Towards Computational Tools for Supporting the Reflective Team

• Adams, BN: 1967,Interaction theory and the social network, Sociometry 30(1): 64–78.

  Google Scholar 

• Baird, F, Moore, CJ, and Jagodzinski, AP: 2000, An ethnographic study of engineering design teams at Rolls-Royce Aerospace, Design Studies 21 (4): 333–355.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bødker, K and Pedersen, JS: 1991, Workplace cultures: looking at artifacts, symbols and practices, in J Greenbaum and M Kyng (eds), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems,Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 121–136

  Google Scholar 

• Bucciarelli, LL: 1994, Designing Engineers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

  Google Scholar 

• Citera, M, McNeese, MD, Brown, CE, Selvaraj, JA, Zaff, BS, and Whitaker, RD: 1995, Fitting information systems to collaborating design teams, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46 (7): 551–559.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cook KS, and Whitmeyer, J: 1992, Two approaches to social structure: exchange theory and network analysis, Annual Review of Sociology 18: 109–127.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cooper, RG, and Kleinschmidt, EJ: 1995, Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management 12 (5): 374–391.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dhillon, IS, and Modha, DS: 1999, Concept Decompositions for Large Sparse Text Data Using Clustering,IBM Almaden Research Center, Research Report RJ 10147 (95022).

  Google Scholar 

• Dorst, K: 1997, Describing Design — A Comparison of Paradigms, Doctoral Thesis, Delft Technical University, The Netherlands.

  Google Scholar 

• Griffin, A: 1995, PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends and benchmarking best practices, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 14 (6): 429–458.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fillmore, CJ: 1974, The future of semantics, Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Department of Linguistics and Institute of Human Learning, University of California, Berkeley, CA, pp. 1–5.

  Google Scholar 

• Gumperz, JJ, Kaltman, H, and O’Connor, MC: 1984, Cohesion in spoken and written discourse: ethnic style and the transition to literacy, in D. Tannen, (ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, ABLEX Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 3–19.

  Google Scholar 

• Halliday, MAK and Hasan, R: 1976, Cohesion in English, Longman, London.

  Google Scholar 

• Harabagiu, S: 1999, From lexical cohesion to textual coherence: A data driven perspective, International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 13 (2): 247–265.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Henke, JW, Krachenberg, AR, and Lyons, TF: 1993, Cross-functional teams; good concept, poor implementation, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 10 (3): 216–229.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hill, A, Song, S, Dong, A and Agogino, AM: 2001, Identifying shared understanding in design using document analysis, Proceedings of the 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2001/DTM-21713.

  Google Scholar 

• Landuaer, TK: 1999, Latent semantic analysis: A theory of the psychology of language and mind, Discourse Processes 27 (3): 303–310.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Landauer, TK, Foltz, PW and Laham, D: 1998, Introduction to latent semantic analysis, Discourse Processes 25: 259–284.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lloyd, P: 2000, Storytelling and the development of discourse in the engineering design process, Design Studies 21: 357–373.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• McDonough, III, EF, Kahn, KB and Barczak, G: 2000, An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (2): 110–120.

  Google Scholar 

• Moody, J and White, D: 2000, Social Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Conception of Social Groups, Santa Fe Institute, Working Paper No. 00–08–049.

  Google Scholar 

• Neck, CP and Manz, CC.: August 1994, From groupthink to teamthink: toward the creation of constructive thought patterns in self-managing work teams, Human Relations 47 (8): 929–952.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Pahl, G and Beitz, W: 1996, Engineering Design, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag, London. Raccah, PY: July 1995, Argumentation and natural language - presentation and discussion of four foundational hypotheses, Journal of Pragmatics 24(1–2): 1–15.

  Google Scholar 

• Robinson, M and Bannon, L: 1991, Questioning representations, in L Bannon, M Robinson, and K Schmidt, (eds), Proceedings of ECSCW’9l: 2nd European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Work, Kluwer, Amsterdam, pp. 219–233.

  Google Scholar 

• Schön, DA: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.

  Google Scholar 

• Simon, HA: 1996, The Sciences of the Artificial, Third Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge.

  Google Scholar 

• Valkenburg, R: 2000, The Reflective Practice in Product Design Teams, Doctoral Thesis, Delft Technical University, The Netherlands.

  Google Scholar 

• Wasserman, S and Galaskiewicz, J (eds): Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

  Google Scholar 

Download references