Content uploaded by Nathalie Rodet-Kroichvili
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nathalie Rodet-Kroichvili on Oct 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
THE CHALLENGE OF COLLABORATIVE DESIGN IN THE AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRY: BEYOND DIGITAL MOCK-UPS, RETHINKING ORGANIZATION
AROUND COMMUNITIES
FABIENNE PICARD, NATHALIE RODET-KROICHVILI
INTRODUCTION1
For almost thirty years now, the automotive industry has been experiencing significant
technological, economic and organizational changes (Boyer and Freyssenet, 2000; Chanaron
and Lung, 1995; De Banville and Chanaron, 1991; GERPISA, 1989), specifically within a
globalisation context. Competitiveness has become the key word, and innovation appears as
one of the favourite ways of making a difference (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). To innovate
involves making faster developments than the competitors, implementing a product quality and
a systematic cost reduction policy and last but not least, demanding a strong collaboration with
external partners (automakers, suppliers). After production/manufacturing and logistic
department, design activities are of primary importance to take up this challenge and the
automotive industry is experiencing a deep evolution of design modes (Lefebvre, Segrestin and
Weil, 2001).
This process of design activities rationalization (Ciavaldini, 1997) is supported by the
use of new tools, based on digital technology. In this paper, we focus more specifically on one
of these digital technologies, the Digital Mock-Up (DMU), which is becoming a pivotal tool in
design activity (Hirt, 2003). Digital tools are expected to enable computer-simulated testing
without appealing to physical prototypes. It is also supposed to simplify information flow and
transmission across different stages of development, and across co-design partners (Aoshima
et alii, 2004). Digital technology is considered as a source of benefits for companies, but these
1
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
benefits are not fully captured by companies yet (Aoshima et alii, 2004). How to explain this
problematic observation and what should do firms to fully benefit from this tool?
The purpose of this contribution is to show that while DMU is necessary to drive
forward a new way of designing, remote collaborative design, it does not appear to be enough.
Such an evolution of design activity involves to invent new modes of coordination and related
organizational forms.
Academic literature gives evidences about organizational changes induced by the use of
new technology (Barley, 1986, 1990; Barley and Kunda, 2001; Orlikowski, 2002). The spirit of
this approach is summarised by Becker et alii: "Introducing a new technology is therefore an
organizational and management task, not just a technical matter" (2005). In design activity, an
emergent literature tries to analyse the organizational impact of digital technology use (3D-
CAD, Virtual prototyping…) (D'Adderio, 2001, 2004; Baba and Nobeoka, 1998; Thomke and
Fujimoto, 2000; Becker et alii 2005). Such an issue is not of secondary importance because the
appropriateness of automakers’ strategies with organizational structures supporting product
development can explain a great part of differences in automakers’performances (Cusumano
and Nobeoka, 1992; Fujimoto, 1994). Indeed, the "project execution team structure" (Clark
and Fujimoto, 1991), the organizational reference mode, reveals nowadays some limits
regarding its capacity to store knowledge and to coordinate skills, and "mechanisms of
knowledge coordination, creation and accumulation involve complex learning processes, of
which dynamics forces the organizational structures to be frequently redefined2"
(Carrincazeaux and Lung, 1998).
2
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
What is the state of DMU use in automotive design centre? How digital technology is
linked to organizational design activity? Does the introduction of DMU stimulate the
development of remote collaborative design and furthermore of virtual platform?
To address these questions, the empirical part of this paper is based on case studies
collected in professional literature or conferences regarding the use and diffusion of DMU in
automotive design as well as the assessment of such a practice. Moreover our own knowledge
acquired through a research project carried out in an automotive firm as well as interviews of
engineers specialized in design activities and who know well or even were formerly employed
by the automotive industry provide useful complements to become familiar with this topic. The
second part of this paper is a theoretical elaboration in order to explain unexpected
observations: it corresponds to the abductive stage of reasoning which produces new
hypotheses to account for observed phenomena (Peirce, 1934). This stage needs to be
strengthened by the deductive reasoning which allows to logically draw conclusions from the
hypothesis and by the inductive reasoning which leads to compare this hypothesis and
conclusions with reality in order to assess its consistency.
Starting off from the hopes raised by the introduction of this tool in firms design
centres, we are seeking to examine and remove factors standing in the way of the development
of remote collaborative design. To do this, it will be necessary for us to analyse the details of
the design process – particularly its both cognitive and collective dimensions. Then we will ask
ourselves what governance structures need to be implemented in order to bring about a suitable
roll-out and use of digital tools intended to support collaborative design – whether it is face-to-
face or remote collaborative design. We will also show the need to accompany this
development of design tools and methods with a new organizational architecture based around
3
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
communities, able to complement (and not substitute) the current platform-based design
organization.
I –DIGITAL MOCK-UPS PROMISES WITH REGARD TO INNOVATIVE DESIGN
Built on the foundations of various different and very closely linked systems, sub-
systems, components, automobiles are complicated and complex product. Consequently, the
aim of this first section is to examine how the business of designing automobiles has evolved
in order to integrate modern technological web and digital advances. We distinguished two
mains evolution: a technological evolution with digital technology and an organizational one.
1.1. The introduction of digital mock-ups in automotive design
As far as tools are concerned, the activity of designing products was initially carried out
in companies design centres and was based on plans (two-dimensional drawings). It culminated
in the creation of a physical prototype, which was then put through actual size trials. The
introduction of computer-assisted drawing, started to ease the burden of the initial drawing
work, without moving too far away from the philosophy and practice of design. But computer-
aided design (CAD) is the first tool that has revolutionised the field (Baba and Nobeoka, 1998).
Two mains functions can be attributed to 3D CAD (Aoshima et alii, 2004): the transfer of
information and the visualisation of a product, making this tool both powerful and sufficiently
flexible to enable design iterations. In its three-dimensional version, 3D-CAD also brings
geometrical intelligence enabling designers to differentiate between areas containing matter
and areas without matter.
DMU appears to the culmination of CAD. It represents the integration of all files
associated with 3D-CAD, offering a virtually real visualisation of a product. To do this, DMU
4
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
relies on both large-volume technical data management systems and on advanced visualisation
and simulation technologies. Ideally, it enables the user to carry out a virtual prototyping of a
product, and beyond this to carry out the manufacturing process (a digital factory).
Consequently, "The DMU implementation involves radical changes in the technologies as well
as in the methods and procedures for design, experimentation and prototyping" (D'Adderio,
2001). There are many advantages in proceeding in this way, as it enables companies to tighten
the lead times and to lower the direct costs of the design process, thereby increasing efficiency
and improving the quality of the solutions presented. Moreover, "visualized design information
by computer, in an intuitively understandable form, facilitates early collaboration among up-
stream and down-stream engineers with different disciplines" (Aoshima et alii, 2004).
A number of elements contribute to this quality. First of all, DMU has a unique format
for coding and sending information, as long as there is shared access to a single database. This
information can therefore be immediately located and understood by everyone involved in a
project. Engineer can carry out the design process "in environment" – i.e.: visualising the
limitations given on neighbouring parts from the outset, and integrating their parts in a virtual
prototype, thereby considerably lowering the number of physical prototypes necessary to pass
through all stages of the design solution. Furthermore, for consistent teamwork while working
on different parts, the capabilities of the DMU technologies are greater than those of an
individual coordinator. DMU therefore enables users to identify critical points on the fly. The
use of a DMU also significantly reduces the time needed for the design work, thanks to
simultaneous engineering: several teams can work at the same time on different phases of the
process. Finally, because of the on-the-fly identification of problems, as well as the discussion
of the proposed solutions and the iterative way forward that is enabled, the projects are
qualitatively improved.
5
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
The aeronautic and automotive industries are currently spearheading the use of CAD,
DMU and digital factories. Virtual tools have been introduced in design by major automakers
since the mid-1990s. First cars completely designed through a DMU are available at the turn of
the century (for example the Oldsmobile Intrigue of General Motors in 1999, The Explorer,
Thunderbird and Mondeo of Ford in 2001 (Ames, 2000)). Now, the challenge is not only to
design a vehicle but also to design in such a way its manufacturing process. Most automakers
are currently reaching the stage of such a digital factory. Moreover, the advances in digital
design are accompanied by the improvement of systems of technical data management and the
development of virtual reality and simulation tools. Several integrated solutions are available to
implement virtual design. Beyond automakers, suppliers are increasingly involved in virtual
design given the automakers’ strategy of outsourcing and a challenge is to give them a safe
access safely to automakers’ DMU. If automotive firms are advanced in using virtual tools for
design, are they therefore pioneers in collaborative design, or even remote collaborative
design? In other word, do digital tools automatically bring about the development of
collaborative work?
1.2. Virtual platforms: the emergence of remote collaborative design
The experimental observation and analysis of designers’ activity enables us to think of
design as an expression of both individual and collective activity. As regards individual work,
a designer seeks to identify issues, propose guiding principles, possibly seeking to do this
while interacting with other designers. If this interaction is carried out remotely (exchange of
results by telephone, e-mail, file transfer, etc.), and is an asynchronous process (designers
working in different locations at different times, or sequentially), we speak about "distributed
design" (Darses and Falzon, 1996). This work may be complemented by a collective, shared
6
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
phase, during which designers meet and exchange information, co-producing CAD models of a
product. These face-to-face meetings (which are necessarily synchronous) are sometimes
treated as co-design meetings (stakeholders working in a single location at the same time).
In order to reap all the benefits of co-design, a very strong movement was set up 15 to
20 years ago to organize design work within platforms which group together all those people
involved in the design process, in a single location and under the leadership of a project
manager. In other words, platform-based design organization ("project execution team
structure" of Clark and Fujimoto (1991)) places the necessary skills for carrying out a project
in a single geographical location, giving the definite advantage of speeding up information
exchanges for design problem-solving. Beyond the formal exchanges arising in a project and
supported by well-defined objects, codified knowledge (specifications sheets, diagrams, plans,
etc), physical proximity enables the transfer of non codified, tacit knowledge. This is, for
example, what happens with the verbal explanation of solutions upheld.
But apart from these advantages, platform-based design organization also presented
some limits. It poses problems with regard to confidentiality, due to the presence of a number
of people from outside the company. Furthermore, it takes the designer out of his original
environment. This gives rise to a high risk of weakening the designer’s skills (Carrincazeaux
and Lung, 1998). To resolve these problems, it would appear to be suitable to bring forward the
digital mock-up with the aim of doing away with physical platform-based design structures. In
this context, DMU appears not only as a common-based technology but also as a coordinate
tool which would indeed enable remote collaborative design (a product simultaneously
performed through a variety of people working in different locations, via networking). By
designing in a virtual space, DMU, linked to the web, would enable various parties involved in
7
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
a given design project to work in simultaneous engineering, without losing consistency and
without being physically present at the platform. This is distributed design realized in a
synchronous manner which corresponds to a virtual platform.
These conceptual differences are summarized in the following table:
A physical platform-based design organization allows co-design to be
systematic without necessarily eliminating distributed design. DMU and virtual platforms
introduce a new structure to design, aimed at eliminating the constraint of physical proximity.
Here as well, the asynchronous mode (or distributed design) can be seen as complementary.
Virtual platforms encourage the exchange of information among different partners around a
shared tool at the same time. DMU is therefore a nodal tool for these platforms 3, enabling all
parties working on a project to collaborate on a global, shared view of the product.
Location Time
identical (synchronous) different (asynchronous)
identical Co-design -
different Remote collaborative design Distributed design
8
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
II. SPECIFICITIES OF REMOTE COLLABORATIVE DESIGN AND GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURES
The use of DMU raises a number of hopes: its potential should encourage a
decentralisation of design activities, while improving the coordination of these activities.
Consequently, we expect to see platform-based design organization disappear and to be
replaced by purely virtual platforms. But if we apply this to the automotive industry, we must
say that we have witnessed few upsets to the industry, in spite of the more general usage of
DMU in a number of manufacturers in-house and sometimes even a willingness to open up
access to their DMU to suppliers. If we look at what is happening within automotive firms, we
can see the durability of a geographical concentration in design bolstered by the existence of
platform-based design structures (Lung, 2002).
The problems linked with the emergence of virtual platforms appear to be threefold.
Firstly, technical problems or issues linked to the tool’s capabilities in the first place. In spite
of its sophistication, DMU will probably never bear the full weight of the design process. They
do not come into play in the very early stage of automotive design (pre-project) which sets out
the broad directions the project will take, along with the overall architecture of the vehicle.
After a global look has been taken at the project, and only then, it is possible to separate it into
pseudo-independent sub-problems. The DMU makes juxtapositions of sub-assemblies in a
virtual environment but it does not organize them. The coordination work therefore has to be
done upstream… and sometimes also downstream. Furthermore, we can see that the influential
components of a complex product are not just the neighbouring sub-systems. Everything does
not boil down to a geometry issue. For all these reasons, the DMU appears to be a tool that can
only bear part of the burden of the design process4. Secondly, organizational and human inertia
9
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
matter. Bearing in mind past choices made with regard to the design process organization
(which have led to a need to see a return on the substantial investment that has been made) and
its place in the overall structure of companies, it is unlikely that we will witness a fast roll-out
of these activities (Picard and Rodet-Kroichvili, 2003). Moreover, time is needed for
individuals and groups to learn so that they can work in a different way after the introduction
of new tools and new ways of interacting with other people – a fact which in the short term is
feeding resistance to change. This is not just an issue about training in new technologies here.
It is also about making deep-seated changes in the behaviour of those concerned, and changes
in their routines. Thus, for example, the effective use of a DMU requires people to share their
rough work. With some people, this goes against a certain sense of honour (delivering a
product that they are not fully satisfied with). Furthermore, their partners are compelled to
work with a blurred kind of logic – on uncertain items – which is uncomfortable. Finally,
issues linked with the specificity of the design process on the one hand, and the demands
placed through collaborative design on the other. This assumes a need to create new modes of
governance to cope with such a process – especially if this is remote collaborative design. It is
in this latter case that the following development issues address.
2.1. From a design theory to organizational structures of design
Any design structure unmistakably echoes a design theory – a way of thinking and
representing the design process. Behind any kind of organizational structure lies an
interpretation of the object. Therefore, design theories can enlightened us on suitable
organizational structures. The thing is to identify the fundamental characteristics and
specificities of the design activity, thereby enabling us to then build a suitable governance
structure.
10
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
The aim of this section is therefore to draw a very broad outline of the design theories.
To do this, we intend to use a two-way review. The first analyses the nature of the design
activity and the second places more emphasis on the cognitive side of this activity. These
approaches converge towards recognition of the collective nature of design work, where
collaborative design (both face-to-face and remote) is a particular case.
2.1.1. The design process: collective actors and collective cognitive process
An initial approach focuses on the nature of the design activity and enables us to
identify design as a problem solving activity and as an activity for the joint construction of
problems and solutions.
Design is traditionally considered as a problem-solving activity that aims to produce
satisfactory solutions (Simon, 1969). Design is seen as a decision-making process that
gradually leads the system to reach a single satisfactory solution, but not necessarily an optimal
solution. Group activity offers the ability to draw up a single solution, punctuated by a
sequential validation process for the choices made. This approach to design gives a relatively
low profile to creativity and innovation5. As stated by Hatchuel et al (2005), this kind of
design, known as "regulated", bases itself on what is written in the specifications, the creation
of mock-ups, iterations around tests and prototypes, and therefore on a relatively standardised
process. This teleological representation of the design process can be directly seen in the
sequential organizational structure of firms design centres based around product and vocational
nomenclatures.
But in such a fiercely innovative context, rife with uncertainty and instability,
relegating design theory to a decision-making and problem solving theory is no longer a
11
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
satisfactory analysis. By contrast, the attraction of innovative design lies in the possibility that
it can naturally present a way to reach a number of innovative solutions (the " principle of
expansion"), while enabling the validation of solutions (the "principle of validation"), leaving
the way open as the final choice. Many authors consider now that design is better suited to a
process related to the dialogic co-building of problems and solutions (Longchampt, 2004). Not
only are problems ill thought out (Simon, 1969), but they grow over time. With this in mind,
we could say that design in an intrinsically complex, iterative, interactive and finally collective
process. Let us go over these details. The complexity of the design process can be seen as a
problem inherent to the need to operate in an environment characterized by great constraints.
There are indeed a lot of design constraints and these are varied, vague, arising necessarily or
arbitrarily, conjonctive/complementary, bidirectional, analogical, unlimited and contradictory
(Micaëlli and Forest, 2003). The iterative nature of the design process underlines the repetitive
nature of a process mainly arising from successive estimates. In other words, all the stages in
the process intertwined with each other and in the end a solution presents itself after so much
feedback, where problems and solutions are worked over time and again: "[…] design
solutions emerge gradually as a process of structuring and restructuring, composing and
decomposing the problem, defining and redefining constraints of designing, and generating
and testing design solution" (Lahti et alii, 2004). Interaction is a feature of both the situated
nature of the design process (Gero, 2002) during which the parties involved interact with each
other and its mediatised nature related to interactions between actors involved and symbolic
objects, supporting design.
Underlining the specificity of the design process leads to a major result: the definition
of a key actor which is a collective actor. Its emergence and building obeys its laws of
constitution which are not aggregative: collective actors cannot be reduced to the sum of
12
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
individual ones. Furthermore, these actors often have a mixed set of skills, carrying out
different professions but having to design an item together.
The second design approach we wish to deal with is the design process as a using and
creating knowledge process. Here, we are looking at some cognitive aspects of design.
Traditional a cognitive analysis makes the design process an individual thinking process
(Simon, 1969), but more recent approach emphasises the aspect of a social distribution of
knowledge (Hutchins, 1995), while other ways of thinking stress the social collaboration of
design (Simoff and Mahler, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). "Social collaboration appears
to have a particularly important role during the conceptual phase of designing, i.e. during
generation and articulation of design process through searching new information to help
determine design constraints and produce satisfactory design. An important aspect of
collaborative designing is working with shared design objects: through visual representations,
conceptual models, tools, and concrete materials" (Lahti et alii, 2004:353). Basically, here is
the social or collective aspect of knowledge put to the forefront.
We have Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) to thank for having emphasized the ontological
and epistemic dualism of knowledge. This approach places particular emphasis on the multi-
localised aspect of sources regarding the knowledge creation. This multi-localisation relates to
the dualism of types and levels of knowledge – individual/collective forms, tacit/codified
aspects, broader/contextual view. The collective aspect of knowledge is particularly stressed in
explanations of the process of converting knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It is clear
that while the individual is a vehicle for knowledge, from the outset this knowledge is
collective. Placed within a group, individuals become nodal gateways to collective knowledge,
integrating and creating links between the knowledge spread around.
13
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
In the end, these two great paradigms of design come together in a joint recognition of
the collective nature of this process, highlighting here collective actors and the collective
cognitive process. Taking into account this aspect of design leads us to focus our attention on a
particular mode of design - the collaborative method, the main characteristics of which we are
going to detail below.
2.1.2. Towards collaborative design
Confronted by contemporary challenges6 affecting the design process in the automotive
industry, collaborative work is placing itself firmly in the picture. This collaborative design
work can be defined as involving the coordinated commitment of several people aimed at
resolving a problem (Teasley and Roschelle, 1993). This collaborative work can be carried out
in a face-to-face or remote way.
In collaborative work, the interaction between the people involved will provide both
content to the activity (ideas, outlines, representations, etc) and structure to the process.
According to Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002), "two-third of design groups' face-to-face
communication deals with the content whereas one-third of group communication aims at
organizing the group process"7. Engeström (1992) emphasises the type of collaboration varies
"depending on whether people share the same objective or not". It depends to what extent tasks
are shared between people. Based on this criteria, Engeström can see three types of
collaborative situations: (1) coordination in which the parties carry out individual tasks without
a shared goal, following set script regulating what they are doing without being concerned
about the development of this script; (2) cooperation, where the parties involved focus on a
shared problem, and try to negotiate a mutually acceptable way to resolve it - here, the parties
alter the original instructions to decide on what they are doing themselves; (3) finally, we have
14
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
reflexive communication – the best form of collaboration. In this case, not only do the parties
involved share the same objective, but they also organise their collaboration by developing
their own shared guidelines, "a shared script of joint activities". In other words, this script is
not drawn up in advance and this is where we see the real ability of collective actors to
organise their own work.
As soon as the design activity becomes a collaborative activity, it is necessary to use
intermediary design objects, which are the vehicle for representations, concepts and
knowledge. These intermediary design objects give shape to the problem/solution set at any
given moment, thereby making it easier to move forward. DMU enters into this category. This
instrumentation of the collaborative design process theoretically makes it possible for the
development of remote synchronous or otherwise design. The function of the tool therefore
becomes the link between the parties involved and enables the dynamic integration of their
activities. It therefore enables people to combine a physically distanced team with a spatial
cognitive distribution of knowledge. In other words, it makes it theoretically possible for
remote collaborative design activities to be carried out and introduces an extra step in the
complexity related to the need to manage interactions on multiple levels. The hypothesis we
are putting forward here is that this specific method of design can only develop within a
suitable governance structure (hybrid) that we now know can neither be purely virtual design
platforms nor traditional platform-based design structures. This development in design tools
and methods raises questions regarding current conditions of their success, and we must not
shrink from examining the organizational modes that should be developed to accompany these
changes.
15
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
2.2. Beyond the introduction to a new tool: how organizing remote collaborative design
activity?
The introduction of a new tool, the DMU, has not given rise to the development of
remote collaborative design in the automotive industry. This tends to support the idea that
besides technology, organization matters in order to reach a high-performance product
development (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991)8 and beyond, that it is not a tool that brings about the
restructuring of activities, even if it opens up a range of possibilities9. The DMU seems to be a
necessary condition for this restructuring, but is not enough to see the emergence of a new way
of designing in the automotive industry. So what factors would be likely to push forward the
introduction of remote collaborative design, bearing in mind the existence of tools now
rendering this technically possible?
2.2.1. New methods of governance likely to suit collaborative design
The emergence of a new method of design – here remote collaborative design – cannot
move forward based on governance structures previously established to support the design
process – here platform-based design organization (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). We therefore
need to develop other forms of coordinating activities. While platform-based design
organization was perfectly suited to co-design, what governance structure(s) would be likely to
suit the full development of remote collaborative design?
Taking into account the specificities of collaborative design – particularly its
fundamentally collective aspect and its ability to generate new knowledge – two modes of
16
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
coordination suggest themselves as potentially relevant solutions: communities of practice and
epistemic communities.
2.2.1.1. Communities of practice, epistemic communities: what are they?
For fifteen years now, various branches of the social sciences have had a renewed
interest in communities. While several kinds of communities have been defined, the initial
concept of community of practice (Wenger and Lave, 1990; Brown and Duguid, 1991;
Wenger, 1998; Snyder and Wenger, 2000), as well as the one of epistemic communities
(Knorr-Cetina, 1999, Cowan et alii, 2000) are likely to be complementary modes of
governance suited to collaborative design.
Apart from the fact that they are informal groups tightly bound together through a
voluntary commitment made by the group members, they appear to be essential for developing
knowledge (Dupouët, 2003)10: they are "intensive knowledge-based communities". Moreover,
they have another characteristic in common: their transversality, moving beyond the legal
boundaries of firms. This is an interesting feature when remembering that collaborative design
brings together members from different firms, and especially in the automotive industry, where
manufacturers are increasingly relying on external suppliers to carry out design work. Finally,
the flexibility, responsiveness and effectiveness of these communities are regularly
highlighted. This constitutes a significant advantage for the design process, where ever-
tightening deadlines provide considerable constraints on designers.
Going beyond their shared characteristics, these two types of community have different
aims, different ways of operating, different results (ie: the type of knowledge produced) and
different relationships with their immediate external environment.
17
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
Communities of practice are grouped members using the same practice and who
therefore have consistently similar skills. Homogeneity is thus a predominant feature of such
communities. Their raison d'être is the exchange of experiences, aimed at leading to better
overall practices (research or formation of best practices): each member brings his own
experience to the community, and in return can expect to draw on the community's resources
for his own interest. The development of knowledge is therefore an unintentional result of
these communities’ activity, and not a defined objective. These communities are self-regulating
groups: there is no authority at the top of the group and the mutual commitment of the
community's members guarantees its cohesion. These communities therefore stand out through
their self-reliance and their strong identity. Knowledge is a by-product of these communities’
activity. It is tacit and strongly localised, depending entirely on the context of its development.
It remains therefore embedded within the community and is not automatically distributed
outside the group. Finally, these communities are firmly placed within the formal structures of
the company or of companies – due to the role played in the company's day-to-day activities by
community’s members.
Contrary to previous ones, epistemic communities are not set up mainly for operational
reasons but to generate knowledge through problem solving. To do this, these communities
group together a mixed set of members who do not necessarily use the same practices or the
same knowledge bases (a varied set of individual experiences being the preferred method of
reaching set objectives in this case). They are structured using a procedural authority (Cowan
et alii, 2000) – designed to be a tool for social regulation and also as a guide for future actions
– who proves to be essential to reach the objectives set by the community. In order to function
as desired, the community draws up a directory detailing the shared knowledge corresponding
to group resources. The knowledge produced is also codified and therefore ready to be used
18
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
outside its original context. The knowledge at stake in epistemic communities is therefore
mainly explicit. Finally, in contrast to communities of practice, epistemic communities stand
further back from the day-to-day activities of the company or of companies hosting the
communities.
2.2.1.2. Communities of practice, epistemic communities: basic entities to support remote
collaborative design.
These modes of governance centred around a community offer attractive prospects for
supporting remote collaborative design in the automotive industry. It would be to the
advantage of such a type of design to rely on profession-oriented communities of practice
(hereinafter referred to as professional communities) as well as on epistemic communities built
around specific design issues linked to the corporate automotive design project (hereinafter
referred to as design project communities), or on networks created by these two types of
communities. Here, we can find another expression of the matrix structure which has proved to
be efficient in design work.
Professional communities have a tight physical location constraint, but they need to
take root in their original corporate structure rather than in platform-based design
organizations. This contributes to relaxing the constraint of having design work performed in
close physical proximity. The emergence of a network of communities of practice running
between different firms involved in a design project is a way of coordinating these distant
communities. This is a first step towards remote collaborative design. The constraint of
members' physical location is less for design project communities, as the knowledge used and
produced is explicit, enabling it to be circulated around group members working in different
19
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
locations. This makes these communities another vehicle for the emergence of remote
collaborative design.
The advantage of a structured design process first and foremost relying on professional
communities and design project communities would be twofold. Firstly, it would bolster
professional skills that the platform-based design structure had slightly weakened; secondly, it
would aid the integration of external partners belonging to the same community or to the same
network of communities, but enabling them to remain physically located at their original
company. This also would contribute to reduce the significance of confidentiality issues. Any
information passing to and fro in communities is strictly knowledge relating to the
community's project and cannot be information picked up by chance or by accident, as
happened with platform-based design organizations.
2.2.1. Maintaining organizational duality
Professional communities and design project communities appear as powerful
governance structures to support the collaborative design process – particularly in industries
with complex products, such as the automotive industry. However, any interaction between
them has yet to be examined, along with any relations they may maintain with formal
structures – particularly the platform-based design structure.
20
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
2.2.2.1. Communities of practice and epistemic communities: mutual strengthening of informal
governance structures
Communities of practice are places where tacit knowledge is produced. We therefore
have to design a way of making this knowledge more explicit, so that the company and/or
automotive design projects within the company can benefit from it. Moreover, the coordination
of distributed communities of practice turns out to be difficult but crucial for design projects
(Amin and Cohendet, 2000; Orlikowski, 2002). According to Dupouët (2003), this
explicitation can come via epistemic communities. Beyond, they might contribute to solve at
least partially coordination problems. Indeed, communities of practice and epistemic
communities share members, and more precisely: "epistemic communities are where real
interaction takes place between communities of practice which provide members to the
epistemic community" (Dupouët, 2003). It is therefore in epistemic communities that members
of communities of practice become aware of their knowledge and skills – the first step towards
their codification. Epistemic communities therefore would play a dual cognitive role: aside
from their business of creating knowledge, they distribute the knowledge arising from the
activities of communities of practice. They therefore would have the dual function of
externalizing and combining knowledge, as explained in the analysis put forward by Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995).
In this way, communities of practice and epistemic communities provide mutual
support: one makes the information and knowledge produced by the other public, while this
other community finds among such information and knowledge the resources necessary to
perform its own activity.
2.2.2.2. The role of the corporate formal organization
21
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
While interaction between professional communities and design project communities is
a powerful support for collaborative design, these informal governance structures cannot avoid
formal structures (Dupouët, 2003). Three main roles of the formal design structure in
collaborative design can be brought to light: (1) it selects and articulates the knowledge
dispersed in different self-regulated groups developing within a company (Brown and Duguid,
1998), particularly in different epistemic communities, as these already carry out initial
summary work by externalizing and combining the knowledge of communities of practice;
(2) it is the only structure to have an operational objective in terms of costs and lead times, and
is the only one to have the necessary resources, particularly financial resources. It therefore
acts as the guarantor for the operational objective which it encourages informal groups to work
on, eventually allocating the necessary means. Thus, the formal structure enables the overall
consistency of the project and avoids communities acting behind closed doors and becoming
fortresses without outward-looking behaviour (Bowles and Gintis, 2000; Dupouët, 2003); (3) it
takes over if any community falls short of its objectives or when communities cannot be
efficiently mobilized in certain design phases, particularly very upstream in the project,
through defining strategic directions.
Consequently the complementarity between mainly remote informal communities and
the formal organization of design, located close to the decisions centre, lends credibility to the
hypothesis that says that rather than replacing physical platform-based design organizations
with virtual design platforms, the use of digital mock-ups will bring about their complementary
use (Picard and Rodet-Kroichvili, 2003). Put it another way several years before by Clark and
Fujimoto (1991), "because the information to be communicated will become more
sophisticated and complex even as the fidelity and richness of the models devised to capture it
improve, face-to-face communication will continue to supplement computer technology.
22
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
Consequently, we will see concurrent emphasis on computer technology and face-to-face
communication, rather than substitution of one for the other."
CONCLUSION
This paper has showed that while DMU is necessary to drive forward a new way of
designing (collaborative design), it does not appear to be enough. In fact, the state of
development of remote collaborative design, have been disappointing. This paper contributes
to identify some reasons of these difficulties. On the one hand, people should not overestimate
the role of a single tool/technology in the design process: DMU can only help with part of the
design process. Organizational and cognitive lock-in should also be taken into account.
Furthermore, we can work through any resistance to change. This type of behaviour can be
partially helped through learning new methods of interaction between the people involved in
the design process. Finally, bearing in mind the specificity of the design process and the
advantage of collaborative design to meet the challenges faced by the automotive industry, we
have to think up new methods of governance more likely to cope with this type of design: a
type of design that digital mock-ups make possible but do not generate automatically. In this
field, the possibilities presented by informal modes of governance within communities are on
display, where they are in close relation with formal design structure, whose role is developing
but remains crucial.
To conclude let us focus on managerial implications. What can do managers to bring
about action and how willing they are to do this in order to encourage these informal
governance structures, which are by definition resistant to any orders coming from higher up
intended to impose any form of structure on them. It is especially the case with communities of
practice and many authors underline the difficulty to manage them: "indeed, managing [these
23
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
"invisible" structures] can kill them" (Steward, 1996:174) or "virtually everyone who has
studied them agrees that communities of practice cannot be created out of the blue by
management fiat…" (Stamps, 1997:39)11.
But we should not conclude that it is impossible for management to act in the
organization of collaborative design. Put simply, it has to be driven more indirectly, providing
more incentives than orders. Managers can act to create conditions encouraging the emergence
of these communities as well as their interactions and provide them with an interface with
formal design structures.
Thus, Dupouët (2003) suggests to managers that they give a priority initiative on
epistemic communities, given the fact that they are more receptive to "external" actions,
though informal. But managers can also "cultivate" communities of practice by creating: "a
context in which they can prosper: valuing the learning they do, making time and other
resources available for their work, encouraging participation, and removing barriers"
(Wenger, McDermott, Snyder, 2002:ch1)12.
Regarding coordination of these communities, "social strategies" defined by Brown and
Duguid (1998) to link communities of practice might also be considered as useful devices to
create relationships between them and epistemic communities. These social policies are
threefold: they take the form of boundary objects, translators and knowledge brokers.
"Boundary objects" that are common objects but mobilized differently by governance
structures may constitute bridges between them13. Beyond, the construction of shared cognitive
frameworks and languages is a necessary condition to link together governance structures,
informal or formal, all the more so since they are distant. In design context, digital mock-ups
but also physical prototypes are among these shared resources : they appear as " ‘points of
24
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
obligatory passage’, ‘knowledge repositories’, and ‘intermediaries’ among different
communities and as loci where organizational conflicts are absorbed, and temporary truces
can be reached" (D’Adderio, 2001:11)14. Besides these objects, "translators" who are people
not involved in communities but expressing one community’s concerns with the aim of being
understood by another, as well as "knowledge brokers" who make connections between
different communities by participating, have also to be encouraged.
Then, as Wenger, McDermott, Snyder (2002:ch1 ) put it : "Creating such communities
also entails integrating communities in the organization, giving them a voice in decision and
legitimacy in influencing operating units, and developing internal processes and capabilities
for managing the value they create". If this assertion relates to communities of practice, the
same advice might be given regarding epistemic communities.
Finally, a management practice that seeks control over absolutely everything has to
change in order to leave more room for manoeuvre – room in which communities can grow
and interact.
REFERENCES
Ames B.B., 2000, "Digital design grows up", Design news, October.
(http://www.designnews.com).
Amin A. and P. Cohendet, 2000, "Organisational Learning and Governance Through
Embedded Practices", Journal of Management and Governance, 4:93-116.
Amin A. and P. Cohendet, 2003, Knowledge practices, communities and competences in firms,
Oxford University.
Aoshima Y., K. Nobeoka and Y. Takeda, 2004, "The Impact of 3D-CAD on New Product
Development", Journal of Korean Economic Development, 10(2):65-89.
Baba Y. and K. Nobeoka, 1998, "Toward knowledge-based product development: the 3D-CAD
model of knowledge creation", Research Policy, 26:643-659.
25
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
Barley S.R., 1986, "Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from the observations
of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments", Administrative Science
Quarterly, 31:80-108.
Barley S.R., 1990, "The alignement of technology and structure through roles and networks",
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35:61-103.
Barley S.R. and S. Kunda, 2001, "Bringing work back in", Organization Science, 12(1):76-95.
Becker M.C., P. Salvatore and F. Zirpoli, 2005, "The impact of virtual simulation tools on
problem-solving and new product development organization", Research Policy, 34(9):1305-
1321.
Bowles S. and D. Gintis, 2000, "Social capital and community governance", Working paper
01-01-003, Santa Fé Institute.
Boyer R. and M. Freyssenet, 2000, Les modèles productifs, La Découverte, Repères.
Brown J.S. and P. Duguid, 1991, "Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward
a unified view of working, learning and innovation", Organization Science, 2(1):40-57.
Brown J.S. and P. Duguid, 1998, "Organizing knowledge", California Management Review,
40(3):90-111.
Carrincazeaux C. and Y. Lung, 1998, "La proximité dans l’organisation de la conception des
produits de l’automobile", in Bellet M. et alii (eds), Approches multiformes de la proximité,
Paris, Hermès:241-265.
Chanaron J.J. and Y. Lung, 1995, L'économie de l'automobile, La Découverte, Repères, Paris.
Ciavaldini B., 1997, "Des projets à l'avant-projet. Analyse du processus de rationalisation de la
conception : cas de l'industrie automobile", Actes du GERPISA, n°19: 25-32.
Clark K.B. and T. Fujimoto, 1991, Product Development Performance. Strategy,
Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry, Harvard Business School, Boston,
Mass.
Cowan R. et alii, 2000, "The economics of knowledge codification and tacitness", Industrial
and Corporate Change, 6(3).
Cusumano M. and K. Nobeoka, 1994, "Multi-project strategy, design transfer and project
performance: a survey of automobile development in the U.S. and Japan", IMVP Working
Paper, M.I.T., Mass.
D'Adderio L., 2001, "Crafting the virtual prototype: how firms integrate knowledge and
capabilities acrosse organisational boundaries", Research Policy, 30:1409-1424.
26
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
D'Adderio L., 2004, Inside the virtual product: how organizations create knowledge through
software, Edward elgar, Cheltenham.
Darses F. and P. Falzon, 1996, "La conception collective : une approche de l’ergonomie
collective " in G. de Terssac et E. Friedberg (eds), Coopération et conception, Editions
Octarès, Toulouse :123-135.
De Banville E. and J.J. Chanaron, 1991, Vers un système automobile européen, CPE-
Economica.
Dupouët O., 2003, Le rôle des interactions entre structures formelles et informelles dans la
firme. Une analyse en termes de communautés, Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences Economiques,
Université Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg 1.
Fujimoto T., 1994, "The dynamic aspect of product development capabilities: an international
comparison in the automobile industry", Discussion Paper 94-F-29, University of Tokyo.
GERPISA, 1989, Les processus de décision et de gestion du changement dans l'industrie
automobile, Rapport de recherche PIRTTEM, Centre de recherches historiques, EHESS Paris.
Gero J.S., 2002, "Towards a theory of designing as situated acts",International Conference on
the Sciences of Design, Lyon..
Hatchuel A. et alii, 2005, Industrie et Technologie, avril.
Hirt O., 2003, "La relation design-ingénierie dans les nouvelles organisations de la conception ;
la démarche des fondamentaux en design de Renault", XIème rencontres internationales du
GERPISA, 11-13 juin.
Hutchins E., 1995, Cognition in the wild, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Knorr-Cetina, 1999, Epistemic culture: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lahti H, S.P. Hakkarainen and K. Hakkarainen K, 2004, "Collaboration patterns in computer
supported collaborative designing", Design Studies, 25(4), july:351-371.
Lefebvre P., B. Segrestin and B. Weil, 2001, "Les régimes de conception : un préalable à
l'examen des nouvelles formes de coopération", IXème rencontres internationales du
GERPISA, 7-9 juin.
Lonchampt P., 2004, Co-évolution et conception intégrée de produits : Modèle et support de
l'activité de conception, Thèse de doctorat en Organisation Industrielle et Systèmes de
Production, INP Grenoble, 28 juin.
Lung Y., 2002, "La nouvelle géographie du système automobile européen", Colloque du
GERPISA, Paris, juin.
27
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
Micaelli J.P. and J. Forest, 2003, Artificialisme, Presses polytechniques et universitaires
romandes.
Nonaka I. and H. Takeuchi, 1995, The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press, New-York.
Orlikowski W.J., 2002, "Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed
organizing", Organization Science, 13(3):249-273.
Peirce C.S., 1934, Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, in Hartshorne C. and P. Weiss
(eds), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Picard F. and N. Rodet-Kroichvili, 2003, "Des plateaux-projets aux plateaux virtuels dans
l’industrie automobile : quel impact sur le territoire ?", XXXIXème Colloque de l’ASRDLF
Concentration et ségrégation. Dynamiques et inscriptions territoriales, Lyon, septembre.
Renou Y., 2003, "Entreprise-réseau, plateau de conception et compétences : de la notion de
‘compétences distribuées’ à celle d’‘acteur compétent’", Forum de la Régulation, octobre.
Simoff S.J. and M.L. Mahler, 2000, "Analysing participation in collaborative design
environments", Design Studies, 21(2):119-144.
Simon H., 1969, Science of the artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Snyder W. M. and E. C. Wenger, 2000, "Communities of practice: the organizational frontier"
Harvard Business Review, janvier-février.
Stamps David, 1997, "Communities of Practice: Learning is Social, Training is Irrelevant?"
cover story from Training Magazine, February 1997.
Stempfle J. and P. Badke-Schaub, 2002, "Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team
communication, Design Studies, 23(5):473-496.
Steward T.A., 1996, "The Invisible Key to Success" Fortune, Aug 5.
Teasley S.D. and J. Roschelle, 1993, "Constructing a joint problem space: computer as a tool
of sharing knowledge", in Lajoie S.P. and S.J. Derry (eds), The Computer as a cognitive tool,
Hillsdale, N.J./Erlbaum:229-258.
Thomke S.H. and T. Fujimoto, 2000, "The effect of 'front-loading' problem solving on product
development performance", Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17:128-142.
Thomke S.H., 1998, "Managing experimentation in the design of new products", Management
Science, 33:743-762.
Thomke S.H., 2001, "Managing digital design at BMW", Design Management Journal, 12:20-
30.
28
Fabienne PICARD, Nathalie RODET-KROICHVILI [2007], « The Challenge of Collaborative Design in the
Automotive Industry: Beyond Digital Mock-ups, Rethinking Organization Around Communities », The
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, vol.7, n°1, 55-71.
Wenger E., R. McDermott and W. Snyder, 2002, Cultivating Communities of Practice: A
Guide to Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press.
Wenger E. and J. Lave, 1990, Situated learning: legitimate peripherical participation,
Cambridge University Press, New-York.
Wenger E., 1998, "Communities of practices; learning as a social system", Systems Thinker,
juin.
29
1 We have to thank J.P. Micaëlli (UTBM, RECITS) for accurate reading and commenting on our work, as well as the
M3M-CID (UTBM) research team, and S. Deniaud, P.A. Weite and D. Choulier in particular for their technical
assistance regarding digital mock-ups and the helpful discussions we had with them during the preparation of this
article.
2 We translate.
3 It is important to note that there is a difference between the digital mock-up and a virtual platform: the mock-up is a
tool, while the (virtual) platform refers to a design structure in liaison with this new tool.
4 Interview with P.A. Weite (M3M-CID, UTBM), 2003.
5 As stated by Micaëlli and Forest (2003:84), "[…] creativity constitutes an "ontological nature to the design process"
(Beguin and Rabardel, 2000:49). Ignoring it reveals a lack of understanding of design”.
6 Developments in environmental constraints (increasingly complex technologies, integration of interdisciplinary
knowledge, acceleration in the product cycle, reduction of design lead times, etc), development towards more intensive
innovation.
7 Quoted by Lahti et alii, (2004:353).
8 “What seems to set apart the outstanding companies in product development (…) is the overall pattern of consistency
in their total development system, including organizational structure, technical skills, problem-solving processes,
culture and strategy” (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991:7).
9 This idea is confirmed by the results of an experiment conducted by Lahti et alii (2004:370): "In order to facilitate
collaboration through virtual design studios, it is not enough to offer the collaborative technologies; an appropriate
social infrastructure is also needed to support the desired interaction among participants. A challenge of collaborative
design environments will be to develop tools and practices that would help each design team to engage in very intensive
collaboration, share design process as well as the interaction between designers, and jointly develop and elaborate
shared design objects."
10 A very good summary about communities of practice as well as epistemic communities is given by Dupouët (2003),
which inspires developments mentioned below.
11 Quoted by Wenger, McDermott, Snyder (2002).
12 For the authors, " Cultivating communities of practice in an organizational context is an art " and their book intends to
offer guidance to develop this art.
13 They are close to “intermediary design objects” but the difference is that the latter can be specific to some governance
structures only (Renou, 2003).
14 Nevertheless, D’Adderio (2001) underlines that such objects have to be accompanied by “translation routines” in
order to efficiently act as means of coordination between communities. These routines support the translation of local
into global knowledge as well as reverse flow from global to local appropriation and have to be nurtured by the formal
organization.
