Page 92 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 92 of 171 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
80
5.4.1 Team Description and Analysis
Team Basic Information: The design team in the experiment was a group of 3
Industrial and Systems Engineering graduate students at the University of Southern
California. They are all currently enrolled in Ph.D. programs in Industrial and Systems
Engineering. One had background in Mechanical Engineering and 7 years of work
experience, one had a background in Electrical Engineering and 2 years of work
experience, and the third one had background in Mechanical Engineering without
work experience. They had known each other for about 2 years but they had never
worked together on a design project before. The demographic information for the three
designers (coded as D1, D2, D3) in coffee maker re-design is listed in Table 5.2.
Team Dynamics: In this experiment, all the designers are the author’s friends and
volunteer to participate in the experiment. The friendship and the award for
recognition are the main motivations for the team members. After reviewing and
analyzing the video of their teamwork after the experiment, it is found that although it
was the first time for them to work together, they had clear team goals, and they had
good trusts on the assigned team task. They hold different personalities. Their Mayer-
Briggs Typology Test [61, 68, 133] on the designers were ENFJ (Extraverted,
iNtuitive, Feeling, Judging), INTP (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Perceiving), and
ENTJ (Extraverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging) respectively. During the discussion,
there existed conflicts, but the conflicts were mainly task conflicts instead of
relationship conflicts [116]. The conflicts in the team were drivers for the continuous
Object Description
| Title | Extraction of preferential probabilities from early stage engineering design team discussion |
| Author | Ji, Haifeng |
| Author email | haifengj@usc.edu; haifeng.ji@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Industrial & Systems Engineering |
| School | Viterbi School of Engineering |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-19 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-07 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Yang, Maria C. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Lu, Stephen Jin, Yan |
| Abstract | Activities in the early stage of engineering design typically include the generation of design choices and selection among these design choices. A key notion in design alternative selection is that of preference in which a designer or design team assigns priorities to a set of design choices. However, preferences become more challenging to assign on both a practical and theoretical level when done by a group of individuals. Preferences may also be explicitly obtained via surveys or questionnaires in which designers are asked to rank the choices, rate choice with values, or select a "most-preferred" choice. However, these methods are typically employed at a single point of time; therefore, it may not be practical to use surveys to elicit a team’s preference change and evolution throughout the process.; This research explores the text analysis on the design discussion transcripts and presents a probabilistic approach for implicitly extracting a projection of aggregated preference-related information from the transcripts. The approach in this research graphically represents how likely a choice is to be "most preferred" by a design team over time. For evaluation purpose, two approaches are established for approximating a team's "most preferred" choice in a probabilistic way from surveys of individual team members. A design selection experiment was conducted to determine possible correlations between the preferential probabilities estimated from the team's discussion and survey ratings explicitly stated by team members. Results suggest that there are strong correlations between extracted preferential probabilities and team intents that are stated explicitly, and that the proposed methods can provide a quantitative way to understand and represent qualitative design information using a low overhead information extraction method. |
| Keyword | preferences; probabilities; concept selection; design process; design decision-making |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1635 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Ji, Haifeng |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Ji-2413 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume14/etd-Ji-2413.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 92 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 80 5.4.1 Team Description and Analysis Team Basic Information: The design team in the experiment was a group of 3 Industrial and Systems Engineering graduate students at the University of Southern California. They are all currently enrolled in Ph.D. programs in Industrial and Systems Engineering. One had background in Mechanical Engineering and 7 years of work experience, one had a background in Electrical Engineering and 2 years of work experience, and the third one had background in Mechanical Engineering without work experience. They had known each other for about 2 years but they had never worked together on a design project before. The demographic information for the three designers (coded as D1, D2, D3) in coffee maker re-design is listed in Table 5.2. Team Dynamics: In this experiment, all the designers are the author’s friends and volunteer to participate in the experiment. The friendship and the award for recognition are the main motivations for the team members. After reviewing and analyzing the video of their teamwork after the experiment, it is found that although it was the first time for them to work together, they had clear team goals, and they had good trusts on the assigned team task. They hold different personalities. Their Mayer- Briggs Typology Test [61, 68, 133] on the designers were ENFJ (Extraverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, Judging), INTP (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Perceiving), and ENTJ (Extraverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging) respectively. During the discussion, there existed conflicts, but the conflicts were mainly task conflicts instead of relationship conflicts [116]. The conflicts in the team were drivers for the continuous |
