den Otter, A F and Prins, M (2002) Architectural design management within the digital design team. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9(3), pp. 162-173. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
In this paper, the possibilities for implementing modern Internet-based ICT tools for the management of architectural design teams are explored. The theory of Davenport on information ecology, Sch n's approach to design thinking and design team behaviour, and decision process management and information technology theories are combined in a proposal for the design of project-based digital design teams. It is argued that the implementation of the so-called Project Web Site (PWS) Technology may lead to significant improvement of architectural design team performance. The structure of the PWS within this specific context is described as well as implications for the working procedures and the management of building design teams.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | handling and management; information behaviour; information exchange; information ecology; project web sites |
| Index terms: | implementation, internet, information exchange, architectural design, building design, proposal, information technology, design team, decision process, team performance, ecology |
| Subjects: | data science, computing systems, professional practice, project planning, management, contractual arrangements, decision analysis, environmental science, architectural design, design practice |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Procurement, Risk Management, Project Management, Design Practice, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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