The Effects of Computing Technology in Creative Design
Tasks: A Case Study of Design Collaboration
Seunghyun Lee
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
tinalee@gatech.edu
Ellen Yi-Luen Do
College of Architecture & School of Interactive
Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
ellendo@gatech.edu
CMC technologies and CAD software. Below we describe
the experimental setup and the study results.
ABSTRACT
We present two empirical studies of two pairs of students
collaborating on two small product design sessions in both
face-to-face and distributed settings while using computermediated communication technologies and a collaborative
virtual environment. The study shows that teams spent
more time working together when using programs that
support shared sketching capabilities or shared viewing of
3D objects.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In Study 1, two design teams collaborated on two different
creative design tasks: 1) a pill box for a woman with mild
memory loss and 2) an extension cord for a man with only
one functioning hand, in both F2F and DIS settings, as
illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. Two Settings of Design Collaboration
Author Keywords
Face-to-face (F2F) setting
Collaborative design, computer-supported collaborative
design, computer-mediated communication, collaborative
virtual environment
Distributed (DIS) setting
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6),
Evaluation/methodology; I. Computing Methodologies;
J.6 COMPUTER-AIDED ENGINEERING, Computeraided design (CAD)
Participants in a F2F setting could see and communicate
with each other while a DIS setting allowed them to
communicate only by using CMC and CVE technologies.
The experimental design of this study is shown in Table 2.
General Terms
Design
INTRODUCTION
Table 2. Experimental Design of Study 1
What is the role of computer-supported systems in creative
design collaborations? To answer the question, we
examined the way designers communicate and collaborate
using computer-mediated communication (CMC) and
collaborative virtual environment (CVE) technologies
while performing collaborative work in the creative design
process. CMC (i.e., email or Instant Messenger) supports
collaboration by facilitating communication using file
exchange and model sharing [3]. A CVE is a “computerbased virtual space”, in which people can interact with one
another and with virtual 3D objects [5].
Task 1 (1 hour)
Task 2 (1 hour)
Team B (F2F) / Team A (DIS)
Team A (F2F) / Team B (DIS)
Provided tools
*Both teams were required to use Unreal in both settings
•Email
CMC
•Skype (Video chat + Audio Chat)
•Instant Messenger (IM)
CVE
•UnrealEngine2 Runtime 2226.20.02 (Unreal)
•Autodesk® 3ds Max® 2009 32-bit (3dsMax)
CAD
•Adobe Illustrator CS / CS2 (Illustrator)
•Pen and paper
Others
•Webcam and headset
RESULTS
This study has two main concerns: 1) to understand how
designers use CMC and CVE technologies in a
collaborative design process, and 2) to investigate how
designers use these computing technologies in both face-toface and distributed design teams. We conducted two
studies on two design teams in both face-to-face (F2F) and
distributed (DIS) settings. Participants were industrial
design graduate students from Georgia Institute of
Technology. All of them were male, familiar with both
From the study we found that both teams in both settings
exhibited a similar pattern in collaboration strategy [4].
They first worked briefly together to arrive at a design
concept then they divided the work for each person to work
independently (either the 3D modeling task or the 2D
graphic task) to produce the final design. In this study we
found that both design teams worked together less than
50% of the overall work time. Post-test interviews revealed
that the participants were frustrated in the DIS setting
because they could not share design information effectively
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
C&C’09, October 26–30, 2009, Berkeley, California, USA.
ACM 978-1-60558-403-4/09/10.
387
using the computing tools in the collaborative design
process.
in Solid Works, the other designer observed the 3D object
in a shared view to collaboratively discuss some design
details. This instance showed that the shared program and
the whiteboard function from NetMeeting helped the
design teams to share real-time information.
In Study 2, we used the same methodology and procedures
as those used in Study 1. However, we provided the two
design teams (different from Study 1) the NetMeeting
software with sketching capabilities in a shared design
workspace. They were required to use Unreal (CVE) and
NetMeeting (CMC) only in distributed setting. The CVE was
ARCH8803, a program built on top of the UnrealEngine2
Runtime 2226.20.02 and developed by the IMAGINE Lab at
the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Team D is making paper mockup
Team C
sketches
th
is
sharing
i
f
We analyzed how much time the team members worked
together and what kinds of tools they used in the design
process. Our coding scheme follows Kvan’s definition [2] of
collaborative designing as a "closely coupled" process or a
"loosely coupled" process. In this study, "together" code
refers to when designers communicate and share design
information about their design, and “individual" code refers
to when designers work on different tasks [1] individually.
As shown in Figure 1, we found from the study that the
teams in Study 2 worked longer together than in study 1.
Both teams in Study 2 indicated (in the post-test interview)
that it was easy to collaborate using the NetMeeting.
Team D is sharing sketches using
NetMeeting Whiteboard
Team D is using NetMeeting
application Sharing 3D object
Figure 2. Design teams' work mode in the design process with
different use of tools in the F2F and DIS settings
Participants commented that NetMeeting facilitated the
creative design process. Each participant performed
multiple tasks, such as talking with their teammates while
simultaneously observing the 3D object in a shared view.
They also provided suggestions for needed features such as
being able to construct virtual mock-ups during
brainstorming session within a creative virtual environment
and commented that the current CVE (Unreal) did not
support effective collaboration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Figure 1. “Working modes” comparison of
Study 1 (left) and Study 2 (right)
We thank the participating designers and the support from
Industrial Design program, IMAGINE Lab and CATEA at
College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology.
In F2F setting, together working mode increased on
average 17.5 minutes from study 1 to study 2. In DIS
setting, together working mode increased on average 14.5
minutes from study 1 to study 2. In addition, the teams
worked together (on average 6.5 minutes in study 1, 3
minutes in study 2) longer in the DIS setting than in the
F2F setting. As they were able to see and talk to each other
in the F2F setting, they were able to formulate a design
more quickly than in the DIS setting.
REFERENCES
1. Gero, J. (1994). Computational models of creative design
process. In: T. Dartnall, Editor, Artificial intelligence and
creativity, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 269-281.
2. Kvan, T. (2000). "Collaborative design: what is it?
Automation in Construction 9 (4), 409-415.
3. Maher, M. L., Simoff, S. J., & Cicognani, A. (2000).
Understanding virtual design studios. London; New
York: Springer.
4. Cheng, N. Y., & Kvan, T. (2000). Design collaboration
strategies, Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Design and Decision Support Systems in
Architecture, Ampt van Nijkerk, 62–73.
5. Snowdon, D. N., & Munro, A. J. (2001). Collaborative
Virtual Environments: Digital Places and Spaces for
Interaction. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
Tools in Collaboration
In Study 1, after dividing the work after initial discussions,
design teams worked individually for the rest of session
because they did not have tools that enabled them to share
their design information easily. In contrast, the teams in
Study 2 were able to work together using the NetMeeting
shared program. Figure 2 shows the teams’ sketches
created together on a digital whiteboard and shared 3D
objects through NetMeeting. While one designer modeled
388