EXPLORING A REFLECTIVE VIEW OF COMMUNICATION WITHIN DESIGN TEAMS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN AND PROJECT MANAGERS

Some of the current research undertaken by the Canada Research Chair on Technology Project Management focuses on the design phase of projects. In this paper, we propose to look at the communication aspects of the managers’ responsibilities – whether we call them project managers or design managers. It is argued that the management of design activities requires much more than systematic processes and formalized tools.

Communication has been studied from multiple perspectives within a variety of disciplines such as design, management, sociology, psychology, and information systems. In organizational theory, for example, communication was highlighted by the seminal work of Mintzberg (1973), who particularly emphasized the key role played by managers. In recent years, more and more studies have proposed to anchor communication in the epistemological roots of systemic theory and constructivism (Mucchielli and Noy, 2004). In management literature, research on communication also abounds, with an emphasis on interaction, dialogue, and relations (Detchessahar, 2002; Boudès and Christian, 2000). The trend is also noticeable in the field of design where studies have been carried out by authors such as Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002), Busby (2001) and Miller (1990).

Despite the value of these studies, it is questionable whether they move beyond the mere observation that “communication is an important factor in design activities” or “good communication between different functions is key to projects’ success.” In this paper, we argue that the current understanding of communication within design projects must be taken a step further to improve the way design activities are carried out and to assist practitioners in taking responsibility vis-à-vis the various project stakeholders.

We propose to view managers as actors gifted with some abilities that allow them, like designers, to initiate something new in a project through speech or action, and thereby to transform it. This view of actors’capabilitiesleads to the concept of reflexivity, as proposed by Schön (1983) and by those who followed his pioneering work (Adams, Turns, and Atman, 2003; Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). More specifically, the proposed view brings the concept a step further by extending the “self” relationship in a design situation to include the relationship of the “self” with the other project actors. One way to feed such an approach consists of tackling contemporary practical philosophy – i.e., ethics and action theory – as presented in the work of Arendt (1961) and Ricoeur (1992). More specifically, practical philosophy seems to allow for the emergence of an original conception of the project actor – a conception where the design situation represented by the actors’ communication and interaction constitutes an end in itself.

In summary, this paper seeks to investigate project managers’ responsibilities towards other actors in term of their reflective capabilities. Methodologically speaking, we are investigating design management from a phenomenological perspective and are focusing on the following research question: “How do design and project managers perceive and describe their experience of communication?”

The first part of our presentation will briefly describe the theoretical foundations of the proposed approach. We will then present and analyze some preliminary results that were obtained from a field study. Contributions to the field of design management will also be proposed.

References:

ADAMS, R. S., TURNS, J., ATMAN, C. J. (2003). “Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice”. Design Studies. 24, 275-294.

ARENDT, H. (1983). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

BOUDÈS, T., CHRISTIAN, D. (2000). “En quête de théories: du reporting au raconting dans la conduite des projets” (From a monitoring view to a story-telling view of projects). Gérer et comprendre, 59, 2-63.

BUSBY, J.S. (2001). “Error and distributed cognition in design”. Design Studies, 22, 233-254.

DETCHESSAHAR, M. (2002). “L’avènement de l’entreprise communicationnelle” (The coming of the communicative firm). Revue française de gestion, 132, 65-84.

MILLER, C.R. (1990). “The rhetoric of decision science or Herbert A. Simon says”. In Simons, H.W. The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 162-184.

MINTZBERG, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.

MUCCHIELLI, A., NOY, C. (2004). “Approche systémique dans les organisations: étude des communications” (Studying communication within organizations with a system approach). Paris: Colin.

RICOEUR, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

SCHÖN, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

STEMPFLE, J., Badke-Schaub P. (2002). “Thinking in design teams – an analysis of team communication”. Design Studies, 23, 473-496.

VALKENBURG, R., DORST, K. (1998). “The reflective practice of design teams”. Design Studies, 19, 249-271.