to accomplishan agreed task or address an agreed goal. Often this could not beaccomplished by an individual. Other terms such as cooperation have beenused in research in this field4. Collaboration implies a durable relationshipand a strong commitment to a common goal. Structured collaboration indesign collaboration refers to a team within a collaborative framework forsharing the same goals. The obverse would be unstructured collaboration,which is executed without shared goals, and requires minimally depen-dency among participants. To constrain the scope of discussion, this paperfocuses on structured collaboration. Two kinds of design context are stud-ied; professional architecture practice and that in academic environments,

9 Anderson, K E Communi-cation theory Introduction toCommunication Theory andPractice Cummings (1972) pp4510 Shannon, C E and Weaver,W The Mathematical Theory ofCommunication University of Illi-nois, Illinois (1963)11 Smith, M Communicationbehavior Proceedings of theAmerican Philosophical SocietyVol 10 (1948) 37112 Chiu, M L Case studies ofinternational collaborative designprojects in Taiwan, A technicalreport to National Science Coun-cil, Taipei (1996)13 Chiu, M L Collaborativedesign in CAAD studios: sharedideas, resources, and represen-tations, in Tan and Yeh (eds)Proceedings of InternationalConference on CAAD Future 95,Singapore (1995) pp 74975914 Jeng, T S Towards a pro-cess-centric, asynchronous col-laborative design environment inTan B K, Tan M and Wong Y C(eds) Proceedings of CAADRIA2000, Singapore (2000) pp 152415 Peng, C Exploring com-munication in collaborativedesign: cooperative architecturalmodelling Design Studies Vol 15(1994) 1944

189An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration

Figure 1 Communication

conditions among multiplepersons

to understand the information flow in design collaboration, and how thedesign communication is related to its organization.

Meanwhile, computer supported systems enable the possibility of designcollaboration in a distributed environment. It is critical to understand howcomputers can support collaborative design in a distributed environment.We have to examine the typical communication problems to clarify therole of technology and organization in communication.

2 Communication problems in design collaborationHuman communication is a dynamic process in which one person con-sciously or unconsciously affects the cognition of another through materialsor agencies in symbolic ways. Researchers of organizational behaviour andmanagement science have established a series of communication theories911

. When computer and telecommunication technologies were deployed indesign offices or studios, the use of communication channels increased.Figure 1 demonstrates the communication conditions among multiple per-sons in a distributed design environment, including cognition, transmission,and representation13.

Communication requires both a sender and a receiver. The necessity ofcommunication is due to the possibility of different cognition of represen-tations by different participants as well as conveying new information.

16 Chiu, M L, Yamaguchi, Sand Morozumi, M Supportingcollaborative design studiosscenarios and tools, in Gero J,Chase S and Rosenman M(eds) Proceedings of CAADRIA2001, Sydney, Australia (2001)pp 125134


However, typical communication problems in design collaboration havebeen observed in previous studies by the author1,13,16 as follows:

(1) The media problem: design information needs to be conveyed, and thecommunication problem is related to how to transmit communicationsymbols precisely.

(2) The semantic problem: the purpose of communication is the accurateconveying of information. The problem is how to let transmitted sym-bols carry their original meaning without interference from noise.

(3) The performance problem: the problem is related to how to effectivelyreceive meaning in messages and influence behavior as the senderwished.

(4) The organizational problem: to reach the right persons for sharingexpertise or ideas, design information has to pass throughout the hier-archy of an organization. The complexity of transmission is related tothe scale of distribution.

The last problem is far more critical to design collaboration in a largeproject than the others. The transmission between two persons is easy,particularly by face-to-face contacts, but the transmission among multiplepersons or between two groups requires coordination and management ofinformation flows. When more persons or groups are involved, the com-munications become more complicated. Therefore, people are organizedfor the convenience and effectiveness of communication.

If collaborative design can benefit from improvements in communicationmedia, then the use of computers in supporting collaborative works shouldprovide multiple communication channels and better interfaces for enco-ding and decoding representations. Therefore, design information can bedistributed and shared by individuals or groups.

When computers are employed in design offices and studios, it is criticalto understand how people interact with the environment in the process, andthe issues include: (1) the process and communication media; (2) designorganization; and (3) the information flow. These are explored in the fol-lowing sections.

3 Case studies of design collaboration inarchitectural practiceDuring the last decade, there have been a growing number of collaborativedesign projects undertaken jointly by foreign architects and local architectsin Taiwan12. This section summarizes four collaborative design case studiesof how designers work in a distributed environment. Each sub-section hasits own emphasis on process, organization and information.


3.1 The process and communication mediaThe study first selected four cases that required international design collab-oration, interviewed the key persons in each project, and collected andanalyzed data transmission, including the files, fax and drawings, in theearly design phases. Table 1 summarizes the participants, the work relation-ship, major human contacts, and data communication channels of thesefour cases: the Fubon Financial Center; the Exhibition Center of Hsin-tsu Science Park; the Tzung-Tang Hotel/Office Tower; and the TaiwanPrehistoric Culture Museum.

In all the above cases, the participants were located on two sides of thePacific Ocean. For example, in the second case, the Exhibition Center ofHsin-tsu Science Park, the local architect (Hsih Yi-Jung Architect andAssociates) is located in Hsin-tsu, Taiwan and the design architect (TAC)is located in San Francisco, USA. The main motive for collaboration isthe know-how transfer, particularly the architectural programming and con-ceptual design.

Table 1 Summary of four collaborative design cases

Project Name Location Partnership Work Relationship Human Contacts DataCommunication

1. Fubon Financial Center, ArtTech Architects Vertically defining 1. Telephone 1. Different CADTaipei and Assoc. job scope 2. Fax systems

(Taipei)/SOM (Los 3. Face to face (AES/AutoCAD)Angles, USA) (periodic meetings) 2. Exchange of

printouts2. Exhibition Center of Hsih Yi-Jung Vertically defining 1. Telephone 1. Same CADHsin-tsu Science Park, Architect and job scope 2. Fax system (AutoCAD)Hsin-Tsu Assoc. (Hsin- 3. Face to face 2. Exchanges of

tsu)/TAC (San (periodic meetings) printoutsFrancisco, USA)

3. Tze-Tang Hotel/Office Chang and Jen Vertically defining 1. Telephone 1. Same CADTower, Taichung Architects and job scope 2. Fax systems

Assoc. 3. Face to face (AutoCAD)(Taichung)/KPF (residence on site) 2. Exchange of(New York, USA) drawing files by

diskettes4. Taiwan Prehistoric Haigo Shen and Both firms jointly 1. Telephone 1. Same CADCulture Museum, Taitung Associates, Inc. design in a parallel 2. Fax systems

(Taipei)/Michael process 3. E-mail (AutoCAD)Grave (NYC, 4. Face to face 2. Same layersUSA)/SWA (periodic meetings) settings(Boston, USA) 5. Video- 3. Exchange of

conferencing drawing filesthrough Internet


The design process generally consists of five stages, including architecturalprogram, schematic design (SD), design development (DD), constructiondocumentation (CD), and construction. This study particularly focuses onthe early design phases, wherein many of the most important decisions aremade and collaboration is most important. The activities of client briefing,data collection, architectural program formulation, and schematic designare critical to the evolution and quality of the final design.

In terms of work relationship, participants of collaborative design oftendefine the job scope vertically or horizontally. In vertical definition of jobscope, a design architect is often in charge of schematic design and designdevelopment, and a local architect (architect of record) is in charge ofworking drawings and supervision of construction. In collaborative design,vertical subdivision of work is easier than horizontal subdivision thatrequires more participation and communication and may result in betterperformance in design. In the early phase, design architects and designersmay shift their work locally to get familiar with their partners and oper-ations.

Besides necessary face-to-face contacts, the primary human communi-cations depend on telephone and fax. In a distributed environment, peopleprefer communication within a small group, while many people may beinvolved in the overall process. Interviews with designers not only indi-cated the growth of remote collaboration and communication, but alsoemphasized the importance of face-to-face contacts. The primary limitationof telephone, faxes, and electronic mail is a lack of interaction. In the earlydesign phases, design communication can benefit from computer supports.The potential use of videoconferencing or desktop conferencing is promis-ing for design presentation while the speed is the major obstacle. Desktopvideoconferencing is only used in small group discussions.

In terms of data communication, the major problems are file transfers andcommunications between different computer-aided design (CAD) systems.Design communication often requires a great deal of time in data prep-aration, transmission, and takes even longer if the CAD drawings are notstandardized and need conversion. Reuse of digital design information iscritical to the effectiveness of communication. Since the studied architectfirms are all using CAD systems for producing working drawings, the tra-ditional blueprints and documents are replaced by digital files and CADprintouts. The Internet is increasingly used for file exchanges. At the begin-ning of collaboration, some architects even set the drafting standards suchas CAD layers or file names to overcome file transfer problems. Whiletechnologies can improve the communication performance, the nature ofdesign contents and operations remain the same.


3.2 The organizationTable 2 demonstrates the team organization of the four cases. Typically,each architectural firm has their supporting groups or consultants. The

Table 2 Team organizations of four collaborative design cases

Cases Team Organization

1. Fubon FinancialCenter, 19931995,Taipei

2. Exhibition Center ofHsin-Tsu Science Park,19931996, Hsin-tsu

3. Tzung-Tang Hotel-office tower, 19941998

4. Taiwan, PrehistoricCulture Museum, 19941997


Figure 2 The design organi-zation in the mesh and starnetwork

larger the scale of project, the more organization becomes hierarchical. Itis necessary and useful to break a large group into smaller groups forfacilitating design communication. Generally, the project managers of eacharchitectural firm control the design information flow, coordinate the designtasks, and distribute information to individuals.

For example, in the first project, the Fubon Financial Center, both groupsin Taipei and Los Angels have at least four consultants or subgroups. Eachgroup has a project manager who coordinates the schedule, design tasks,and decision-making. Communications are undertaken horizontally andvertically among groups, and then design information is documented, dis-tributed and verified. It is found that the time lag (16 h), language (Englishand Chinese) or cultural differences of two main offices does not contributeobstacles of communication, while defining and coordinating design tasksrequire management skills as well as leadership. As the project proceeds,more persons are involved and the distribution of design informationbecomes larger and longer. Occasionally, the organization is restructuredin accordance with the new functional needs, and it is difficult to trace thestatus of design reviews and feedbacks.

Two types of team organization are typically found in practice, i.e. meshand star, as shown in Figure 2. In either type, the project manager couldcoordinate and control the information flow. While the scale and type ofproject may determine the level of communication, both types are oftenused simultaneously among groups or within groups.

3.3 The information flowArchitectural design practice is a project-oriented operation. There are sev-eral dependency relationships among group members, including data,task/process, and temporal dependencies14. The data dependencies are cre-ated to specify the basic information such as spatial dimension or materials.Task or process dependencies determine the sequence of informationoccurrence. It was found in the studied cases that organizations are gener-


Figure 3 Sample fax transmissions of the Fubon Financial Center

ally formed based on task dependency, and task dependency creates datadependency. It was also found that communication typically occurred atthe same time among individuals, groups, or projects because tasks areoften overlapped in practice.

There are multiple individual workspaces, which are physically and/orfunctionally separated from a group workspace. Group and individualspaces are constructed to hold the creations and modifications of commonimages and domain design expressions, respectively. It is important toknow how generic design information in group space or global workspaceis presented and shared by individuals.

In the Fubon Financial Center, designers used faxes to transmit designinformation for discussing or confirming design alternatives. The designprocess is cyclic as many researchers reported15. New design informationis added along the design process for refining or redirecting design, andconsequently reducing the search space until the final solution. A cyclicprocess of design communication is evidenced by particular themes. Figure3 demonstrates that orthographic drawings and working drawings with


notations were used for discussing the details of facade during the construc-tion documentation (CD) stage. Each transmission was indexed, and a ser-ial number was marked. For example, CD-ASK-50 means the designarchitect inquired confirmation of detail of facade in the 50th transmission.In this manner, receivers can keep track of the themes and status of dis-cussion. Furthermore, project managers sent progress reports and memor-anda were sent to key persons.

A questionnaire was given to the key persons in the studied cases regardingtheir experiences in design communication, including: (1) purposes forcommunication; (2) time spent on communication; (3) persons involved incommunication; (4) design communication frequency; (5) design represen-tation in communication; and (6) computer supported systems. The feed-back from 20 persons was collected and analyzed. The findings are as fol-lows:

(1) Purposes for communication: as estimated by these local architecturalfirms, 78% of communication was related to solving design problems,while 21% of communication was related to defining the design prob-lems. Sixty four percent of persons considered that ineffective feed-back was caused by unclear design information or messages, thatrequired further explanation or retransmission.

(2) Time spent on communication: on average, 40% of the project timewas spent on communication, while 50% of time was spent on draftingand design, and 10% of the project time was spent on other tasks. Theeffectiveness of design communication becomes critical for designersto share design information for decision-making and coordinatingdesign tasks.

(3) Individual versus group communication: communication occurredamong both individuals and groups. The number of people typicallyinvolved in communication is varied from two to four, and each personmay represent a design group or office. However, the communicationwas usually narrowed down to the minimum number of people. Whenthe organization is more hierarchical, less people are involved in com-munication.

(4) Design communication frequency: as estimated, the frequency of com-munication varied in response to the type and scale of projects. Internalcommunication was more frequent than external communicationbecause of the convenience of location or schedule. Within the samegroup, the frequency of internal communication was about once per13 days. Within different groups, the external communication wasnormally at least once a week.

(5) Design representation in communication: it was found that the majordesign representations in asynchronous communication included out-


line of verbal description, sketches, orthographic drawings, tables, andphotographs. In synchronous communication, persons preferred the useof visual presentation plus oral explanation.

(6) Computer supported systems: most participants preferred the systemshould be simple and easy to use, and need message posting or projectbriefing to situate them or co-members in the process.

Looking at the above collaborative design cases, important conditions forcommunication are observed: (1) three kinds of communication should beconsidered, including human, data, and network; (2) there are differentlevels of communication in terms of individual, group, and project; (3) theparticipation and conditions for coordination among individual membersof a design team are critical for communication and representations, anddesign task dependency defines data dependency and the information flow;(4) the communication usually occurred among the smallest number ofpeople in design organization; and (5) common goals are shared by allparticipants and the process in design communication is cyclic until goalsare achieved.

The following section continues the investigation of design collaborationin the collaborative design studios.

4 Design experiments in collaborative design studiosA VDS comprises of a team of designers who collaborate via electroniccommunication in a distributed environment. Several institutions can par-ticipate in the studio project, where the students work on a site selectedby their own studio instructors and provide resources to students at otherinstitutions involved in the project5. While the collaborative approach issimilar, each collaborative design project has its unique settings and foci.Collaborative design studio (CDS) is held in a similar platform as VDS,but the focus is the methodology of design collaboration. In parallel to theempirical studies in practice, the purpose of design experiments was toexamine how the communication related to its organization in CDS.

4.1 The process and communication mediaThe CDS brings up the issues of where, when, and how design can takeplace, while the conventional design studio is more concerned about whatis design, and who is doing design. Four graduate-level design studios,namely CDS95, CDS96, CDS97 and CDS2000, were studied as shownin Table 3. These design experiments were undertaken from 1995 to 2000in several locations and thus create different distributed organizations.There is a shift from conventional communication and drawing tools tocomputer media. All groups in CDS communicated either asynchronously


Table 3 Comparison of collaborative design studios

Studio Name Location Work Relationships Human Contacts DataCommunication

CDS95, 1995 Spring Eight groups from Six design groups 1. Telephone 1. Different CADtwo institutions jointly design in a 2. Fax systems(AutoCAD/located at two parallel process, 3. E-mail ArchiCAD)cities (Taipei, and two supporting 4. Desktop 2. Exchange ofTainan) groups conferencing printouts

CDS96, 1996, Fall Six groups from All groups jointly 1. E-mail 1. Different CADtwo institutions design in a parallel 2. Desktop systems(AutoCAD/located at two process conferencing Microstation)cities (Taipei, 2. Exchange ofTainan) files

CDS97, 1997, Fall Seven groups from All groups jointly 1. E-mail 1. Same CADone institution design in a parallel 2. Desktop system (AutoCAD)located at the same process conferencing 2. Exchange ofcity (Tainan) printouts

CDS2000, 2000, Spring Five groups from All groups jointly 1. E-mail 1. Different CADthree institutions design in a parallel 2. Desktop systemslocated at three process conferencing/ (AutoCAD/FormZ/cities (Tainan, netmeeting MiniCAD)Kyoto, Kumamoto) 3. Video 2. Exchange of

conferencing files

or synchronously. The world wide web (WWW), whiteboard, e-mail, orvideo-conferencing systems are often used in communications. The webprovides the platform for representing and storing all design information,and supports the asynchronous activities among the participants throughaccess to various design information. The synchronous collaboration issupported through video conferencing facilities, shared whiteboard, andshared CAD systems.

For example, in CDS95, a 2-month design studio for a housing projectwas held in 1995, and eight teams were organized by participants fromtwo institutions located at two cities (Taipei and Tainan). These teamsconsisted of six design teams and two supporting teams, and each teamconsisted of two to three persons. In terms of work relationship, theseteams jointly worked or designed in a parallel process, that is, to participatethe process simultaneously and deal with similar design tasks. Each teamrelied on shared design information on the Internet, while design infor-mation was generated locally. The human contact relied on conventionalmedia due to limited facilities and technical supports. While both sidesused CAD systems, the data communication was assisted manually byexchanging files and printouts due to the conversion among differentCAD systems.


In CDS2000, a 6-week design studio for an earthquake museum projectwas held in 2000, in three academic institutions: National Cheng KungUniversity (NCKU, Taiwan); Kyoto Institute of Technology (KIT, Japan);and Kumamoto University (KU, Japan). Twenty students were organizedinto five groups. The objective of CDS00 was to understand the designinteractions of collaboration, the use of web-based groupware, and the iter-ation of design16.

Similarly, in CDS2000, the web site was used as the repository of designinformation. The process as well as design iterations were also documentedin the web. Three institutions agreed to use English in verbal and textcommunication, while graphic presentation remained critical to communi-cation. Meanwhile, dealing with dynamic team structure required bothsynchronous and asynchronous communication at different levels, such asindividual, team, and project levels. Synchronous and asynchronous com-munication was applied respectively in the process, and each served differ-ent functions. In synchronous communication, all three sites installed 128KISDN and video-conferencing facilities. Once a week, there was a groupmeeting for progress reports by two simultaneous bi-lateral video-confer-encing. MS-Netmeeting with internet cameras was also used in a smallgroup, aided by whiteboard. This kind of communication enhances theunderstanding of how collaborative design work. Particularly, the socialinteraction by face-to-face contact is important for understanding the per-sonality. Asynchronous communication was used frequently at the individ-ual and team level. Normally, team members often browsed the web pagesafter images and drawings were transmitted by ftp, and discussed the pro-gress of projects by both sides on the text mode, or simply by e-mail.

Furthermore, developing convenient tools to support messages broadcast-ing and desktop publishing has become necessary for collaborative design7.The groupware is not only to document design development but also indi-cate the status of each individual involved in the process. Three institutionstook different approaches to develop web-based systems for managingdesign information and the process16. These groupware or tools were alsouseful for analyzing the communication in the process.

4.2 The organizationTeam organization is one of the major tasks in design collaboration,because it can affect design communication and performance. As shownin Table 4, CDS95, CDS96, CDS97, and CDS2000 had different organi-zation modes, team structure, and site assignment. This study applied twomodes of team organization to enhance collaboration and communication,that is, the task-oriented mode and the theme-oriented mode. Both modes


Table 4 Comparison of the approaches in four CDS

Studio Organization Mode Team Structure Site Assignment

CDS95 Housing Project Task-oriented mode

CDS96 Dormitory Project Task-oriented mode

CDS97 Community Project Theme-oriented mode

CDS00 Museum Project Task-oriented mode

were carried out in these studios respectively to serve different functions,that is, problem-solving and exploration. The design experiments con-sidered the arrangement of team organization and the site in order to studythe relation between the information flow and organization. Participantswere requested to document the process and design activities for furtheranalysis.

In CDS95, six design teams were organized from two institutions, andthese teams were asked to submit a design proposal, and the feasible onewas used as the master plan. During the process, six teams reached theconsensus of general design concepts. Each team was assigned to an indi-vidual site for further development. The design interfaces among each teamcaused the necessity for communication. One team responded for continu-ously developing the master plan and facilitating design communication tosolving interface problems.


In CDS96, six teams were organized from two institutions based on taskrequirements and job coordination, and each site was assigned to two teamsto study different approaches at the same site. The purpose of CDS96 wasto analyze the interaction among team members. Apparently, the operationsin CDS96 were more complex than CDS95.

In CDS97, key design issues were first identified, and seven teams wereorganized based on common interests to address these key issues in thecommunity project. Color codes were used to represent these issues, suchas red (energy resources), orange (building technology), yellow (socialactivities), green (ecological issues), violet (computer and communicationtechnology), cyan (transportation), and blue (water resources). These issueswere also considered as seven design themes or domains. Each team shouldtake the lead of one central theme but encourage all other participants tobe involved. Each team then became the expert in one aspect of collabor-ative design. The team efforts were helpful by negotiation or consultationto integrate all themes. The theme-oriented mode proved to be more effec-tive than the task-oriented mode in helping each team for sharing infor-mation and decision-making.

In the design process, site or task arrangement was used as a design strat-egy to study communication in collaborative design. Since if the site issubdivided into smaller lots, design communication becomes more criticaland more complicated. As shown in Figure 4, if only three teams (A, B,C) participate, the scheme III will have more variation than the scheme Iand II, but the designers will spend more efforts to solve interface problemsin order to balance the difference or maintain a consistent space structure.However, in architectural practice, the site selection is closed to the schemeI or II for balancing the requirements for communication and difficultyamong several design groups.

Learning from the above experience, change of team organization is moreflexible and critical than site arrangement for studying design collaboration.

Figure 4 Three design schemes and site selection


Therefore, in CDS2000, the team organization was changed. As shown inFigure 5, subdivided teams and mixed teams were considered at the begin-ning to achieve the purpose of collaboration. Due to the complexity ofcommunication, a hybrid team approach was adopted, and five designteams were formed and each team consisted of four members from twoinstitutions. Therefore, both the teams and institutions could trace the infor-mation flows, and could detect possible communication problems.

4.3 The information flowFigure 6 demonstrates the information flow in the task-oriented mode, suchas in CDS95, CDS96, and CDS2000. Each team has one coordinatorand information is passed to each other freely in the mesh network. Withineach team, the coordinator passes the information to each member in thestar network. Sometimes, a team member talked to other team members

Figure 5 Team organization

of CDS2000

17 Yamaguchi, S andToizumi, K Computer Sup-ported Face-to-face MeetingEnvironment for ArchitecturalDesign Collaboration Proceed-ings of Advances in Computer-base and Web-base Collabor-ative Systems, InterSymp-99,Baden-Baden, Germany (2000)pp 3947


Figure 6 Information flowsin the CDS

directly, without passing the hierarchical structure. In fact, designers wereencouraged to freely discuss their opinions among or within the teams. Thatis particularly important in a distributed design environment to overcomecommunication barriers and bring in external inputs. In CDS97, the infor-mation flows are easily traced because the discussion theme is identified.The communication in the theme-oriented mode is more useful for promotedesign ideas from sharing design information and expertise than in thetask-oriented mode.

The design alternatives are the evidence for understanding the status ofdesign. In CDS2000, the changes are summarized for comparing the inter-actions among team members after reviewing the progress report in eachweek. For example, Figure 7 illustrates design iterations of five groups inthe design process. Group-3 and Group-4 even changed design alternativesdue to poor communication in the third and the fourth weeks. Finally, teammembers had negotiated and compromised on the key decisions to definethe final design alternatives. Indeed, collaboration required coordinationand leadership in design communications, particularly when passive inter-action occurred. The scenario of choosing the hybrid team organizationdemonstrates the strength of identifying the problems.

As evidenced in the studios, design collaboration through asynchronous orsynchronous design meeting is not only seeking a place for exchangingand sharing information, ideas, concerns of individuals, but also functionsas a place for understanding the context and situation of a project, exploringand developing design concepts and ideas, and reaching a consensus of ateam17. Apparently, without the groupware or tools, the communicationwill be more difficult to trace important information to reach the finalresults. It is useful for designers if the groupware can detect the possibleobstacles or conflicts in the design process by visualizing the designchanges.


Figure 7 Design alternatives emerged in the process

Furthermore, a similar survey as in practice was conducted to understandhow participants were involved in studied studios and their experiences indesign communication. The findings are as follows:

(1) Purposes for communication: as estimated by these participants, 50%of communication was related to solving design problems, while 50%of communication was related to defining the design problems.

(2) Time spent on communication: in CDS, 50% of the project time wasspent on communication, while 40% of time was spent on draftingand design, and 10% of the project time was spent for other tasks.Learning computer supported collaborative design technologies indesign communication becomes critical for designers to share designinformation for decision-making and coordinating design tasks.

(3) Individual versus group communication: communication occurredamong both individuals and groups. The number of people typicallyinvolved in communication varied from two to four. However, thedesign information is distributed to three level of organization, includ-ing the individuals, groups, or people involved in the project.

(4) Design communication frequency: as estimated, the internal communi-cation is as frequent as the external communication, since data can betransmitted simultaneously to all participants and legal issues are notunder consideration. Within the same group, the frequency of internalcommunication was about three to five times per day. Within different

18 Cicognani, A and Maher,M L Models of collaboration fordesigners in computers in com-puter supported environment inMaher M L, Gero J, andSuweeks F (eds), Proceedingsof IFIP97 conference (1997) pp9910819 Kvan, T Tools for a virtualdesign communitymodelingthe effects of different tools ondesign communication in MaherM L, Gero J and Suweeks F(eds), Proceedings of IFIP97conference (1997) pp 109123


groups, the external communication was about at least once per day.The frequency in studios was higher than in practice due to the largeuse of telecommunication and computer supported tools.

(5) Design representation in communication: it was found that the majordesign representations in asynchronous communication included texts,sketches, CAD drawing, and computer-rendered images. In synchron-ous communication, persons preferred the use of the visual presen-tation plus e-mails or oral explanation. From the behavioral point ofview, while visual communication is the foundation of design collabor-ation, language barriers in oral communication often imposed a stresseffect on teams as well as technical barriers.

(6) Computer supported systems: most participants prefer the systemshould be simple and easy to use, and need message posting or pin-up to situate them or co-members in the process.

This section provides a better understanding of the interactions betweenorganizations and design communication and the implications for futuredesign practice. There are some similarities and differences of communi-cation patterns between architectural practice and design studios. Theabove findings contribute to the basis for the following discussion.

5 Issues raisedThe analysis of the above cases and experiments in collaborative designraised the questions such as: What kind of model can better describe thecollaborative process? Whether structured organizations can better supportdesign communication and collaboration in the design process? What is therole of technologies in the design process? How can computer supportedcollaborative works (CSCW) provide better interface to achieve effectivecommunication? These questions are elaborated as follows.

5.1 The process modelWe need a process model of collaborative design to describe certainphenomena in which the design tasks are undertaken to possibly reach thefinal design18. The model is important for all participants to understandhis/her position in design collaboration, and for researchers to analyzedesign activities.

Collaboration is a deeper, more personal synergistic process, and its pro-cess involves negotiation, agreement, and compromise in order to achievesuccess19. Figure 8 illustrates a general process of collaborative designdriven by decision-making. The design information is delivered from initialstate to the final state until the decision-making process is completed. Thecyclic process involved consultation, negotiation, decision-making, and

20 Craig, D L and Zimring, CSupporting collaborative designgroups as design communitiesDesign Studies Vol 21 (2000)187204


Figure 8 A process model ofdesign collaboration

reflection. Negotiation is observed as the major task in decision-making incollaborative design. Consultation is an action to verify which decisionshave to be made. Reflection is to confirm the decisions and initiate anothercycle of information processing. In the process, stimuli and participantsattitude are also critical to decision-making. This model helps us under-stand how design collaboration can speed up the process through effectiveorganization and communication by potential computer supported systems.

5.2 Structured organizationIn general, team organization in design collaboration is better structuredin architectural practice than in design studios because design goals areoften well defined in practice. In practice, current design collaboration isorganized based on four factors: (1) design expertise; (2) social functions;(3) resources; and (4) design culture. Both design expertise and manage-ment skills are important factors for successful design collaboration. Therelationship of individuals or groups with the hierarchical organization ineach project is well established in architectural practice. The organizationexists for problem solving throughout effective communication. Therefore,the success of design collaboration can be measured. From previous casestudies, phenomena or patterns of design communication demonstrate thatstructured organization can better serve in design collaboration if thoseparticipants are better informed and know about the essence of design oper-ations, available resources and supports, and responsibility in the process.Therefore, participants can utilize available resource and position his/herrole in the process in better manners.

On the other hand, unstructured collaboration is often found in design stu-dios that do not share goals and requires minimally an open exchangeof ideas and issues among participants20. Whether design studios requirestructured organization is still under debate because the intention for designcollaboration is often different from the practice. In design studio, currentdesign collaboration is organized based on four factors: (1) design orien-tation; (2) design expertise; (3) design culture; and (4) availability of com-munication and computer supported systems. Design collaboration is often


applied for searching better results collaboratively through design explo-ration, but it is difficult to evaluate how it reaches its goals. Nevertheless,the main advantage of structured organization in studios is to detect com-munication problems and facilitate the process. The practice provides simi-lar and comparable experience for the studio.

In the computer era, the organization can be formed in response to thenew changing environment. A distributed organization can be consideredas a collaborative framework for defining roles or organizing expertise inthe process with computer support collaborative systems.

5.3 The role of technology in design collaborationThe case studies and experiments clearly demonstrate the impact of usingnew technologies on the collaborative process in design offices as well asstudios. The shift from conventional or manual tools to digital technologiesis a natural trend, while the conventional tools or manual works still cancomplement the digital tools. It is found in case studies that interactionsbetween conventional and digital media are a complex mixture in thedesign process. If design communications occurring in the process forcethe design development that generates design information, then mediainteractions amplify the designers opportunities to reach the goals. Theuses of computer supported systems will enhance design communication.However, the quality of design is not driven by the technology. Designcommunication contributes mostly to the effectiveness of decision-making,including consultation, negotiation, evaluation, and confirmation.

Effective technological support is one of the factors to achieve the successof design collaboration in studios. Process is as much a contributing factorto success as technology. Thus design collaboration must assist the parti-cipants in learning about processing a successful design exchange overcommunication networks. While the technologies are continuouslydeveloped, the performance of computer supported collaborative design isassociated with the learning curve of new technology. Orientation sessionsshould be conducted prior to the design review to familiarize with thestrengths and limitations of the communications.

The above analysis from the preliminary observation provides the impetusfor seeking what are needed in CSCWs. The study starts to examine whatkinds of function that conventional tools are lacking, and what kind ofinterface in CSCW can offer for enhancing the interaction in collabor-ative design.

21 Rosenberg, D and Hutchi-son, C (eds) Design Issues inCSCW, Springer-Verlag, Lon-don (1994)22 Jabi, W and Hall, T Beyondthe shared whiteboard: issues incomputer supported collabor-ative design, in M Tan and RTeh (eds) Proceedings of Inter-national Conference on CAADFuture 95, Singapore (1995) pp71972523 Baldwin, A, Austin, S,Hassan, T and Thorpe, A Plan-ning building design by simulat-ing information flow Automationin Construction Vol 8 (1998)14916324 Matsumoto, Y, Sasada, Sand Yamaguchi, S Making thecollaborative design processobservablevisualization of thecollaborative design process in aVDS project in B K Tan and MTan (eds) Proceedings of CAAD-RIA2000, Singapore (2000) pp4554


5.4 Implications for computer supported systemsComputer supported collaborative work motivates and validates groupwaredesign, and defines groupware as products specifically designed to assistgroups of people working together21. The aim of CSCW is to build agroupware system to let people cooperate by overcoming barriers of spaceand time that are imposed on people.

The current or collaborative groupware technologies (such as sharedwhiteboard, electronic mail, internet phone, desktop conferencing systems,and general-purpose software) are inadequate for the particular needs ofsimultaneous, multi-user discussion and co-production of architecturaldocument. The research should focus on combining the rich representationof a CAD system with current collaborative technologies to support distrib-uted design process22. The emphasis is not on current multi-user access tointegrated database, but rather on shared protocols of interaction that areindependent of implementation and storage schemes.

Meanwhile, developing convenient tools to support message broadcastingand desktop publishing has become necessary for collaborative design.Making the collaborative design process observable is useful for problemdetection and group awareness23,24. The tools are not only to documentdesign development but also to indicate the status of each individualinvolved in the process.

Therefore, the functions of CSCW are to support communication as fol-lows:

(1) Define task and process dependency: the system should be able todefine participants and their tasks in the process, and support threelevel of communication, that is, individual, group, and project. There-fore, task and process dependency can automatically promote interac-tions among participants.

(2) Define data dependency: the system should be able to define datadependency based on a combination of the reference, documentation,project management, and communication system, thus design infor-mation can be generated, stored, and shared.

(3) Visualize design process: the system should be able to trace the statusor progress of project by visualization to detect possible communi-cation pitfalls.

(4) Support team awareness: group participation in design collaborationis a social process, and the system should be able to enhance the per-sonal identity and team awareness in the process by demonstratingparticipants presence.


To expand the capabilities of current CAD systems and to go beyond thelimited functions and expressions of general-purpose collaborative tools,the study proposes a theme-oriented interface that combines collaborationtechnologies with a rich and meaningful representation scheme. Figure 9demonstrates a framework that design information can be shared in themodeling and the communication modules. The modeling module can bemaintained in the individual workspace, while the coordination of designinformation and task is critical for maintaining the group workspace.

In general, project managers or coordinators can monitor the global work-space. While accommodating the simultaneous design stage, it is necessaryto build a system for maintaining consistency from an initial state andreaching a state which everyone concerned agrees. To maintain the integ-rity and chronology of events, the participants cannot modify the publicworkspace unless connected to the coordinator or project manager.

6 ConclusionThis paper provides a basic understanding of the role of organization indesign collaboration and how it affects design communication and collab-oration by empirical case studies and design experiments. There are simi-larities and differences of organizational influence in design collaborationin the architectural practice and design studios. Without an understandingof how these above conditions are met, further study of what computationaltools are needed for computer supported collaborative design cannot bereached.

Figure 9 A framework ofCSCW


The research indicates that collaboration in architectural design can pro-ceed effectively through structured collaboration for sharing design infor-mation. Analysis of the processes of design collaboration can serve as thefoundation for support tools. Identification of how organization may inter-act with design communication enhances our basic understanding of designcollaboration. New computer supported systems or groupware that havethe capacity to support managing information flows by visualization arerequired, a computer supported collaborative system can be developed withthe functions of automatically tracking the design tasks and their depen-dency, and building knowledge into the system to enhance the ability ofcommunication and coordination.

Due to the emerging role of technologies in the design process, the designorientation and programme can be changed. Design collaboration requiresconsideration of changing design strategies, organization, environment, orculture in response to the future needs in a distributed environment. Themanagement skills of dynamic design organization are as important as theuses of computer supported groupware in such an environment.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank the assistance from persons of each studiedproject, the colleagues who have collaborated in Collaborative Design Stu-dios over the last 5 years, and students who have participated projects.

chiu an organizational view of design communication in design collaboration 2002

Documents

design project

design process

design experiments

design collaboration

design tasks andresources

matter design studies

sharing design information

design practice1 chiu