Wearne, S H (1969) Organization of large engineering design departments. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Six design departments in different industries have been studied in order to compare theory and practice in the choice of systems for the division of work and for the coordination of projects in design. Taking a bigger sample of departments, comparisons have been made of the proportion of designers employed on coordination rather than 'actively' employed on design. The results of the six case studies show that the chief influences on systems of organization are the programme of design of projects and the extent to which projects are designed to order. Uniqueness of a project appears to be significant, rather than technical novelty, and choice of system does not appear to depend upon branch or variety of the technical content of design. The level of responsibility for a project in design is found to be related to risk to the firms in the decisions made in design. The numerical comparisons indicate that the proportion of designers in a department employed on coordination is dependent upon the number of designers working together on a project. This proportion is not related to the technical content of design, to variety or novelty in this, or to the proportion of number of engineers to number of draftsmen and technicians. The work shows that design departments in different industries can usefully be compared as the purpose and the process of design is common.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | organization; coordination; designer; case study |
| Index terms: | programme, designer, engineer, case study, coordination, engineering design |
| Subjects: | project controls, management, design process, profession, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Time Control, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here