Understanding engineering email: the development of a taxonomy for identifying and classifying engineering work (original) (raw)

Abstract

It is widely believed that email is increasingly becoming the medium where in collaborative engineering work is done; yet, this assumption has not been properly examined. Thus, the extent of engineering information contained in emails and their potential importance within the context of knowledge management is unknown. To address this question, a study was undertaken with a large aerospace propulsion company to investigate the role and characteristics of email communication in engineering design projects. This paper describes the development of a taxonomy and classification method for achieving an understanding of email content and hence its use. The proposed approach is based on relevant techniques for analyzing communication and design text. The method codes the content of e-mail based on a hierarchical scheme by assigning email to categories and sub-categories that denote what topics the email is about, for which communicative purpose it has been sent, and whether it shows evidence of engineering work. The method is applied to a corpus related to the full life cycle of an engineering design project. Metrics for validation are discussed and applied to a sample case. Exemplar findings are presented to illustrate the type of investigations the method supports-including eliciting knowledge about project performance and identifying and accessing engineering knowledge. Finally, lessons from the development of the method, including a discussion of iteratively adaptive variants used to arrive at the final outcome, are discussed.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the primary utilizations of email in engineering design projects?add

The research reveals that around 80% of emails relate to company-specific information, with a low incidence of problem-solving discussions, indicating limited engineering work is communicated through emails.

How was the coding scheme for email content developed and evaluated?add

The coding scheme was developed through iterative applications to samples of 300 project emails, achieving inter-coder reliability scores above 0.7, indicating satisfactory consistency in coding.

What challenges arise from using email as a knowledge management tool in engineering firms?add

Existing PLM systems inadequately manage personal information like emails, despite being critical to daily operations, leading to potential knowledge loss and inefficiencies in engineering processes.

How does email usage evolve over the lifecycle of engineering design projects?add

Findings indicate peaks in emails discussing product information occur towards project completion, reflecting the iterative nature and information demands of engineering workflows.

What methods were used to assess the effectiveness of email communication in engineering teams?add

The study analyzed email content in conjunction with user interviews and project documentation, allowing a multi-faceted view of communication practices and their alignment with project objectives.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (74)

  1. Ahmed S, Wallace K (2003) Indexing design knowledge based upon descriptions of design process. International conference on engineering design ICED 03, Stockholm AIMM International (2003) Email policies and practices: an industry study conducted by AIIM International and Kahn Consulting, Inc. Industry Watch AIMM International (2006) Email management: an oxymoron? An industry study conducted by AIIM International and Tower Software. Industry Watch Ainscough M, Yazdani B (2000) Concurrent engineering within British industry. Concurr Eng 8:2-11
  2. Aurisicchio M (2005) Characterising information acquisition in engineering design, engineering department. Cambridge Univer- sity, Cambridge
  3. Bach K, Harnish RM (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. MIT Press, Cambridge
  4. Bales RF (1950) A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. Am Sociol Rev 15:7
  5. Bales RFSF (1951) Phases in group problem solving. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 46:485-495
  6. Bellotti V, Ducheneaut N, Howard M, Smith T (2003) Taking email to task: the design and evaluation of a task management centered email tool. Association for Computing Machinery, Ft. Lauderdale
  7. Bellotti V, Ducheneaut N, Howard M, Smith I, Grinter RE (2005) Quality versus quantity: e-mail-centric task management and its relation with overload. Hum Comput Interact 20:89-138
  8. Bouikni N, Rivest L, Desrochers A (2008) A multiple views management system for concurrent engineering and PLM. Concurr Eng 16:61-72
  9. Burn J, Barnett M (1999) Communicating for advantage in the virtual organization. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 42:215-222
  10. Coates G, Duffy AHB, Whitfield I, Hills W (2004) Engineering management: operational design coordination. J Eng Design 15:433-446
  11. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measure 20:37-46
  12. Conklin J (2003) Dialog mapping: reflections on an industrial strength case study. In: Kirschner P, Buckingham Shum S, Carr C (eds) Vizualising argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense making. Springer, London
  13. Cross N, Dorst K, Roozenburg N (1992) Research in design thinking. Delft University Press, Delft
  14. Dalli A, Xia Y, Wilks Y (2004) FASIL email summarisation system. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on computa- tional linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Geneva
  15. Dong A (2006) How am I doing? The language of appraisal in design. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition '06 (DCC06). Kluwer, Eindhoven
  16. Dong A, Kleinsmann M, Valkenburg R (2009) Affect-in-cognition through the language of appraisals. In: Mcdonnell J, Lloyd P (eds) About: designing-analysing design meetings. Taylor and Francis, London
  17. Dredze M, Lau T, Kushmerick N (2006) Automatically classifying emails into activities. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. ACM, Sydney
  18. Eckert C (2001) The communication bottleneck in knitwear design: analysis and computing solutions. Comp Support Cooperative Work CSCW 10:29-74
  19. Eckert CM, Stacey MK (2001) Dimensions of communication in design. 13th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED'01), Glasgow
  20. Eppler MJ, Mengis J (2004) The concept of information overload: a review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, mis, and related disciplines. Inf Soc 20:325-344
  21. Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. MIT Press, Cambridge
  22. Field M, Keller L (1998) Project management. International Thomp- son Series Press, London
  23. Fisher D, Brush AJ, Gleave E, Smith MA (2006) Revisiting Whittaker and Sidner's ''email overload'' ten years later. Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, Banff
  24. Gantz J, Reinsel D, Chute C, Schlichting W, Mcarthur J, Minton S, Xheneti I, Toncheva A, Manfrediz A (2007) The expanding digital universe: a forecast of worldwide information growth Through 2010. IDC, Massachusetts
  25. Gero J, Mc Neill T (1998) An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design studies 19:21-61
  26. Goel V (1995) Sketches of thought. MIT Press, Cambridge Gorse CA, Emmitt S (2003) Investigating interpersonal communica- tion during construction progress meetings: challenges and opportunities. Eng Construct Arch Manage 10:234-244
  27. Gorse CA, Emmitt S (2007) Communication behaviour during management and design team meetings: a comparison of group interaction. Construct Manage Econ 25:1197-1213
  28. Graveline A, Geisler C, Danchak M (2000) Teaming together apart: emergent patterns of media use in collaboration at a distance. Proceedings of IEEE professional communication society inter- national professional communication conference and Proceed- ings of the 18th annual ACM international conference on Computer documentation: technology and teamwork. IEEE Educational Activities Department, Cambridge
  29. Gray CF, Larson EW (2000) Project management: the managerial process, (1 Nov 2002), 2nd revised edition. McGraw-Hill Inc.,USA, ISBN-10:0071213406
  30. Haberberg A, Rieple A (2001) The strategic management of organisations. Financial Times/ Prentice Hall, London
  31. Hicks BJ, Culley SJ, Allen RD, Mullineux G (2002) A framework for the requirements of capturing, storing and reusing information and knowledge in engineering design, Int J Inf Manage 22(4):263-280. ISSN 0268-4012
  32. Hicks BJ, Dong A, Palmer R, Mcalpine HC (2008) Organizing and managing personal electronic files: a mechanical engineer's perspective. ACM Trans Inf Syst 26:1-40
  33. Hicks BJ (2007) Lean information management: understanding and eliminating waste. Int J Inf Manage 27(4):233-249, May 2007. ISSN 0268-4012
  34. Hiltz SR, Johnson K, Rabke AM (1980) The process of communi- cation in face to face vs. computerized conferences: a controlled experiment using Bales Interaction Process Analysis. Proceed- ings of the 18th annual meeting on Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics Morristown, Philadelphia
  35. Huet G (2006) Design transaction monitoring: understanding design reviews for extended knowledge capture. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, UK
  36. Jackson TW, Burgess A, Edwards J (2006) A simple approach to improving email communication. Commun ACM 49:107-109
  37. Kim S (2002) User modelling for knowledge sharing in e-mail communication. Southampton
  38. Kleinsmann M, Dong A (2007) Investigating the affective force on creating shared understanding. 19th international conference on design theory and methodology. ASME Press, New York
  39. Koprinska I, Poon J, Clark J, Chan J (2007) Learning to classify e-mail. Inf Sci 177:2167-2187
  40. Krippendorff K (1980) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills Kurasaki KS (2000) Inter-coder reliability for validating conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data. Field Methods 12:179- 194
  41. Larson RR (2005) Information life cycle, a model of the social aspects of digital libraries. http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/ courses/is202/f98/Lecture2/index.htm
  42. Leuski A (2004) Email is a stage: discovering people roles from email archives. Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, Sheffield
  43. Li Z, Ramani K (2007) Ontology-based design information extraction and retrieval. Artif Intell Eng Design Anal Manuf AIEDAM 21:137-154
  44. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, New Delhi
  45. Lindquist A, Berglund F, Johannesson H (2008) Supplier integration and communication strategies in collaborative platform devel- opment. Concurr Eng 16:23-35
  46. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2002) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of inter-coder reliability. Hum Commun Res 28:587-604
  47. Lowe A (2002) Studies of information use by engineering designers and the development of strategies to aid in its classification and retrieval. Department of Mechanical Engineering. University of Bristol, UK
  48. Lusk EJ (2006) Email: Its decision support systems inroads-an update. Decision Support Syst 42:328-332
  49. Mackay WE (1988) More than just a communication system: Diversity in the use of electronic mail. Proceedings of the CSCW 89 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, Portland
  50. Maher ML, Rosenman M, Merrick K (2007) Agents for multidisci- plinary design in virtual worlds. AI EDAM 21:267-277
  51. Marsden W (2002) Aerospace for materials: the quality and quantity of materials data generated and available within the aerospace industry is without parallel, because aerospace components operate under extreme conditions (information management). Adv Mater Process 160:37-39
  52. Mcalpine H, Hicks BJ, Huet G, Culley SJ (2006) ''An investigation into the use and content of the engineer's logbook''. Design Stud, Springer 27(4):481-504, July 2006. ISSN 0142-694X
  53. Mcmahon C, Lowe A, Culley S (2004) Knowledge management in engineering design: personalization and codification. J Eng Design 15:307-325
  54. Medland AJ (1992) Forms of communications observed during the study of design activities in industry. J Eng Design 5:243-253
  55. Mesihovic S, Malmqvist J, Pikosz P (2004) Product data management system-based support for engineering project management. J Eng Design 15:389-403
  56. O'Kane P, Hargie O (2007) Intentional and unintentional conse- quences of substituting face-to-face interaction with e-mail: an employee-based perspective. Interact Comp 19:20-31
  57. O'Kane P, Palmer M, Hargie O (2007) Workplace interactions and the polymorphic role of e-mail. Leadersh Organ Dev J 28:308- 324
  58. Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer, Berlin
  59. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, New Delhi
  60. Puade OA, Wyeld TG (2007) Visualising collaboration: qualitative analysis of an email visualisation case study. Information Visualization, 2007. IV '07. 11th International Conference. IEEE, Zurich
  61. Reid FJM, Malinek V, Stott CJT, Evans J (1996) The messaging threshold in computer-mediated communication. Ergonomics 39:1017-1037
  62. Renaud K, Ramsay J, Hair M (2006) ''You've Got E-Mail!'' Shall I Deal With It Now? Electronic mail from the recipient's perspective. Int J Hum Comp Interact 21:313-332
  63. Schmidt K, Wagner I (2004) Ordering systems: coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning. Comput Support Coop Work (CSCW) 13(5-6):349-408. doi:10.1007/ s10606-004-5059-3, ISSN 0925-9724
  64. Sim SK, Duffy AHB (2003) Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Res Eng Design 14:200-223
  65. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge
  66. Smith NJ (2007) Engineering project management. Blackwell, Oxford Stempfle J, Badke-Schaub P (2002) Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design Stud 23:473-496
  67. Teresko J (2008) Growing the PLM market-strong PLM growth will propel market to exceed $30 billion by 2011. Industry week, http://www.industryweek.com/ Treasury Board of Canada (2005) Framework for management of information: the information lifecycle. http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/ Tyler JR, Wilkinson DM, Huberman BA (2005) E-mail as spectros- copy: automated discovery of community structure within organizations. Inf Soc 21:133-141
  68. Valkenburg R, Dorst K (1998) Reflective practice of design teams. Design Stud 19:249-271
  69. Viegas FB, Golder S, Donath J (2006) Visualizing email content: portraying relationships from conversational histories. Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, Montreal, 10036-5701
  70. Wattenberg M, Rohall SL, Gruen D, Kerr B (2005) E-Mail research: targeting the enterprise. Hum Comp Interact 20:139-162
  71. Wengraf T (2001) Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. Sage Publications, London
  72. Whittaker S, Sidner C (1996) Email overload: exploring personal information management of email. The 1996 conference on human factors in computing systems
  73. Wilson EV (2002) Email winners and losers. Commun ACM 45:121- 126
  74. Yang H, Callan J (2008) Ontology generation for large email collections. Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research. Digital Government Society of North America, Montreal